Sitting of 10 March 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ANGLE ORE AND TRANSPORT COMPANY BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  CAMEROONS

    Constitution
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what choices the people of the Southern British Cameroons will be given in any plebiscite to determine their future that may be held in the immediate future; and whether he will include amongst those alternatives the opportunity to defer their long-term decision for another few years.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): This matter is now under consideration in the United Nations General Assembly, and I cannot anticipate the result of these deliberations.
    Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that freedom of choice exercised too hurriedly may lead to bondage later on?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes; I am sure that the people ought not to be asked to vote on choices which they have not as yet fully understood.

  SIERRA LEONE

    Development
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) in view of the numbers recently engaged in illicit diamond mining, what steps the Government of Sierra Leone are taking to
    1048
    increase the opportunities for employment in the Colony;
    (2) what schemes of development have been planned for the Kono area of Sierra Leone.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): The Sierra Leone Government cannot, at present, afford to start large new schemes outside the diamond areas to employ those who have been mining diamonds illicitly. However, a special plan of development for the Kono area has been approved by the Sierra Leone Government. £88,000 is to be spent on it in the year ending on 31st March, and a further £100,000 has been allocated for next year. The works to be carried out by the Central Government include improved road communications, water and electricity supplies, two new schools, a hospital and a number of health centres.
    Mr. Tilney: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of agriculture for the economy of a country like Sierra Leone, especially the plantation system, whether on a co-operative or a company basis?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Why is it that when Kono men are excluded from their own country, so to speak, from the district where they were born, for alleged illicit diamond mining, they are not allowed to appeal to the Supreme Court about the decision of the local magistrate or whoever it may be?
    Mr. Amery: I think that is an important point. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

    Diamond Mining
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been reached by the Government of Sierra Leone on the recent suggestion of the People's National Party that an all-party Parliamentary commission of inquiry should be sent to Kono to investigate the troubles in the diamond mining area.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The view of the Sierra Leone Government is that the improved position in Kono does not warrant the appointment of a Parliamentary commission of inquiry.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people who live in this district and have lived there all their lives are being deported in large numbers and that their property is being confiscated? Surely this is not a situation likely to bring tranquillity to the worst trouble spot in Sierra Leone? Will not the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Sierra Leone Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is, of course, the movement of strangers which is causing the difficulty, and I would call the attention of the hon. Member to what was said on 5th February.
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when cooperative diamond mining will be started in the Lower Bambara Chiefdom in Sierra Leone; and what have been the results of the co-operative pilot study recently started in Kono.
    Mr. J. Amery: The timing of the scheme in Bambara depends upon the outcome of the similar scheme in Kono. It is too early as yet to assess the results of this.
    Mr. Griffiths: Has the Minister any information as to the progress of the Kono scheme?
    Mr. Amery: No, not at the moment.

  SOMALILAND

    Constitution
    Mr. Albuasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent, in framing his new policy for Somaliland, he took as his criterion the interests of the people of the Protectorate.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The interests of the people of the Protectorate were obviously my main consideration.
    Mr. Albu: Will the Secretary of State draw the attention of his colleagues in the Foreign Office to the long established principle of the paramountcy of the interests of the local inhabitants in the British Colonies?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to a question previously put to one of my hon. Friends in the Foreign Office, that concerned a different question about a possible union of all areas occupied by Somalis.

  HONG KONG

    Airport (Development)
    Mr. du Cannasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in extending the runway at Hong Kong airport and providing navigational aids and new terminal buildings.
    Mr. J. Amery: The new runway was opened on 12th September last. A 600-foot extension, bringing the total Lmgth to 8,350 feet, together with ancillary taxiway and aircraft park ramps, is to he completed in June. New navigational aids including P.A.R. (Precision Approach Radar), V.O.R. (Very high frequency omni-directional radio range), I.L.S. (Instrument Landing System), Approach Radar, Long Range Radar and lighting system will be installed between May, 1959, and April, 1960. Completion of the new terminal building is forecast for early 1961.
    Mr. du Cann: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is a very remarkable piece of enterprise which should bring great benefit to the Colony, and do not all those concerned in its planning and execution merit warm congratulation?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, I agree.

  MALTA

    Governor's Council
    Sir P. Agnewasked the Secretary at State for the Colonies how free the Governor of Malta will be, under the new arrangements for direct rule, to invite to serve on the Governor's Council persons with experience in political and public life in Malta, even though they may not be representative of labour, commerce or the professions.
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now state the names of the Maltese members of the projected Council for Malta; and what representative qualifications they possess.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is intended that the new arrangements should give the Governor discretion to invite to serve on his Council those persons he considers best qualified. I cannot yet give names.
    Sir P. Agnew: Is it to be taken from that reply that people with experience

    1051
    in public and political life will not be excluded from receiving invitations even though they have not the other qualifications mentioned?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly.
    Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet succeeded in finding any representative Maltese person prepared to serve upon this utterly dictatorial Council?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not, of course, accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the Council. The Governor is not yet ready to issue invitations.

    Deep-Water Harbour (Tenders)
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what basis the contract was given to the Royal Netherlands Harbour Works Limited for the construction of a new deep-water wharf to be built at Malta; and how the British tenders compared with the one accepted.
    Mr. J. Amery: Tenders for the construction of a deep-water harbour were invited on the basis of open competitive bidding. That of the Royal Netherlands Harbour Works Limited was accepted on the recommendation of a United Kingdom firm of consulting engineers. The lowest British tender was about £89,000 more.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my hon. Friend say whether it is the policy to accept the lowest tender? Will he bear in mind that it is unfortunate that, with all the millions of British taxpayers' money going into Malta, this business has been given by contract to continental firms at a time when British firms badly needed work?
    Mr. Amery: The award of the contract was made by the Malta Government, and it has not been the policy of Her Majesty's Government to make financial aid to a territory dependent on the award of contracts to British firms.

  WEST INDIES

    Exhibition, Bruton Street
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the West Indies Permanent Exhibition was opened in Bruton Street; how many people have visited it since that date; and what steps he is taking to prepare a traveling
    1052
    exhibition on the same lines which would be available to schools in this country.
    Mr. J. Amery: The Exhibition is the responsibility of the Commissioner for the West Indies, British Guiana and British Honduras. It was opened on 19th January, but no count has been kept of the numerous visitors. I understand that the Commissioner has no present plans for a travelling exhibition on these lines.
    An Exhibition on the British Caribbean produced by the Commonwealth Institute has, with the co-operation of the Central Office of Information, been touring the United Kingdom since January, 1957.
    Mr. Hall: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this Exhibition, though small, is very interesting and deserves the widest possible audience? In view of the lamentable ignorance about the British Commonwealth throughout the country, will he do his best to encourage the sponsoring and development of travelling exhibitions such as I have mentioned in my Question?
    Mr. Amery: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have done my best to encourage the exhibition by attending its inauguration. I entirely agree with the second part of his supplementary question.

    Fruit Industry
    Mr. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of fruit licensing restrictions by the New Zealand Government and the difficulties which may be caused by the European Common Market for the West Indies fruit industry, he will take steps to encourage larger importations of West Indies fruit into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. J. Amery: We are always anxious to encourage the West Indian fruit industry, and, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the United Kingdom already takes over 95 per cent. of all exports of fruit from the West Indies.
    Mr. Royle: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the Government have in mind in regard to a long-term contract for citrus fruits from the West Indies?
    Mr. Amery: There are many different views in the West Indies as well as here at home on the value of long-term contracts. I have found many producers who do not agree that they invariably benefit from them.

    Medical Posts (Recruitment)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what medical posts in the British West Indies calling for recruitment from Great Britain remain unfilled at the latest available date.
    Mr. J. Amery: Vacancies number 32; and six candidates have so far been selected against them. With permission, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is very great anxiety about the lack of recruits coming forward, and would he not do something both to review the financial terms of the appointments and also look at the possibility of joining the Colonial Medical Service in some way with our own National Health Service in order to give some greater sense of security to those who apply?
    Mr. Amery: I will certainly look into the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
    Mr. Tilney: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the need to make proleptic appointments in this country, thereby increasing the supply?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, indeed.
    The following are the details:

    Total

    Barbados

    1 Assistant Radiologist

    4

    2 Medical Officers of Health

    1 Registrar-Medical

    British Guiana

    1 Pathologist

    4

    1 Medical Superintendent Mental Hospital

    1 Obstetrician and Gynaecologist

    1 Surgeon

    British Honduras

    2 Medical Officers

    2

    Jamaica

    1 Surgeon

    7

    1 Bacteriologist

    1 Assistant Bacteriologist

    4 Medical Officers

    Leewards

    1 Medical Officer

    1

    Trinidad

    4 Medical Officers (Grade C)

    10

    4 Medical Officers (Grade B)

    1 Pathologist

    1 Medical Officer of Health (Grade A)

    Windwards

    4 Medical Officers

    4

    32

    United States Technical Aid
    Mr. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the terms of the agreement granting to the West Indies technical aid from the United States of America and signed in the week ended 28th February.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the length of this document I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Royle: Would the right hon. Gentleman say at this moment whether there are any conditions attached to technical aid—things like American bases?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir.

    H.M.S. "Ulster"
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what purpose the anti-submarine frigate, H.M.S. "Ulster", put into St. George's Bay, Grenada, West Indies, early in February.
    Mr. J. Amery: I would invite the attention of the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) on 24th February.
    Mr. Royle: I have seen that Answer. It is quite unsatisfactory. Will the hon. Gentleman say, in the first place, whether the Federation Government were consulted about this matter? Secondly, would he care to express an opinion on whether it is a good way to preserve good will in the Colonies to send a frigate the moment there is a sign of the least possible industrial unrest? Or did the frigate go there to fill up with rum?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman said that he had seen my answer. If he had read it carefully he would have seen that the frigate did not go because of an industrial unrest but in case there was a breakdown of essential services.
    Mr. Royle: Oh.
    Mr. Amery: It is all very well for the hon. Member to shrug his shoulders. He only displays his ignorance in so doing. There were no alternative technicians available in the island.
    Mr. D. Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the presence of a frigate was requested by the Governor

    1055
    and that at the moment that the frigate arrived close to shore in St. George's Bay delicate industrial negotiations were going on? Is this kind of gunboat diplomacy likely to help in that?
    Mr. Amery: The frigate was not invited because of industrial unrest but because of a danger of a breakdown of services. There happened to be a shortage of technicians in the island.

  TANGANYIKA

    Financial Assistance
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what financial or other help Her Majesty's Government proposes to offer to the Government of Tanganyika, in view of that country's deficit of £1,200,000 in the last financial year.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The last financial year in fact showed a small surplus, and although a gap of £1,200,000 between revenue and expenditure has been estimated for the current financial year, the final deficit is likely to be smaller and will be met from the territory's surplus balances. Forecasts of the situation in 1959–60 and succeeding years give cause for concern, however, and it is on this account that Her Majesty's Government have accepted the obligation to assist Tanganyika in meeting its financial difficulties. The way in which this should be accomplished is now under consideration.
    Mr. Skeffington: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the latter part of his Answer will be very warmly received by all well-wishers of Tanganyika. In view of the many important social and economic developments taking place, he will appreciate that it is essential at this critical time in the territory's development that it gets this help.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, I realise that.

    Police Force
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to reinforce the forces of law and order in Tanganyika.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Both the Governor and I are very alive to the need for
    1056
    ensuring that the police force in Tanganyika is fully adequate to preserve the peace so that orderly development in all fields can go on unimpeded. The new Commissioner and one of my Inspectors-General have each recently completed an inspection of the force, and the Governor is now considering what measures may be necessary to bring its strength and equipment into line with current needs.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one district, Njombe, there is only one Asian police inspector and twenty constables, no transport and no wireless? Is he satisfied that the police force is really strong enough on the ground?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I am not satisfied, and I am awaiting the report.

  KENYA

    Multi-Racial School
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to give details of the plans announced by the specially-elected members of the Kenya Legislative Council to build a multi-racial secondary school for boys between the ages of 12 and 18 years; if he has now ascertained the views of the African-elected members of the Legislative Council; and from what sources the money to finance the school will be provided.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The sponsors are still working on the project. As far as I know, the African Elected Members have not expressed a view on the proposals. I understand that the sponsors are now exploring possible sources of finance, but I have no details.
    Mr. Johnson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that The Times of 11th December carried a full statement about this matter, saying that the Elected Members would build a leaders' college modelled on the best public schools in Britain and that there would be a preponderance of European boys to "ensure a levelling up of standards"? Why cannot the Members of the Legislative Council in Kenya have a normal State day secondary school for all races?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is another matter. This is a piece of enterprise upon which the specially Elected Members have got together, and I think that it is well worth consideration.
    Mr. Johnson: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a lead to the Governor and say, "We want a normal State day secondary school for all races" and not leave it to the Elected Members to say "We should do it in this fashion", which is a bad way?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: People may vary in their opinions.

    Mr. Tom Mboya (Passport Facilities)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the assistant chief secretary of the Kenya Government was unable to give the reason for the refusal of the Immigration Department to endorse the passport of Mr. Tom Mboya, African trade union leader and member of the Legislative Council, for travel to Egypt, Morocco, and Algeria.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not the practice to give reasons for refusal of passport facilities. I understand that the Kenya Government have reconsidered the question of endorsing Mr. Mboya's passport and endorsements have been granted for Morocco and Algeria.
    Mr. Mallalieu: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and being grateful for the latter part of it, may I ask him to take steps himself to bring home to the Kenya Government what an immense legacy of they are founding for themselves and the whole white race in Africa by their recent conduct? Will he have regard to the protest, which is noted in The Times this morning, by the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons on this matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that is both ungenerous and unfair.

    Land Consolidation (Report)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals were made by the eight non-official members of the Kenya Legislative
    1058
    council appointed to examine the progress of land consolidation; and if their report was unanimous.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: After paying a tribute to the achievements of the land consolidation authorities the group recommended changes of detail in procedure, most of which have been accepted by the Kenya Government. This was no minority report, but the report was signed by four only of the eight members, the other four having failed to indicate whether they wished to sign or not.
    Mr. Robinson: Does not the Colonial Secretary think it unfortunate that we cannot find out why the African members were unable to sign this report, and would he say whether a copy of the report is in the Library, or, if not, will he put one in the Library?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. It is certainly disappointing that four Africans, including Mr. Mboya, neither signed nor assented. I will put a copy of the report in the Library.

    Agricultural Wages
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Kenya Government have yet introduced legislation to set up machinery for determining statutory minimum wages in agriculture; and to what extent such wages will be based upon the living needs of man and wife.
    Mr. J. Amery: Not yet. As regards the second part of the Question, I am consulting the Governor and will write to the hon. Member when I have his reply.
    Mr. Robinson: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Kenya Government have been very dilatory about this? The talks have been going on for a very long time. Cannot he, even now, give an assurance that when these wages are fixed they will be based on family needs, which has been indicated as the principle for urban wages for Africans?
    Mr. Amery: The matter is a difficult one, particularly at the time of an agricultural recession. It has not been easy to reconcile the conflicting opinions of the employers' and workers' representatives, whose co-operation is essential in this. The Kenya Government hope the

    1059
    way is now clear to reach an agreement which will provide the basis of legislation. As I have said, I am consulting the Governor about the basis of agricultural wage fixing, and I would not like to anticipate the reply I shall get from him.

  NYASALAND

    Situation
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement about the disturbances in Nyasaland.
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the present situation in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a further statement on the situation in Nyasaland.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Conditions in Nyasaland remain generally disturbed in the rural areas, but I am glad to say that there is a greater degree of stability in the main centres where conditions are returning to normal. Rumour is rife, and by broadcasting and dissemination of pamphlets every effort is being made to ensure that the true facts are brought to the notice of the people. Members of the African Civil Service, Posts and Telegraphs and Railways are back at work; but intimidation of loyal chiefs continues and attacks on Government servants outside the main centres have been increased.
    Conditions are probably worst in the Northern Province. The homes of some African Government officers, schools and other public buildings have been burned down and communications have been disturbed by the widespread sabotage of roads and bridges.
    Two mission schools have been burned. Troop reinforcements have now moved in to this Province.
    In the Central Province two mission stations belonging to the Watch Tower Bible Society are reported to have been burned down, but there appears to be a decreasing number of incidents and among estate labour there has been a reaction of relief to the removal of Congress leaders.
    1060
    In the Southern Province the situation in the Mlanje area remains tense with widespread interference with the telephone lines. Crowds have gathered on some of the tea estates, and on 7th March a riot took place on Thornwood estate in which two Africans were killed and four injured. Some Asian shops in isolated positions have been looted.
    Casualties up to and including 7th March amongst the rioters were 44 killed and 71 injured. Twenty-three members of the security forces, including 13 Europeans, have been injured and 16 civilians, making a total of 39. I have no information on how many of the civilians injured were African and how many European.
    To sum up, the indications are that the situation is gradually improving in the Central and Southern Provinces but in the Northern Province remains serious.
    In Northern Rhodesia the community as a whole is naturally anxious about developments in Nyasaland and particularly in case the activities of Zambia in Northern Rhodesia should bring about a similar situation there.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Now read the letters in the Manchester Guardian.
    Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when the situation in Nyasaland returns to normal the constitutional talks will continue? Will he also ascertain whether there have been favourable reactions among Africans in Nyasaland to the arrest of the more extreme members of the Congress Party?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The answer to both questions is "Yes."
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman referred to troop movements within the Central African Federation. Will he confirm the Press statement that an official statement was issued by the British Government that the Government have offered British troops in Kenya to be at the disposal of the Federal Government to deal with law and order in the British Protectorate of Nyasaland?
    If this statement is correct, would the right hon. Gentleman say since when have the British Government abandoned their responsibility for law and order within this British Protectorate to Sir Roy Welensky? Is it not deeply humiliating

    1061
    to hand over British troops to Sir Roy Welensky to use in this Protectorate, and by what right was this done?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is completely false in some of the assumptions and inferences which he has drawn. As the House knows, a small part of the United Kingdom Strategic Reserve is stationed in Kenya. It would be common prudence, when there is a state of disturbance in Central Africa, for measures to be taken to alert those forces, but there is no need for them to be used. The responsibility for law and order remains, as it has always remained, the responsibility of territorial Governors.
    Mr. Grimond: Are we to understand that the Colonial Secretary wants to see the Southern Rhodesian forces withdrawn and replaced by British forces? Also, have any white people bean killed in these disturbances?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I have every hope that forces outside Nyasaland can be withdrawn shortly be-:muse of the restoration of law and order, but I have no wish that Federal forces outside Nyasaland should be withdrawn in order that United Kingdom forces should replace them. It has been suggested that there is a lack of co-operation between the Governor of Nyasaland and the Federal Government, which is completely untrue. The troops are there because the Governor of Nyasaland asked for them, and police reinforcements.
    In answer to the second part of the supplementary question. I am glad to say that no people have been killed. The suggestion has been made that stories of a plot are obviously untrue because no one has been killed, but I would remind the House that the charge is frequently made that preventive action is delayed until it is too late.
    Mr. Speaker: Lord Hinchingbrooke.
    Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has answered a question of mine on the Order Paper. Am I not entitled to put a supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: I am hoping to come to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) in due course.
    Lord Hinchingbrooke: Is it right to say that my right hon. Friend has not ruled out the possibility of the Minister of State paying a visit to Nyasaland and the rest of the Federation at an early date?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is a later Question on the Order Paper which will enable me to deal with that point.
    Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received any evidence from the police of the story of a plot to massacre? Is it not the case that this information came from rewarded informers who had overheard a conversation in a forest last January? Is it not the case that Dr. Banda was not even there? Is it not the case that the Governor rejected this story? It was not until Sir Roy Welensky accepted it that any action was taken on the matter.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a complete fabrication. The information given to me by the Governor was such, as a later Question will show, that neither he nor I could possibly fail to act upon it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is not the policy of revolutionaries in these countries to seize power by murder and bloodshed and then to abolish freedom? Is it not a pity that this policy seems to be encouraged, however unwittingly, by certain Left-wing politicians?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The forces of law and order do not always get the support they deserve, but in this and other cases I am very anxious to build bridges for reconciliation rather than to destroy them.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the widespread scepticism as to the massacre plot and the tragic loss of African life, will the Secretary of State seriously consider—what is the usual, customary practice—appointing a commission of inquiry in order to ascertain the facts and to distribute responsibility?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is a Question on that later on the Order Paper.

    Co-operative Department
    Mr. Pargiterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the qualifications required by members of the staff of the Co-operative Department of Nyasaland; what are the numbers of Africans and Europeans, respectively, who are

    1063
    employed by the Department; and what is the number of Africans who occupy senior positions.
    Mr. J. Amery: I have asked the Governor to provide this information and, when it is available, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Pargiter: Is it not rather unusual that such information is not more readily available? Will the hon. Gentleman inquire whether there is any machinery, and if so the methods, for recruiting for co-operative posts, because I understand that many well qualified African applicants for this kind of work are passed over in favour of Europeans less well qualified?
    Mr. Amery: I do not think it surprising that we should not yet have the particulars here in London, as we have had only 48 hours to get them.

    Labour Recruitment
    Mr. Pargiterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what methods are used to recruit labour in Nyasaland for work outside the territory; and what encouragement is given by the Government to those methods.
    Mr. J. Amery: The recruitment of labour in Nyasaland for work outside the territory is largely done through two agencies. The Witwatersrand Native Labour Association engages labour for work in South Africa and the Rhodesia Native Labour Supply Commission for work in Southern Rhodesia. Both recruiting agencies operate under a Governor's permit which is renewable annually and a limit is placed on the numbers of workers which each may recruit. Subject to that control, the Nyasaland Government encourage these operations, which are directly beneficial to the economy.
    Mr. Pargiter: Is this not one of the principal causes, or one of the causes, of some of the unrest in Nyasaland at present, that African leaders are getting more and more concerned at the denuding of their country by cheap labour outside it, labour which ought to be used to build up their country? Is it not time that the whole policy of recruitment of labour in Nyasaland was reconsidered?
    Mr. Amery: I think the hon. Member misunderstands the situation. Being a
    1064
    poor country, most of Nyasaland's able-bodied men go in search of better-paid work elsewhere.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is not this one of the reasons why Nyasaland people at present are so unhappy about federation; because they have seen the effects of white domination in Southern Rhodesia and South Africa?
    Mr. Amery: It could also be argued that it is one of the reasons why remaining within the framework of the Federation is so important.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, except to a Marxist, economic conditions are not the only things which influence one's approach to these matters?
    Mr. Amery: It is hardly for the hon. Member to teach me that.

    Incidents, Blantyre and Livingstonia
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will make a statement on the arrest and treatment by the police of the African janitor of the Church of Scotland Mission School, Blantyre, Nyasaland, on 23rd February;
    (2) what report he has received on the attack by a volunteer police patrol on pupils of the Church of Scotland Mission School, Blantyre, Nyasaland, on 23rd February.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the statement, a copy of which has been sent to him, of Mr. A. C. McAdam of the Church of Scotland Mission, Blantyre, Nyasaland, concerning incidents in Livingstonia and Blantyre; what reports he has received of rioting in those areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the statement, a copy of which has been sent to him, of the Reverend James Dougall, General Secretary of the Foreign Mission Department of the Church of Scotland, concerning incidents in Livingstonia and Blantyre; what reports he has received of rioting in those areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he has received about the incidents at the Church of Scotland Mission, Blantyre; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As regards the incidents at the Church of Scotland Mission School, Blantyre, over the weekend of 21st–22nd February, groups of Africans, mainly youths, sought to terrorise the public by stoning cars and general hooliganism. On the evening of Monday, 23rd February, a patrol of three special constables came upon groups of African youths on either side of the Chileka Road rear the Church of Scotland Mission; they were shouting and singing, and the constables left their vehicle to investigate. The youths then ran into grounds of the Mission. The constables pursued them and thereupon were surrounded by a crowd of youths quickly augmented by adults. They decided to withdraw and were stoned; one stone smashed the windscreen of the police vehicle and temporarily knocked out one constable. They withdrew to the police station to report the incident but in the general fracas one of their party was left behind. Police reinforcements were sent to the scene. On arrival the police found an uncontrolled mob surrounding the remaining special constable. After one shot had been fired in the air order was restored.
    Thereafter five youths, three teachers, and the janitor of the school were taken to the police station where they were interviewed. The youths and the teachers were sent back to the school and the janitor was released on bail. The special constable who had remained behind had been manhandled by the crowd and had received a blow on the chin.
    Regarding events at Livingstonia, a report stated that the African Lakes Corporation store and a lorry were stoned on the 20th February and windows broken. Stones were also thrown at the manager of the store, Mr. Robson, but he was unhurt. His report stated that he had reported the incident to the Mission Principal, Mr. Macpherson, who rode up to the crowd on a bicycle; that the latter was unable to control them, and was in turn stoned; and that his bicycle was smashed, and that he made his way back to the house followed by the crowd.
    1066
    I cannot trace having received any communication from the Rev. James Dougall or from Mr. McAdam, though I have seen a letter addressed to the Press by the latter. In view of the conflicting reports which are current the Governor has informed me that the details are being checked and should there be any variation in the information which I have given I will immediately inform the House.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that the information which he has just given to the House is completely different from that supplied by Mr. McAdam of the Church of Scotland Mission at Blantyre? Is he aware that the Rev. Macpherson denies completely being stoned—a statement which the Minister has again made? Is he also aware that Mr. McAdam has said that the truth is that the police initiated violence and acted irresponsibly?
    Since these stories are so conflicting, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that to reassure people who are interested in the Church of Scotland, both in this country and in Nyasaland, and everyone in the country who is seriously interested in and worried about what is happening in Nyasaland, we ought to find out from a commission from this House what exactly is happening there?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On that point, I think it would be unreasonable for the hon. Lady not to accept what I have said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that in view of the conflicting reports which are current the Governor has asked for all the information to be checked and that I will let the House know if there is any variation.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the letter from Mr. McAdam to which he referred makes some extremely serious allegations, among them that the B.B.C. gave wrong information about this incident and, if I may quote the letter, that
    "The local official report is not just biased. it is blatantly provocative."?
    Does not that underline the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and made from the Front Opposition Bench that a commission of some independence ought to go out to get at the facts? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware

    1067
    that we in the House feel that neither the Minister nor anybody else in the House is acquainted with the facts and that the facts given from the Government Front Bench are obviously biased and suspect?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Governor, who is well known to many hon. Members, can be relied upon to sort out the conflicting stories, and I will tell the House the final conclusion.
    Mr. Callaghan: Who will check the facts? Is not the Governor several hundred miles away in Blantyre, and is there any independent person who is able to go there and check the facts unless it is somebody from this House or from some equivalent body?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that few hon. Members would conclude that we have the monopoly of independence. There are, of course, people there who are qualified to arrive at a fair conclusion.
    Mr. N. Pannell: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that in the present difficult circumstances it is of the utmost importance to support the forces of law and order and to protect them against unauthenticated innuendoes?
    Mr. Grimond: Is it not also of great importance in the present situation that exaggerated accounts from either side should not be put out prematurely? As on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing there is some doubt about this matter, would he also represent to the Governor that authorities such as the B.B.C. and other information services should make sure of the facts before they are broadcast all over the world?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is always desirable, but here we have two different statements made by people of equal credibility. I deny that the European manager of the African Lakes Corporation is not entitled to be believed in the House like anybody else, but, as I have said, the Governor will look into the truth of the matter and I will let the House know if there is any variation.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement which he has made is contrary to what is supplied by the General Secretary of the Foreign Mission of the Church of Scotland? That gentleman makes plain in the information
    1068
    which I have sent to the right hon. Gentleman that these boys were marching home as they normally did and were attacked by the police. Does not that call for an investigation by the right hon. Gentleman? Ought he not to consider where the Governor is obtaining the information which he is supplying to the House?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said, the Governor is looking into all this, and his only desire in this as in everything else is to supply the truth.

    Detained Persons
    Mr. Footasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons have now been detained under the emergency regulations promulgated in Nyasaland; how many of such persons have been removed out of the territory to Southern Rhodesia or elsewhere; to what extent the emergency regulations provide, as in Kenya, for a right of appeal to an advisory committee and for detained persons to be furnished with a statement of the reasons for their detention; or how far those detainees will be informed of the reasons for their detention and given an opportunity to make representations thereon.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the African members of the Nyasaland Council have been arrested under the emergency.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The latest information available to me is that 142 persons have been detained under detention orders made by the Governor under Emergency Regulation 24 (1). Included in this number is Mr. Chipembere, the only member of the Nyasaland Legislative Council to be detained. In addition, 113 persons have been detained under Emergency Regulation 24 (7) for a limited period of twenty-eight days. Of the total of 255 detained, 102 have been removed to Southern Rhodesia.
    Persons detained under detention orders made by the Governor can lodge objections in writing to an Advisory Committee already established, and it is the duty of the Chairman of the Committee to inform objectors of the reason for their detention. Detainees are informed of their right to lodge objections against their detention.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, although it is a good thing to have an advisory committee, it is no substitute for trial in a court of law, and since allegations of a conspiracy to murder have been put forward, is it proposed to take legal proceedings against any of those supposed to be implicated?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a matter for the Attorney-General in the territory concerned. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that in problems of this kind there is often great difficulty in finding people ready to come forward as witnesses.
    Sir R. Robinson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any arrangements have been made to look after the welfare of the families of the detainees?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, there are.
    Mr. Rankin: But would not the Secretary of State agree that, since a member or the Nyasaland Council is involved in this, at least he should bring him or arrange that he should be brought to trial?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said already, it is not for me to bring people to trial; that is a matter for the Attorney-General.

    Commission of inquiry
    Mr. Footasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will advise the Governor of Nyasaland to follow the precedent set in the Gold Coast in 1948 by appointing a commission of inquiry to inquire into and report on the recent disturbances in Nyasaland and their underlying causes, and to make recommmdations on any matter arising from their inquiry.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said on 4th March, we would not rule out, nor would we ignore, any proposal which would enable Parliament to discharge its responsibilities or to be accurately informed. But we consider that the obvious next course is, as was recommended in both Houses on 3rd March, to pursue the original proposal that my noble Friend the Minister of State for the Colonies should pay his visit to Nyasaland at such time as the Governor of Nyasaland thinks would be appropriate.
    1070
    I am at present considering in consultation with the Governor of Nyasaland whether it would be helpful if my noble Friend were to interrupt his East African visit in order to go to Nyasaland at the earliest practicable date.
    Mr. Foot: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question as it appears on the Paper? Does he appreciate that in the Gold Coast in 1948 Dr. Nkrumah and other persons against whom serious allegations had been made had the opportunity at a public inquiry of answering the smear campaign against them, and ought not this precedent to be followed in Nyasaland?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am aware, of course, that the Socialist Government in their time also found it necessary to take strong action against law breakers. If we can learn any profitable lesson from their experience, we will certainly do so.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Is not the Secretary of State aware that the action taken by my right hon. Friend over the Gold Coast helped, first, to stabilise the situation, and secondly, led the way to the constitutional development which brought Ghana independence? Is he not also aware that when we were faced with a similar situation in Kenya, the despatch of a responsible commission from this House did a great deal to inform the country of the situation there? Is not the situation the same now in Nyasaland?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have already dealt with the parallel of Ghana—or the Gold Coast, as it was then. In the case of Kenya the circumstances were different, as those who went in 1954 on the useful Parliamentary mission will realise; but as I have said, we are closing no doors in this matter, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read my Answer carefully.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Colonial Secretary going to follow the parallel of Ghana all the way through? Are the people of Nyasaland to have the opportunity of choosing their own form of Government in the same way as the people of the Gold Coast had that opportunity? Further may I ask, as regards Lord Perth's visit, whilst we shall all be glad if he will get there at the earliest possible moment, will he have the opportunity of talking with the detained African leaders?

    1071
    If not, with whom among any representative Africans will he have conversations?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the decision is that my noble Friend goes out there at an early date, I will certainly tell the House about it and there will then be an opportunity to question me as to the range of his talks and activities there.
    Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the parallel just referred to is not all that close; that a closer parallel was provided in Malaya, where an emergency was not proclaimed by the party opposite until after scores of Chinese, Malays and Europeans had been killed, though subsequently the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was responsible for detaining 25,000 persons without any charge being brought against them?
    Mr. Bottomley: In view of the rising fear, prejudices and conflicting rumours coming from Nyasaland, does not the Secretary of State see the wisdom of sending a mission at once to that land in order to save the situation from getting graver, when we could do nothing to help?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my Answer.

    State of Emergency
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the date and time of the receipt by the Governor of Nyasaland of the information which caused him to declare a state of emergency and the date and time of the receipt of this information by his Department in London.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Governor's decision to declare an emergency depended not only on specific information received by him but on the general development of the situation in the territory. He informed me of the probability that he would have to declare a state of emergency in a telegram which reached the Colonial Office at 10.30 p.m. on 26th February. And he told me of his definite intention to do so in a telegram which reached me at 2 p.m. on 2nd March. I had been aware, even before 26th February, that the Governor considered that the declaration of a state of emergency would probably become necessary.
    Mr. Swingler: Are we to take it, therefore, from that answer that there is no specific evidence of a plot? Did not the Secretary of State say last week that suddenly some evidence of a conspiracy had come to light, whereas we are now told that it was on more or less general information that the Governor declared the emergency? Did not the Governor the day before say to the Press that there was no need to declare a state of emergency to deal with dissidents? Is it credible that the Governor changed his mind within a few hours unless strong political pressure had been brought to bear on him?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I dealt with all those three mis-statements of the hon. Gentleman in detail in the debate which took place at 7 o'clock a few nights ago.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the Colonial Secretary make available to the House, in the form of a White Paper or a statement, the details of the plot upon which the Governor acted? In view of the fact that journalists in Blantyre have been passing some information over here, can the House of Commons please have an authoritative statement of it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, that it is impossible to give an answer of an affirmative kind to that question, anyhow at this stage. Information of this kind is bound to be confidential, as anybody who has held high office, under difficult circumstances, knows only too well.
    Mr. Callaghan: I am asking whether the House of Commons can have an authoritative statement on the plot. If journalists in Blantyre can be met by the Governor and told what it was that led him to declare a state of emergency and be given the details of the plot, why cannot the House of Commons have at least that information?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have already made two statements on that.

  ADEN

    Colonial Secretary's Visit
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about his visit to Aden.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My visit, which included the Aden Protectorate as well

    1073
    as Aden Colony, was from 10th to 15th February, and 21st to 28th February. On 11th February, I was present at the inauguration ceremony of the Federation of Arab Amirates of the South, and I later visited the Rulers of many of the States in the Eastern and Western Aden Protectorate, including the States of the new Federation.
    Mr. Wall: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the constitutional advance given to the Western Aden Federation, may I ask if my right hon. Friend can say whether this unity is likely to prove the basis of a loyal State which may eventually emerge into an Arab sovereign member of the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is indeed possible, but I think the Rulers are wise in wanting to build slowly and wisely first.

  UGANDA

    Milk
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what price per pint of milk is paid in Kampala and the surrounding district; what is the average daily wage of the population; and what efforts are being made by the Government of Uganda to provide a lower-priced milk, as suggested by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation Report in 1958.
    Mr. J. Amery: In and around Kampala, the price of imported milk is 65–70 cents a pint and local milk averages 55 cents. Only about 6 per cent. of the total population of some 5½ million in Uganda is in paid employment at any one time, and only a small minority of those are entirely dependent on wages. Wage rates vary considerably depending on skill, occupation and district, but the average daily wage in Kampala is 5s.
    The Uganda Government are encouraging local milk production by research and advice to livestock owners. At present there is no local surplus for processing as suggested in the Food and Agriculture Organisation Report, but a Kenya firm, in conjunction with the Uganda Development Corporation, is considering establishing such a project using surplus milk from Kenya.
    Mrs. Butler: I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of the fact that the F.A.O. Report suggested that milk per pint would cost the lower-paid wage earners a quarter of their daily wages and of the great need for milk in the territory, can the Minister say whether, in addition to the measures already being taken, the Uganda Government have asked U.N.I.C.E.F. for an extension of the milk powder in schools scheme, as I raised this matter last December and the hon. Gentleman promised to call attention to that possibility?
    Mr. Amery: I understand that the U.N.I.C.E.F. programme is going on, certainly until 1960.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Kariba Dam Scheme (Wages)
    Mr. Pargiterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the average weekly wage paid to Africans working on the Kariba dam scheme in Northern Rhodesia; what were the causes of the recent strike; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: 41s. 3d., exclusive of food and quarters. On 25th February the workers on the north bank struck in support of the demand of underground workers on the south bank. The majority returned to work the next day, though 150 out of 730 elected to be repatriated by the employers, as did 38 Northern Rhodesian Africans employed on the south bank.
    Mr. Pargiter: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the wages paid for this particular job are disgracefully low, having regard to the value of the work and the benefit to the whole country? Ought not the people doing the work to be paid much higher wages than are paid at present?
    Mr. Amery: In the light of local conditions and local comparisons, I do not think that they are unfair.

  CYPRUS

    The Church (Excommunicated Families)
    Sir J. Lucasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if in view of the amnesty given to all internees and others

    1075
    in Cyprus, he will consult the Archbishop Makarios with a view to securing that the families who were excommunicated for supporting the British authorities should be readmitted to the Church.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no information that Cypriot families were in fact excommunicated for supporting the British authorities, but I have referred this question to the Governor for further inquiry.

    Cypriots, United Kingdom (Nationality)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what negotiations or discussions he has had concerning the future nationality of Cypriots at present employed in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have at present nothing to add to the reference to nationality made in the Declaration by H.M. Government at the Conference on Cyprus and accepted by the other parties to the Conference.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can we understand, therefore, that if the island of Cyprus, as a republic, remains in the Commonwealth all citizens will have full rights of British citizenship? If, on the other hand, Cyprus decides to leave the Commonwealth, will these citizens be treated for all purposes as aliens in this country?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that is so, but it is a little early to prejudge this matter. There are some 60,000 Cypriots at the present moment in the United Kingdom. This is a matter which needs very careful thought and I am sure ought to be approached in an imaginative way.

    Grivas
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the terrorist leader Grivas has been in personal contact with the authorities in Cyprus in connection with his safe conduct from that island.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There has been no personal contact, but I think the House will have noted the satisfactory terms of the leaflet he issued yesterday calling on his followers to lay down their arms and accept the London Agreement.
    Mr. Hall: May I ask my right hon. Friend, firstly, whether he can confirm that Grivas now exists in nothing but name; and secondly, if he would not agree that, despite the attempts that are now being made to portray Grivas as an heroic and patriotic leader, he should be remembered as a hired assassin who was very successful in carrying out many cowardly and brutal murders but completely failed to achieve his main object?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that all of us are looking forward to the future rather than to the past.
    Mr. Mellish: Would not the Colonial Secretary agree that, in conformity with usual Tory policy on this matter, we ought to have Grivas staying at the Dorchester Hotel at £25 a day?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Mellish: That is what the Government did with Makarios.

    Protection of Individuals
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent leaders in Cyprus are being protected by bodyguards who are not Government servants or members of the security forces.
    Mr. J. Amery: Arrangements for the protection of individuals in Cyprus are the responsibility of the police.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary or the Colonial Office made any investigation into reports that on the return of Archbishop Makarios men who were described as members of E.O.K.A. searched British subjects? Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is no encroachment upon the police functions as the proper authorities and that British subjects are not subjected to indignities in Cyprus?
    Mr. Amery: Anyone who is searched in Cyprus against his will in a public place has, of course, immediate recourse to the courts.

    Grivas Diaries
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what discussions he had with Archbishop Makarios during his visit to London concerning the authenticity of the Grivas

    1077
    diaries; and if it is now intended to publish the diaries in full.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "None", and to the second part, "No, Sir".
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that some of us are getting a little weary of the continuing discoveries by the Government of plots and conspiracies whenever political conditions become difficult in the Colonies? Is he aware that we shall now give the same credence to this story that we gave to Dr. Jagan's plot to burn Georgetown and the Nyasaland plot to assassinate Europeans?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman almost dissuades me from the wisdom, despite the vast expense and labour, of publishing the diaries. I do not, however, think that any responsible people have any doubt about their authenticity. As I said before, cannot we all look to the future in Cyprus rather than the past?
    Mr. Mellish: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that about the boys who gave their lives?

    Released Detainees (Re-employment)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities are available in Cyprus for the employment or re-employment of released detainees; and what are the latest available unemployment figures for the island.
    Mr. J. Amery: Many have returned to their former occupations and employers are showing readiness to engage the others. The latest unemployment figure is about 5,500.
    Mr. Prentice: Is it a fact that even before the people were released from detention the unemployment figures in the island were the highest for several years, and as long as we have responsibility there, will the Government do everything they possibly can to ameliorate this problem? In particular, can the Minister tell us about the progress made in re-employing the people who were dismissed from N.A.A.F.I. and other Service establishments last year?
    Mr. Amery: I have no precise figures here, but as I said, there has been evidence of employers being ready to
    1078
    negotiate with those released, and there has been a great deal of re-employment by the Services.

  HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies w hat percentage of people in Hong Kong and Singapore are suffering from tuberculosis; what is the death rate; and, in view of the satisfactory methods of dealing with this disease in the United Kingdom, what steps are being taken to introduce similar remedial measures in the two Colonies.
    Mr. J. Amery: The Hong Kong 2 per cent. of adults have the disease in active form. The death rate in 1958 was 83·8 per hundred thousand. In Singapore there is no accurate figure available for the whole population.
    Preliminary results of a case-finding programme conducted last year amongst those over fourteen years of age show that, of those X-rayed, the percentage suffering from the disease in its active form varies from 1·1 in the rural area to 4·7 in the City area.
    The death rate in 1957 was 51 per hundred thousand. In both places vigorous campaigns are being waged against the disease and in both all proved remedial measures employed in the United Kingdom are already applied.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the incidence of tuberculosis in these two States of Hong Kong and Singapore is the highest in the world, and that it cries aloud for something more to be done than is being done to reduce the incidence of this disease?
    Mr. Amery: I agree with the hon. Member that the figures are indeed very grave, but I am sure he will be glad to know that in Hong Kong in 1958 the death rate was the lowest on record. The success of our efforts in Singapore may be measured by the fact that the death rate was 51 per 100,000 in 1957–58, whereas it was 117 per 100,000 in 1950. so that some progress is being made.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Can the Under-Secretary say whether there are any separate figures in his analysis of the incidence of tuberculosis for employees in the Hong Kong cotton and textile mills,

    1079
    where the hours of labour and the length of the working week are unconscionably high? May I ask him whether he is aware that labour conditions of this kind are highly conducive to the development of tuberculosis in Hong Kong and to unemployment in Lancashire?
    Mr. Amery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

  AFRICAN TERRITORIES

    United States Institutions (Assistance)
    Colonel Beamishasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the activities of the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford and Rockfeller Foundations in British Dominions, Colonies, and territories in Africa, stating in particular approximately what sums have so far been spent in these areas and for what purposes; and if he will give an outline of the information received by Her Majesty's Government concerning their plans for the future, as well as an assurance that there is the closest possible liaison between these foundations, Government Departments, and the Governments concerned.
    Mr. J. Amery: As the reply is inevitably rather long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT:
    The statement is as follows:
    The Carnegie Corporation of New York, through their British Dominions and Colonies Programme, have for many years given invaluable assistance to education in many parts of Africa. Since the war, their assistance has been concentrated largely in the development of the universities and higher technical colleges in East, West and Central Africa and in close association with the Inter-University Council for Higher Education Overseas and the Council on Oversea Colleges of Arts, Science and Technology. A current example is a training scheme for locally born junior members of the academic and library staffs of university colleges. But for full details of the many schemes and the sums allocated to them I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the published annual reports of the Corporation dating back to 1930.
    As the result of missions sent to Africa in 1957 and 1958, the Ford Foundation recently announced the inauguration of an Africa Programme of assistance to schools, colleges, universities and technical institutes in East, West and Central Africa to a total of over $1 million. Grants already approved have gone to university colleges to provide accommodation for visiting scholars and research
    1080
    workers and to technical institutes for library development.
    The work of the Rockfeller Foundation in Africa dates back at least to the formation of the Foundation's West Africa yellow fever commission of 1925. The successful research which they conducted at Entebbe and Yaba, with which the name of Dr. Mahaffy will always be associated, has been of inestimable value to the peoples of the African continent. I would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the continued interest of the Foundation in this work and its extension to research into other viruses. Again I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to refer to the published annual report of the Foundation for details of the many grants which they have made through the years.
    Members of my Department keep closely in touch with the specialist and executive staff of these Foundations, assist them in making arrangements for their tours of Africa and discuss possible projects with them.
    It is becoming increasingly the practice for surveys of specific problems in Africa to be undertaken at the expense of these Foundations jointly by experts from the United States, the United Kingdom and the African territory concerned. Several important surveys of this kind are at present under discussion, but I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will understand that I must not anticipate an announcement by the Trustees in relation to them.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA

    Nyasalanders
    Sir A. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans from Nyasaland are living in Southern Rhodesia, both permanently and as migratory labourers.
    Mr. J. Amery: I am asking the Governor for the figures and when they arrive I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir A. Baldwin: In view of the allegations made by the other side in the smear campaign against Sir Roy Welensky and the Southern Rhodesia Government, is it not extraordinary that the number of Nyasalanders who want to go to Southern Rhodesia has to be limited because so many want to go?
    Mr. Amery.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does the Minister say that there is a smear campaign going on?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Callaghan: Or is it that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the conditions in

    1081
    Nyasaland are of such a character that these people have to leave the country and go elsewhere to find work?
    Mr. Amery: I confirm, first of all, that in our view there is a smear campaign going on on the other side. On the second point, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) tried earlier to draw my attention to the danger of attributing all effects to economic reasons agreed with the hon. Member, but the spectacle of Satan rebuking sin must be amusing to the House.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we do not want any lessons from a Suez rebel about smear campaigns? Is he not aware that there are still, not only even but especially, on his side of the House hon. Members who still have some regard to principles in this matter and who believe that what has been happening in the Federation in the last week would not meet with the approval of a great many people in this country, and it is upon that basis that the Opposition is basing its present position?
    Mr. Amery: What the hon. Member has just said confirms my supplementary answer.

  NORTH BORNEO, BRUNEI AND SARAWAK

    Closer Association
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals for federation or closer association of British North Borneo, Brunei, and Sarawak have been under recent consideration; for what reasons these proposals proved unacceptable; and
    1082
    what further efforts for closer association of these territories will be made.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are no precise proposals. Consideration of the possibility of closer association has been going on in Sarawak and North Borneo during the past year and the concept has certainly not been declared unacceptable. The Government of Brunei has not yet given the matter its consideration but a joint Sarawak-North Borneo fact-finding mission is now to travel in the two territories and report to their Governments.
    Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fact-finding mission is one that he himself has sent out there or whether it has been arranged locally, and who are involved in the conflict over the possible federation of these three territories? Finally, may I ask whether he has seen a report in the Press that Brunei has been obstructing these efforts?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would come curiously from any member of the Opposition now to ask me to force territories together which they might claim do not want to be closely associated. This is essentially a matter for local consideration, and fact-finding missions are locally formed.
    Mr. Sorensen: That does not answer my question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

SUPPLY
[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

SUPPLY
ARMY ESTIMATES

  Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £125,260,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray expense of the pay etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  3.31 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I think that it will be for the convenience of hon. Members if, at the beginning of the debate, it is made clear that we have only until ten o'clock to discuss all the Service Estimates, including the Supplementary Estimates. That being so, hon. Members on this side of the Committee are willing to co-operate with the Government to ensure that the Navy and Air Estimates are also discussed. We thought that it might be convenient for our discussion on Army matters to take about three hours, thus giving an opportunity for the Navy and Air Estimates to be discussed in the remaining time.
  With that in mind, I propose, in accordance with past procedure, to be brief and to ask a few questions on the Votes in which I am interested. My hon. Friends and other hon. Members will ask their own questions, and perhaps the Under-Secretary will be good enough to wind up at the end of our discussion on each Vote.
  Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order. Before my hon. Friend gets to the merits of his case, I should like to discuss our procedure, because it is a novel doctrine that there should be a private arrangement, presumably
  1084
  involving the two Front Benches and the Chair.
  The Chairman: No arrangement has been made with me.
  Mr. Wigg: In that case, can we be told about this arrangement to carve up the Votes in the interests of the two Front Benches? It is the historic right of back benchers to raise matters with which individual Members, the Services as a whole, or constituents may be concerned. This is an occasion for the redress of grievances. It is certainly the right of back benchers to speak on these occasions, and we should not be so lightly passed over in this way.
  The Chairman: No arrangement has been made with me and I deprecate that accusation. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw it.
  Mr. Wigg: I made no accusation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] My hon. Friend referred to an arrangement and clearly said that the time of the Committee could be divided up. That could not be done unless there was an agreement, and any agreement must involve the Chair.
  The Chairman: It is that which I cannot allow to be said. I am not party to any agreement, never have been, and never shall be. I hope that that accusation will not be made again, because it is absolutely untrue.
  Mr. Wigg: In that case, I will say, first, that there is no accusation, and, secondly, that if there is, I withdraw it.
  Mr. Mellish: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has made so much difficulty about this. The point is that we have only until ten o'clock to discuss all three main Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates. In fairness to those hon. Members who want to speak about the Navy and Air Force, it was suggested that we should talk about the Army for about three hours. That was done only to facilitate the arrangements of hon. Members and was designed to leave the remaining time to discussion of the Navy and Air Force matters. This is simply a way of making use of the time available democratically and to fit the interests of those Members concerned with other Services. If there is any Agatha Christie mystery about that, I am sorry.

  1085
  We have not discussed the matter with the Chair. I discussed it with the Under-Secretary only with a view to facilitating business. If that does not suit hon. Members, the remedy is in their hands and we can talk about the Army until ten o'clock. In those circumstances, however, I hope that those hon. Members who do so will be prepared, after the House has risen, to explain their attitude to those hon. Members interested in the Navy and Air Force. Having said that, I now want to deal with Vote I, concerning the Army.
  There is one general comment which I have to make on pay, and it concerns Cyprus. Some distress may be caused to many of our serving men there as a consequence of the early termination of hostilities in the island. I say at once that everybody is delighted that hostilities have ended, but it so happens that many of our men have become committed to longterm hire-purchase contractual arrangements, never suspecting that the Government would settle the matter so soon—and I think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not believe that it would be settled so early.
  Many men have signed agreements to make payments over a very much longer time than that which now is avalaible to them, and I understand that pressure is already being brought to bear on some of them. This matter has been widely noted in newspapers, and I ask the Under-Secretary whether it has been brought to his attention and, if so, whether he proposes to do anything to help the men concerned.
  On page 20 of the Estimates, there is a reference to National Service grants. It is estimated that in the coming year the amount of the grants will be increased by £½ million over last year, at a time when there are fewer National Service men in the Army. What is the reason for that increase? Is it that the grants have been more widely advertised, or that the Government expect much more distress in the homes of those concerned than has been the case hitherto?
  On page 24 there is a reference to education allowances. The total of allowances for warrant officers, N.C.O.s and men is to be increased from £12,000 last year to £29,000 for the coming year. That is a very small sum for the vast number of
  1086
  men involved. With fewer men, the allowances in the R.A.F. are estimated at £90,000 for the coming year. It is suspected that that is probably because the allowances have not been fully advertised in the Army. It is important that the men should know what they are entitled to.
  3.39 p.m.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: When is it intended to make the way in which a soldier gets his pay more civilised? This matter has been raised several times. There is something undignified in a soldier having to salute and put out his hand to receive his pay. Cannot a soldier be paid as if he were in a civilian occupation, in which he would get a pay packet in the normal way?
  3.40 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: The point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) is not an academic one. Up to the outbreak of war it was the custom of the Committee, when debating the Army Estimates, to divide on every Vote. There was a very good reason for that. In the time of the Civil War, in the seventeenth century, it was the practice of the monarchy—and that practice has been carried out on many occasions since then—to spend upon pay money that had been voted for rations or quartering. That was when Parliament won its battle with the Crown by limiting the number of men who could be raised in any one year. I understand that accounting procedures now are such that it is a crime against the financial Holy Ghost to spend on pay money which has been voted for rations. That is why the Votes are put down as they are.
  The powers of the Executive in these matters are already strong and, following the Report of the Select Committee on the Army Act, they were further strengthened. I was a member of that Committee, and I always understood that the Service Ministers, together with the Opposition Front Bench, would play the game vis-à-vis the back benchers. A back bencher who wishes to discuss a matter concerning the War Office cannot ask for Vote 3 to be placed on the Order Paper. The Votes which are put down on the Order Paper are selected by the Government, and only by the Government.

  1087
  It is true that the Opposition can make certain requests in the matter, and that those requests are often granted, but the back bencher has no right in the matter, and the one right that he did have has been given up—and I was one of those in the forefront in suggesting that it should be given up—namely, that the Government did not move the Closure on Vote A, so that the discussion upon it could go on for as long as any hon. Member wanted to raise matters concerning it. In such circumstances, sittings went on well into the next day.
  I am raising this matter as a House of Commons man, and because I am concerned for good government and for the Army. I can appreciate that some Members who want to get on with the business may say, "Let us get rid of Vote A and move on to the next Service Department Estimate at 6.30 p.m.," but I am not a party to that sort of thing. I have not been consulted about it, and I think that it is a bad procedure. Although I am not against conversations among the two Front Benches, it is wrong for them to be brought into the open in this way.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend, and I accept his reasoning, but can he tell me what restriction has been imposed on our debate?
  Mr. Wigg: It has been said from the Floor—and we heard it today for the first time—that the discussion on the Army is to end at 6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: If my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are determined in the matter, and if there is any real indignation about questions concerning the Army which they feel should be reflected in speeches in the House, no one has the right to prevent them from speaking, even if it means going on into the night.
  Mr. Wigg: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, particularly as he is a member of my constituency.
  I am saying that it is unfair to be put into the position of appearing to shut out those who want to speak upon the Navy and the Air Force. None of the debates on the Service Estimates has gone its full time this year, and there has been plenty of opportunity for questions to be raised about the Navy and Air Force.
  1088
  The same consideration applies to the Army, I agree, except that I had the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair in previous years.
  Mr. George Brown: My hon. Friend will remember that the debate on the Army Estimates ended before the time allotted to it had expired because my hon. Friend and other hon. Members were not here to raise the points they had in mind.
  Mr. Wigg: I agree, but I explained that I was ill when we had the defence debate. Further, I cannot stand the atmosphere of the House for long nowadays without going out to get some air, and I did not come back after 11 o'clock.
  Mr. Brown: We can understand why my hon. Friend could not stay here on the day in question, although he talked to me during that day. I want to make it clear that the arrangements made today were made to take care of the very point he is raising.
  Mr. Wigg: I am obliged for my right hon. Friend's consideration and sympathy. What really matters is the House of Commons. An arrangement which, even if made, ought to be made behind the Speaker's Chair, ought not to be used in such a way as to enter into the permanent scheme of things. The point is that what is accepted without challenge this year becomes a precedent to be quoted in future years.
  Mr. Mellish: That is exactly why we did it this year. It was done last year, and my right hon. Friend then took part in the debates. If he reads the reports of the debates of last year, he will see that that is true. There is no precedent here.
  Mr. Wigg: I am sorry, but that is not true. This is the first occasion upon which I have taken part in a debate on the Service Estimates that I have ever heard of an arrangement of this kind having been formally entered into by the two Front Benches. I have heard of informal arrangements, but not of formal ones.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): It is an informal arrangement, made for the convenience of the Committee.
  Mr. Wigg: In that case it should not have been mentioned in the Committee. That settles the point. Perhaps I may now comment upon some aspects of the debates which have taken place.
  I want, first, to refer to a report in the Daily Telegraph, which said of the White Paper in general that the Minister of Defence did not invite arguments about principle, and that this year he very considerately let sleeping dogs lie. I do not think that sleeping dogs should be left to lie; they should be brought out into the open. There is a very good reason for this. There is no doubt that the power which our country can demand, by land, sea or air, is very much less than it was in the past. It is also true that the consequences of that fact are not appreciated fully by the Committee or the public outside.
  There is a good example which I shall remember for years to come. On the day of the publication of the defence White Paper there appeared in the Evening News the words:
  "Blue Streak Wins, Macmillan goes to Moscow and will now talk from strength."
  There never was greater nonsense than that. Neither Moscow nor the Prime Minister was impressed.
  But that is the kind of statement that is made and accepted by the more unthinking sections of the community, and when the Government, of whatever political complexion they may be, want to follow policies of conciliation not for moral reasons, but because they cannot command sufficient strength, they are prevented from doing so by the illusions of grandeur which persist in our society.
  There is no better example of this than our handling of our colonial problems and international policies. I wish to keep within the rules of order, and I am talking on Vote 1, which is the focal point of the whole of our defence policy. The whole of Government policy rests upon the switching over to higher rates of pay, thereby getting further recruits, and organising and equipping those increased numbers so as to give us the conventional forces which we need if we are to meet our problems.
  With Vote A is tied up the question not only of recruiting, but of our colonial forces, and I want to deal with one aspect of them. I read the reports of the Army
  1090
  and defence debates, and noticed one or two old-fashioned arguments for using our Colonies as reservoirs of manpower for our forces. That argument was not a starter when the Government were in opposition, and it is not a starter now. Even if it were, it would require many years to implement, as we found during the war. One of the first decisions that has to be made concerns the adoption of a training lingua franca.
  If we want to expand and raise considerable forces in West Africa, for instance, we must recruit among the various African-speaking tribes, and we are forced back upon English. In Kenya, where the people speak Swahili, Chinyanja and Hausa, that policy is adopted, in the face of the vast experience of, and wise advice from, people like General Giffard, who was Inspector-General. They have fallen back on that policy instead of using Swahili and Hausa. I make that general point.
  Dealing with the current problem of Nyasaland, as I understand two battalions of the King's African Rifles were raised in the territory. Each battalion has about 40 Federation-based Europeans, of which probably a number are British and a number may have come from Great Britain and joined the Rhodesian forces on arrival. There are seconded to this regiment a number of British officers and N.C.O.s who are members of the British Army and for whom a contribution is paid back into Vote I.
  I wish to know from the Minister the conditions under which they are employed. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the report of the debate which took place on the Ghana Independence Bill, when the question of what was to happen to War Office-controlled forces and the 500 British officers and N.C.O.s seconded there was raised, he will see that the Secretary of State for the Colonies said:
  "Under the terms by which their secondment is arranged Her Majesty's Government reserve the right to withdraw British personnel from service in the Gold Coast if conditions should arise where it would be considered that such action should be necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 321.]
  Those are the terms of secondment laid down for Ghana. which has obtained independence and is a Dominion. Will the Minister tell the Committee what are the terms of secondment of British officers

  1091
  and N.C.O.s serving with the King's African Rifles? Is there any difference? May we take it that the leaving of these British officers and N.C.O.s with the King's African Rifles means that the Government approve of the action taken in the Federation and. therefore, accept full responsibility for the policy adopted there? If there is a difference, will the Minister explain what it is? There is no need for me to labour the point. We are in Committee, which gives me the opportunity of saying something further if the reply of the Under-Secretary of State is unsatisfactory.
  I wish to turn to another and very important matter, the question of recruiting and the organisation of manpower. Judging by what was said during the defence debate and the debate on the Army Estimates, it seems that all hon. Members are completely satisfied with recruiting and, therefore, the measures introduced by the Minister of Defence about two years ago were wise. Indeed, it was said by one hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that what has happened had been planned for and that it revealed the best of all possible worlds.
  I take the opposite view. Nothing that I have seen has caused me to change it. I wish, first, to draw the attention of the Committee to a few facts, which cannot be contradicted. The Grigg Report said that in December, 1957, when the Committee first met the Deputy-Secretary of the War Office, he made plain that recruiting at that stage was running only at 50 per cent. of what would be required to give the estimate of 165,000 men. It is also clear from what has happened since that this figure of 165,000 was not based on military considerations, but was a figure decided on to meet the political convenience of the Minister of Defence.
  During the debates on the Army Estimates, the Secretary of State for War made one or two rather revealing statements. He said, of the establishment of the infantry—for the purposes of my calculations I am presuming that the right hon. Gentleman meant what he said, infantry of the line—that if the ceiling for 165,000 was to be fixed at 635 men, that would be the establishment of an infantry battalion.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that as a result of raising the ceiling
  1092
  from 165,000 to 180,000 the figure of 11.000 would be the turnover for the purpose of raising the establishment. There are 49 battalions of the line. For easy calculation we will call that figure 50 and if we do a division sum with 50 it gives us a figure of 220. Therefore, we have established, first, that the figure was taken when recruiting was running at half of what it should be, which meant that the total was at least 15,000 below what the Minister knew that it ought to be for military reasons. So that the establishment was fixed at 635 when it ought to have been 835.
  Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer (Worthing) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. I hope that he will have an opportunity to tell me that what I have said is wrong. The Minister referred to the figure of 11,000 which, with 50 battalions, would mean 220 on the ordinary establishment.
  Now let us turn to the actual recruiting figures. The Minister has had a little bit of luck. I am never opposed to anyone having a little bit of luck so long as he does not whine or blame it on to the Almighty when that element of luck turns against him. The first bit of luck was that the Government took the advice which has been given them so frequently from this side of the Committee and switched over to the long-service engagement. It is stated that the introduction of the minimum six-year engagement has been fully justified by results. In reading the Explanatory Statement of the Secretary of State, it is fascinating to see that at long last man-years are quoted instead of the numbers of men, which shows that even Conservative Governments can learn.
  I have never held the view that when the present Minister of Defence took office the Almighty moved over on to his side, although the right hon. Gentleman seems to think so.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Blasphemy.
  Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), to whose eloquence I pay tribute, and which I can never hope to emulate, referred last year to the statement by the Minister of Defence in paragraph I of the White Paper that the world was poised between

  1093
  the hope of total peace and the fear of total war—between Armageddon, on the one hand, and the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, on the other; and I agree. Our state in this sinful vale of tears is not always a choice of Armageddon or total peace, but somewhere in between. We should face that fact when organising our defence policy and so organise ourselves as to command sufficient power that our people may live in dignity and earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow and by their courage and brains.
  As I see it, the result of our defence policy will mean that we shall still have Trooping the Colour, our troops will still be armed with the same old "bundook" which their forefathers carried during the South African war, and our women and children will be hauling rickshaws up and down Whitehall so that Chinese ladies and gentlemen may witness the ceremony. That is what will happen if we do not realise that we are not now faced with the cold war with which we were faced two or three years ago; that we are poised between total war and peace and must make the best use of our limited resources, which is something we are not doing.
  That is why we have to fall back on the kind of illusions in which hopes are based on Blue Streak, about which there has been no decision taken to produce. The basic problem is that of raising sufficient manpower so that we may be able to deal with problems which may be presented in Nyasaland and the Middle East even before they arise. What people do not seem to understand is that a brigade group moved into an area after the trouble has started is no substitute for a battalion on the spot, because the presence of such a battalion would have prevented trouble.
  There is no better example of the hopes of the Minister of Defence than in the Government's statement about recruiting policy. I have never been able to convince myself that the Minister of Defence had found the secret of recruitment. I have looked at the figures over and over again, irrespective of the Grigg Committee's calculations, and I have always made the problem come out, as the Committee brought it out, with all the advantages of the services of a great Department of
  1094
  State, that we had to get one in four of our young men to enlist.
  From my further studies I reached the conclusion last year that there was another factor at work. About last December there was the normal impact which follows an increase of pay. If one looks at the alterations in the rates of pay and alterations of terms of service one can find a direct correlation in recruiting, but in the passing months the impact wears off. In other words, I have always held the view, and I hold it now, that there are in this country only a given number of young men who find satisfaction in service with the Armed Forces.
  The oddest thing about it is that we can increase the rates of pay or even reduce them, as happened twice between the wars, and the long-term effect on recruitment is almost negligible. It is like taking a piece of elastic. One pulls it out and lets go and automatically it will contract to the same size again. I am not convinced that the Minister of Defence has struck a recruiting "gusher".
  I kept on studying this problem, seeking to understand it, and talking to people likely to have the same interest as myself, and I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War, the Answer to which is to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 24th February. The Answer to my Question received very distinguished notice from my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who is, unfortunately, not able to be with us today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). They all looked at the Answer and, like myself, they were struck with the significance of the recruiting returns in 1957–58.
  What is it, for example, that makes more young men in Stoke-in-Trent tend to join the Army whereas in Surbiton only half the number of young men joined the Army in 1958 that joined it in 1957? I have always found it difficult to establish a direct and explainable correlation between recruiting and unemployment. In fact, I have always failed to do it. I studied the Appendix to the Grigg Committee's Report, which reached the same conclusion that one cannot explain it in this way. I think myself that the explanations are these.

  1095
  First, we are dealing with a different age group. The unemployment statistics which one gets from the Ministry of Labour deal with an age group from 18 to 21. In dealing with the age group concerned in joining the Army, apart from the National Service, it is from 20 to 27. The other difficulty is that the recruiting areas are not the same. If we take a place like London, with its very great recruiting centre at Great Scotland Yard, we find that the men come from a very wide catchment area. They come from all over the British Isles and they are very catholic in their choice of an arm of the Service.
  To try to explain this problem, I asked the research department of the Library of the House of Commons—and I should like to pay tribute to the help which it always readily and efficiently gives—to take eight centres where recruiting rose and eight centres where it fell. The difficulty that came out of this is that one finds that in places where recruiting fell, unemployment rose. We cannot get a direct correlation. We find that in places where recruiting fell, like London, Surbiton and places with great naval and military traditions, like Chatham, Brighton, Bournemouth and Reading, the one thing which they all had in common was that the number of unemployed in those areas was comparatively small. That is to say, in every case the number of unemployed was under 3,000. There again, I am not suggesting that there is a direct answer or a direct correlation, or that one can prove it.
  In my efforts to establish the facts, I have been to the Ministry of Labour and it says roughly what the Grigg Committee's Report says, that it is unable to find this correlation that one would expect to find, that it is reasonable to assume that some young men join the Army when they cannot get a job. We cannot prove it. The factor operating is opportunity and density of unemployment in relation to the total employed in the areas. This is what seems to accord with the common sense of the problem. A young man who is working and perhaps drawing overtime pay then goes on to short time and finds that the job which he thought was a reasonably secure one, offering an avenue for promotion, is a dead-end job. He is
  1096
  young, ambitious and vigorous and seeks opportunities elsewhere. He cannot find them and he joins the Army.
  I see that an hon. Member opposite shakes his head. I am not saying that I am right. I am not sure. What I am certain of is that neither is the Minister of Defence sure. While I may be wrong, I want the Committee to face up to the fact that if I am right the Minister of Defence is wrong. We have established that the right hon. Gentleman took a gamble because he did not know that this was going to happen in December, 1957. It happened afterwards. It happened even before the pay increase was given. We cannot establish that the recruiting figures are going to improve.
  We have been told by an hon. Member opposite that the Minister of Defence had planned it. If he had planned it, it means that in December, 1957, the Minister of Defence knew that the Government's policy was directed towards producing unemployment. That is what the Government have to face up to. On the evidence of the Grigg Committee's Report, the recruiting figures were 50 per cent. of what they ought to be. By the Government's own action the ceiling of 15,000 is less than it ought to be. Anyone who has studied this problem knows that the minimum number of men required for the discharge of the commitments which the Government are carrying is at least 200,000.
  Over and above that, there is the evidence which I have dug out and which must be well known to Ministers. They have to face up to the fact that f I am right, they have given an increase of pay and pushed the charge on Vote 1 up to the very limit of the ceiling at the expense of equipment.
  What are the prospects of getting these recruits? This is an old story. I have always held the view that the greatest curse from which an Army can suffer is to find itself with units under strength. I had thought that in the Government's scheme of reorganisation they had at least learned the lesson that if they were to try to carry all the burdens on the basis of 49 battalions they would make sure that those 49 battalions were up to strength.
  One of the major causes of the disaster of Suez was under-strength battalions. If we wait until the emergency comes and

  1097
  then try to build up unit strength, it will need on present form several months before a battalion is at its full fighting efficiency. If we had had 49 battalions. teeth-armed, highly trained and highly efficient and up to establishment, it might have been different.
  It has always seemed to me that the Government's policy means this: half of the Strategic Reserve is in Germany, always available to be flown out here or there, according to where trouble may occur. It gave me a great shock to study this White Paper, after looking at the facts on which it is based, and to realise that not only had the Government gambled with the past but that they were gambling with the future.
  I have said many times before, and I repeat it now—I hope that I am wrong, but even if I am the only voice in the Committee I shall not say I am wrong—that I was right in 1952 about the recruiting figures. After all the efforts which I have been able to make I have found nothing that refutes the basis of an assessment of recruiting on something like the lines of Appendix A of the Grigg Report. We have found the formula which pushes expenditure up to a maximum while the resulting defence is at a minimum.
  4.12 p.m.
  Mr. William Yates: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in his commentary on rickshaw strategy, in which he is expert. I want to raise two simple matters concerning my constituency and the Territorial Army.
  The Government are responsible for the staffing of one of the largest ordnance depots in Great Britain, at Donnington. It is a combined ordnance depot. From time to time there have been reports that there would not be sufficient finance to maintain this depot and it appeared that changes were envisaged. I was not surprised at the sort of charge or remark being made by a Member of the Opposition. That is quite agreeable to me if it has any foundation in fact. This debate provides an opportunity for me to ask the Minister whether it is Government policy to reduce the garrison and staff at the Donnington depot. These people have given a great deal of their Service life to the Army. Their sons go into the Services, and Donnington is a very good
  1098
  place for the recruiting of Service personnel. It would be a great pity if changes were made now.
  I am glad to say that about a year ago a new system of equipment for accounting and a new punch-card system was installed, at great expense. The redundancy that threatened at that time turned out to be one clerk. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more of what he intends to do about this combined ordnance depot. The people there have spent nearly thirty years in the area. The depot is commanded by a brigadier.
  It is always extraordinary at these depots that when one goes into a number of huts one sees Army equipment being broken down. This is the system of recovery. Large quantities of old wireless equipment cannot be sold, for example. It must be broken up and reduced to brass and waste. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that the charge often made against the Department is that the people at the depot are wasteful. It is unfounded. When one goes into the larger stores one is appalled at the vast sort of equipment that the Army requires at any moment.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to Vote I, which is on the pay of military staff and has nothing to do with civilian staff or equipment.
  Mr. Yates: The military staff are in command of the Donnington depot and a reduction in its numbers would reflect on the rest of the military establishment. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will bear this in mind and tell us that there is to be no reduction in the military staff or in the security of the military personnel at Donnington or those who work under military orders.
  The second problem concerns the garrison in Berlin. Recently, a Parliamentary delegation went there and we met the Army commander of the garrison. All of us were particularly struck with the remarks made by the people in Berlin, that is, the West Berlin citizens, about how much they admired the calibre, standard and the way in which Her Majesty's troops in the garrison in Berlin had been conducting themselves over the last four years. This is a great credit to the Army. We should realise that the people in West Berlin consider

  1099
  that our garrison there is one of their main outposts of freedom and one of the things which gives them a real sense of security. I would not like to hear that Her Majesty's Government intend to make any alteration whatever in the garrison in Berlin. The tributes paid by the West German politicians in Berlin, and in Bonn, to the British Army are justified. I hope that the Minister will answer these two points which I have raised.
  4.19 p.m.
  Mr. F. J. Bellenger (Bassatlaw): I wish to make only a brief excursion into this subject. The Committee should recognise the consistency and persistency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in the matter of recruiting. It will be churlish of us to deny that he has been right on the question of the short-service as opposed to the long-service engagement.
  At one time I was rather enamoured of the short-service engagement idea, particularly of the three-year engagement. Now, looking back after the event, I think that my hon. Friend has been proved right. I only wish that the Government, who have access to all the information, had come to this conclusion before. They are recruiting a Regular Army. From the beginning we have never liked conscripts. We did not like them, although they were a necessity of the war.
  My second point—and I say this in relation to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in opening the debate—is that I am not at all sure that the innovation that we have made in cutting down the Service Estimates debates like this is the right one. I suggest to the Government and to the usual channels that they might reconsider this. Before the war, of course, we did not have a Minister of Defence and we were able to discuss the Service Estimates in all their phases and in all their details. Judging from the debates we have had this year, it seems to me that we have now come to, as it were, the conclusion of the debate, which will not be very effective.
  Hon. Members may get answers to some of the points which they raise, but these seem to me to be taken out of
  1100
  their context. The proper context should be the Minister presenting his Service Estimates. That might mean that we would have to go on a little longer, but judging by recent events it looks as if we are now settling down to the concise manner of dealing with Service Estimates that we had before the war.
  I wish to pay a tribute to the War Office for the glossy part of its Report. It may be that the War Office has taken notice of certain other glossy publications and is now giving illustrations of what it is trying to say in typescript. I would welcome more of this, in the same way as I have always welcomed the opportunity for hon. Members to visit the three Services and see for themselves on the spot what the Services are talking about. I dare not say anything about equipment at this stage, but at least, in that way, it would be possible for hon. Members to know what the Services were talking about concerning equipment.
  That is all I wish to say. My only reason for speaking today is to ask the Government to consider afresh whether the system that we are adopting now, and which was in the nature of an experiment, is the right system to achieve the best co-ordinated debate on the Service Estimates.
  4.22 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I should like, first, to thank the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) for the compliment that he paid to the War Office. That is a building in which compliments are not as frequent as brickbats, especially when delivered from the House of Commons. Secondly, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) for the proper tribute he paid to our forces in Berlin.
  I will try to deal briefly with the various points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) raised the question of hire-purchase agreements of soldiers in Cyprus who may be moved and will leave behind equipment which they cannot take with them and on which they have incurred debts. In the first place, the movement from Cyprus is not yet clear. As the hon. Member said, we are extremely gratified that the settlement should have been reached, but we are not yet certain at what rate individual units will move.

  1101
  Secondly, we do not have exact details of the scope of the problem, but it is being investigated both by General Darling and by his staff in Cyprus and it is being considered from our point of view here with other Departments and we have it well in mind. It is impossible to go further at this early stage.
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey asked about the National Service grants and pointed, rightly, to the fact that these will rise this year by £500,000 although fewer National Service men will be called up. The answer is fairly simple. The extra £500,000 results partly from the fact that with improved standards of living, there tends to be a rather larger allotment per capita. What is more important is that at this stage we are calling up a large number of men who were deferred and who, during their deferment, have undertaken various obligations, including marriage and children.
  The hon. Member, quite properly, compared the sums paid out by the Royal Air Force for education for other ranks and the amount paid by the Army. The answer is that we trust that the change is growing. The amount doubled last year. In discussing last year's Estimates, the hon. Member asked for the figures to be presented in the way that they are presented today. I am glad that the hon. Member has raised the point. This debate will draw attention to it.
  The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), whom we are pleased to see here today, in spite of the slight fracas he seems to have had with the higher and lower command of his own military sections on the benches opposite, raised various points. The hon. Member is the most ingenious of all Parliamentarians. At one moment, I thought that we would be able to have a debate on Nyasaland on Vote 1, Subhead F, but I must resist that temptation.
  The first point made by the hon. Member about colonial forces was the abandonment of the teaching of English and the use of Hausa, Swahili and Chinyanja as the lingua franca. That is an inevitable tendency under the present movement of these various peoples towards self-government and the training of these forces has become the responsibility of the Governments in the Commonwealth and the Colonial Territories.
  1102
  The hon. Member raised the wider issue of British officers and other ranks in the Nyasaland battalions. I am informed that there are two medical officers attached to these battalions and three warrant officers. The Ghana Agreement is not applicable. These men are not seconded; they are merely loaned.
  Mr. Wigg: I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee what is the difference between loaning and seconding.
  Mr. Fraser: This is a more informal arrangement; loaning to a Colonial Government as opposed to seconding to a Commonwealth country. It is a technical difference. The main point that the hon. Member sought to achieve was that there was some difference of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government concerning the employment of these soldiers. Of course, there is no difference. Technically, the responsibility for law and order in Nyasaland is the responsibility of the Governor. The Governor sent for the Federation troops and the Federation troops therefore arrived to deal with the emergency.
  The hon. Member then dealt with recruiting. The fact that he was a prime mover in the movement away from the short-service to the longer-service commission should never be forgotten on either side of the Committee. I still consider that the points that the hon. Member was making are not borne out by facts, as he is usually the first to admit. The hon. Member spoke again of his suspicions for the reason. If his suspicions are proved correct, it would, indeed, be an unfortunate and untoward situation. All the evidence in my possession points in other directions. After all, one's decisions and judgment can be based only upon the evidence available.
  The hon. Member spoke of the establishment of infantry battalions. I should like to correct his reading of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. The actual figure used by my right hon. Friend was 11,000 for all fighting units. Of those 11,000, about 8,500 will be going towards infantry teeth arms and the remainder will be employed in teeth units other than infantry.
  The hon. Member attacked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence concerning the change in the establishment.

  1103
  Like my right hon. Friend, the hon. Member, with his great experience, will realise that one's thoughts in this direction must be a harmonious process of finding what is best to be done and what is the most efficient size of the individual unit.
  The hon. Member then went on to the question of the relationship between unemployment and recruiting. In 1955, an exercise was carried out by the Director of Manpower Planning at the War Office, considering figures of unemployment and recruiting over ninety-five years. He found precisely the same absence of any relationship between these figures as the Grigg Report showed in Appendix A, to which the hon. Member referred. One can have a great deal of fun with the figures which the hon. Member procured from the Ministry of Labour. One of the more mysterious is that while the number of unemployed at Omagh has risen by 58, the number of recruits has increased by 104.
  This soft of figure can prove anything or nothing. One must go back to the long-term trends over the ninety-five years' examination which we carried out and also the examination between the wars shown at the back of the Grigg Report. The present figures show that during 1963 we shall be well over 180,000, extracting an average over the last few months and projecting the current figures.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin asked a question which was more or less out of order, and perhaps I may refer to it more or less in code. Perhaps I can simplify the proceedings by saying that he need have no fear; there is no redundancy, and the question of the small redundancy which we expected has been settled.
  Mr. Wigg: I am not altogether satisfied with that reply. Dealing with the question of Nyasaland, the Minister cannot escape the problem by saying that in one case it is a loan, in another case it is a secondment, and there is a technical difference between them. In Ghana there is a military adviser, a very distinguished officer, Major-General Paley, who has done yeoman service in the cause of his country and in the way in which he has carried out his duties since Ghana became a Dominion.
  1104
  It is explicitly laid down by the Government that if the Ghana Government ever follow politics which are not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government they can withdraw Major-General Paley. The Minister can say that he is loaned or that he is seconded. Indeed, the Minister can stand on his head about it. The fact remains that there was an arrangement which enables the Government to withdraw him if they do not accept the politics adopted by Ghana.
  It is highly inconvenient for the Minister and the Government to discover that there are British officers in Nyasaland. It does not matter whether there are two or three, or 200 or 300. The situation arises even if there is only one, because the fact is that Sir Roy Welensky has declined to accept the services of a British battalion in Nyasaland.
  Mr. Fraser: That is not true. On what does the hon. Member base that statement?
  Mr. Wigg: I base it on a statement in The Times that the K.A.R. had been offered and had been put under six hours' notice, but that Sir Roy Welensky had said, "I do not want them".
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member is making a very serious statement. He has said that Sir Roy Welensky said that he did not want this battalion. The reason was that he had sufficient forces to cope with the situation. There is no question of objecting to British battalions.
  Mr. Wigg: At the time that federation was being discussed Lord Salisbury told a Press conference that the position of the King's African Rifles was unaffected by federation.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member is getting some way from Vote 1. I do not think that the King's African Rifles are on this Vote.
  Mr. Wigg: It is not for me to come into conflict with the Chair, but under Vote I and Appropriations-in-Aid the Government pay a contribution here. I am talking not about the K.A.R. as such, but about the British officers and N.C.O.s whom the hon. Member euphemistically said are "loaned." I am using the word "seconded", but we are talking about the same thing.
  The Temporary Chairman: It is not in order to discuss Appropriations-in-Aid. If the pay of these officers comes from the Colonial Governments or from the Federal Government, it is not under this Vote.
  Mr. Fraser: These officers are paid by this Government and, in return, we receive money from the Colonial Government.
  Mr. Wigg: That is the point I was seeking to make. They are borne on this Vote.
  What I want to establish is that when I use the word "secondment" and the hon. Member uses the word "loan" we are talking about one and the same thing. For the purpose of my argument, it does not matter whether there are one or three, 300 or 3,000. The fact is that the existence of British officers and N.C.O.s in Nyasaland makes the Government responsible for the defence policies which are being pursued. That is a very awkward position, and the hon. Member cannot laugh it off.
  I want next to turn to the question of lack of precision in the use of English by the Secretary of State for War. I am not responsible for it—he is an Etonian —and I can only regret it. The fact is that he talked about infantry. I was fair enough to say that I assumed that he was talking about infantry of the line. If he talks about infantry and then about fighting units, with my board school education as opposed to his public school education am I making a wild guess when I assume that he is talking about the same thing?
  If he is not, and I am in error, what is the difference between us? It is not one of principle. The Under-Secretary of State says that the figure is not 11,000, but 8,000. There are still 50 battalions for that purpose, and the figures of the establishment were reduced not by 220, but by 160. If that is what he says, I am prepared to accept it. I am prepared to accept the proposition that the Minister of Defence knew full well that the minimum establishment for the infantry of the line should be 800 but that for political reasons he fixed the ceiling at a point which meant that they could have only 635. The Minister of Defence therefore gambled with the security of this country for the political convenience of
  1106
  his party. If the hon. Member accepts that, I am satisfied.
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member's second charge concerned battalions on active service and on reserve being below strength. What matters is that by being able to raise their strength we can avoid all the horror and trouble of cross-posting, and the efficiency of the Army is greatly increased. There is no change in the number of major units which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence established.
  The hon. Member also tried to make the case that the position of British troops in Ghana and the position of British troops in Nyasaland is the same. In the one case sovereignty must rest in this country in respect of the Colonial Territory concerned. The position is different in a Commonwealth country. In one case I have used the word "loan" to a Colonial Territory, whereas in the other case I have used an alternative form of words. There is a big difference because in one case there is an agreement with an independent Government in Ghana while in the other case we are dealing with a Colonial Territory.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member is now admitting that Her Majesty's Government have a direct responsibility for law and order and the defence of Nyasaland.
  Mr. Fraser: I explained in my previous speech that the Governor of Nyasaland is responsible for law and order in that territory. As is well known, he accepted the offer from the Federation of troops to go to his support. That is a clear situation. I have said nothing different in this speech.
  Mr. Wigg: It also follows that if the Government are not satisfied with the way in which volunteers from Southern Rhodesia are behaving they have the right to withdraw the British officers and N.C.O.s who are there.
  Mr. Fraser: Of course the Government have the right, but is it likely that there would be conflict when the powers of the Government here are delegated to the Governor in Nyasaland?
  Mr. Wigg: I sincerely hope that there will be, because in his behaviour Sir Roy Welensky is qualifying to take a place

  1107
  beside Goering, the only difference being that one set fire to the Reichstag and the other discovered a plot.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: A number of allegations have been made about the character and conduct of the Federal troops now serving in Nyasaland. Is there any evidence to show that the conduct and character of those troops should be thus stigmatised?
  Mr. Wigg: That question was presumably addressed to me.
  The hon. Member has come into the Chamber a little late. What we are here establishing is that the Government's alibi that they have no responsibility for events in Nyasaland is very thin. There are British officers and N.C.O.s serving in Nyasaland for whom the Government are responsible. Therefore, there is no need to go to the artifice of putting down Motions regretting that Her Majesty's Government did not protest. The Opposition have the right to challenge the Government directly on Nyasaland, because the Government are responsible for the safety and security of British officers and N.C.O.s serving there. That is the simple point.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £125,260,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £18,210,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 371,500, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 360,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 330,900, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  4.41 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: We notice again that the Government are able to say that the figures are greatly improved. I understand that for the Territorial Army they are up to about 100,000 men now, which is very gratifying. I am one of those who believe that, provided good use is made of the Territorial Army, it is a very
  1108
  important part of our defence forces. I also think that the time is certainly overdue when the trades union movement ought to play a much stronger part in the recruitment of some of their members into the Territorial Army. I am on two recruiting committees, and each of them is dominated by the employers. The trade unions ought to play a much stronger part, and I shall certainly do what I can to encourage them so to do, because the Territorial Army belongs to all of us and is not the prerogative of a certain section of the community. The people I should like to see on the Committees are those whom I think most of us on this side of the Committee represent.
  I am very unhappy about the rôle of the Territorial Army. We are told that it is now to do some mobile civil defence work. May we learn something more about this? How do the Government see the future of the Territorial Army? Is it to go on from mobile civil defence? Is it visualised that the Territorial Army will take over perhaps one day almost all civil defence? If so, the Government ought to say so.
  We are moving towards a Regular Army now with new weapons and new equipment. At least we hope to have them by 1963. I do not want to go over the old ground about what happened in the past on equipment and weapons. What about the equipping of the Territorial Army? What sort of weapons will they have? May we have some information to show what the Government have in mind for the future of the Territorial Army?
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. W. Yates: I should like to make three points concerning the Territorial Army. Two of them were raised in the Adjournment debate on 1st August, 1958. The first is mentioned in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 1st August, 1958, at column 1790. It is the question of more junior officers for the Territorial Army. At a recent Territorial Army exercise at Chester one of the senior officers drew the attention of all concerned to the desire and need for additional young men to come forward as volunteers with the object of eventually becoming officers in the Territorial Army. It would be a good thing if, when the Under-Secretary

  1109
  of State replies to the debate, he could give some information on the way in which the War Office intends to help.
  If the Territorial Army is to carry out the duties at present allotted to it, it will need more junior officers. Whereas I as a Territorial Army officer congratulate the Government on the splendid recruiting figures for the Territorial Army, I would add that it would be a good thing if the recruitment of junior officers for the Territorial Army could be examined. This devolves very much on employers, on nationalised industries and on the trades unions. If this country wants to have a Territorial Army, then some of these great firms or institutions must make sacrifices and must allow these officers and men freedom to do their fortnight's training. No Territorial Army officer is worth wasting a penny on unless lie attends the annual camp. I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again.
  Secondly, I wish to raise the question of better training centres. I know that this will cost additional money, but for some time now the Territorial Army Association for Shropshire has been asking the Minister to carry out the plans which he has had in mind for a good number of years to reorganise training in Shropshire and to concentrate it at a training centre in Sundorne Road. Shrewsbury. There are camps such as Camp E at Donnington. I do not mind mentioning them again. I believe that those places are not suitable as training centres. I should like to hear very much more from the Under-Secretary about the improvements that he intends to make if this money is granted.
  My third and final point is about pay for the Territorials. In the Adjournment debate on 1st August, 1958, I stated that I felt that the pay of very junior officers in the Territorial Army was unsatisfactory. I gave some reasons at that time, and I can state them again. When an officer has attained the rank of captain or major in the Territorial Army he should be fairly well established in civil life and, therefore, his training or his extra expenses should not fall too heavily upon him. But the very junior officer on the threshold of his career, probably young and married with a family, needs more pay.
  1110
  I made this point to the Under-Secretary's predecessor, and he made what I thought was a rather unfortunate remark. He asked me whether I would be prepared to see a junior officer in the Territorial Army during his fortnight or his weekend training receiving more than a lieutenant in the Regular Army. I will give him my answer—yes. The Minister should examine this matter again. If he wants to get an adequate supply of the right type of junior Territorial Army officers, he should examine the pay rates, even if it means some reduction in the pay of higher ranks.
  I hope that other hon. Members of the Committee, especially hon. Gentlemen opposite, will support me in my plea. I hope that those in private industry, in the Government or in nationalised industries, will support the Territorial Army, and ensure that we have people in it to make it worth while calling it an Army and worth while spending this money for which we are being asked tonight.
  4.49 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: I wish to deal specifically with the Territorial Army. I wish to raise my voice on the question of procedure, and I hope that I can do it on this Vote very briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has already referred to it and so has my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I was somewhat perturbed, because they disagreed with our present procedure. We have improved the procedure to a great extent in recent years. We now have a system of a two-day defence debate and a day allotted to each of the Service Estimates. We can examine the individual Votes and raise specific points with the three Ministers concerned.
  The procedure that has been adopted in the last few years has improved things a lot. The two-day defence debate has given us an opportunity to look at defence as a whole, while the debates on the Service Estimates have given those hon. Members interested in one or other of the three Services an opportunity to see how each fits into the defensive role, and to raise specific matters on practically every Vote.
  The Minister no doubt feels just as pleased about the recruitment to the "Terriers" as he does about that to the Regular Army. My hon. Friend the

  1111
  Member for Dudley, who has a fanatical urge for being a statistical worm and chasing the records, often wriggles round and gets some very fascinating results, and we have been obliged to him on many occasions. However, I do not think that that was necessary here in order to find out the major reason for the increase in the Regular and Territorial Army recruiting figures.
  Unemployment cannot be dissociated from that increase. It is one of the major causes. In past years, whenever unemployment increased, Regular Army recruitment increased, and I do not think that it was worth while chasing through all the records to find out what is, to me, an obvious fact—
  Mr. H. Fraser: It may seem obvious to the hon. Gentleman but a study of the graphs produced by the Grigg Committee, those produced by others, and the figures I have myself brought out, will show that he is not talking sense. There is no direct statistical connection.
  The Temporary Chairman: I think that we dealt with that on the last Vote.
  Mr. Mason: I am obliged to you, Sir James. Before the war, there was no difficulty in getting recruits to the Regular Army. That was due to people being thrown on the scrapheap of unemployment by declining industries. We see the same thing happening again. As industries slow down, people lose their employment and go into the Regular Forces. Allied to that, of course, is the fact that they are attracted by the better pay and conditions now prevailing.
  The Explanatory Note says of the Territorial Army:
  "The current rôle of the Territorial Army on the outbreak of war is … (b) to provide a number of divisions and other formations and units with the initial task of home defence in all its aspects …"
  The Under-Secretary was present during the debate on the Army Estimates when I intervened to say how pleased I was that the Territorial Army is now to take over the duties of the mobile defence corps in civil defence. That is very encouraging and interesting, and I am very much in favour of it. I should like the War Office to go a little further. I want to see the Territorial Army, with its growing numbers, gradually increase its civil defence rôle to
  "… home defence in all its aspects …."
  1112
  Although many local authorities and public-spirited men have in the past done a great deal in maintaining civil defence in face of its many critics, I cannot see them operating what is called civil defence in the event of nuclear warfare. One thermo-nuclear bomb over one built-up area would create such panic in the minds of the citizens that it would require the discipline of the Armed Forces and not the discipline of those now in civil defence to restore order from chaos. There would be panic.
  People would be streaming from the stricken city. With all due respect to the many who have done the job so far, I cannot see them having the command, the measure of discipline necessary to tackle that situation. Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary will spend some little time in giving us some idea of how the Territorial Army's rôle in civil defence will increase. It is something that I favour, and I hope that the War Office will encourage it.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. James Simmons: Following on what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has just said about the Territorial Army, I would point out that I complained during the general debate that under this scheme the Territorials would probably become no more than pioneers and scavengers. That is not the rôle of those men. They join to become soldiers—and proper soldiers. If we are to maintain the present very good figures of recruiting, we should not do anything to harm their prestige.
  We do not know what civil defence will be able to do in the circumstances of modern warfare, but I believe that local civilian volunteers, especially when led by men of local public reputation, would have a far greater power to control the population than would soldiers brought in from outside the area to do civil defence duties. I hope that, during the debate, the Army's function in civil defence can be made clear, so that we may know whether it will mean a cheapening of the prestige of the Territorial Army.
  On the issue of procedure, I intervene reluctantly. Our Estimates debates are becoming a farce. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley to say that we can discuss every Vote, but there just is not time to do so. Had

  1113
  he been here, as were some of us—like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—in 1929–31, and since 1945, he would know that we used to debate the Estimates until 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the morning, and even then we had not exhausted all the subjects.
  My hon. and very dear Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is not without blame in this respect, because he sold the pass in the first place over the Army Act. Until then we could discuss Army problems at great length. I mention this to explain my reason for not having been so prominent at this stage of the Estimates debates. I spoke for half an hour on Vote A, but as many hon. Members were squeezed out of that discussion I felt that I should not, in fairness, speak for too long now. However, I did want to protest against the inadequacy of these discussions.
  It is scandalous to expect us to take nine, ten or eleven Votes in three hours. Hon. Members have to be the public's watchdogs on expenditure, and the watchdogs of the Service men's rights and privileges. To expect them to be able to do that in the miserable three hours allotted is absolutely ridiculous. I hope that before we discuss further Service Estimates, some new method will be found—through the usual channels, through unusual channels, or through new channels—to restore some of the rights of back-benchers to discuss the Estimates in greater detail than has been possible during the last two years.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Mason: If I may say so, we never exhausted the time on the Air Estimates, the Army Estimates or the Navy Estimates and, if hon. Members wish, the debate is not confined to three hours today. We can continue discussing the Army Estimates for as long as we wish or, at least, until ten o'clock. We are not confined to three hours. This is an informal discussion which is taking place, and, if we wish to continue with the Army Estimates, we can.
  Mr. Simmons: It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say that, but in those debates hon. Members knew that it would be futile for them to come in. The Army Estimates nearly went their length, but hon. Members knew that, if they came in, there
  1114
  would be no chance of their getting into the debate, so they stayed away. We have killed the interest in the Estimates by the procedure we now adopt. I want to see that interest revived.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that we should now return to the Vote before the Committee.
  5.1 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I intervene only because of certain things said by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates). I am sorry he is not here, but I gave him no notice that I intended to make any comment, so I have no complaint. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the position of officers, especially junior officers, in the Territorial Army. I have had representations made to me from time to time on behalf of young men in my constituency, and I urge the Under-Secretary to remember, when it is a question of meeting the expenses they have to incur when going away to camp, that it is very desirable that something more in the way of remuneration should be made available for them. I do not advocate what I understood the hon. Member for The Wrekin to suggest—that we should take a bit off the captain and the major and distribute it among the people below the rank of captain. As he said, those are men who are beginning to establish themselves in their civilian employment. Also, they have young families and, on occasions, to my knowledge, the sacrifices they have to make in such circumstances in going away to camp are quite considerable.
  I speak as one who joined the old volunteer Army as long ago as 1899. I believe that, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), I am the Member of the House who can look back to the remotest era of military service. I hope that, under the new regime, the Territorial Army will excite the interest and enthusiasm of many young men who think that a knowledge of the way to defend the country is something which every citizen ought to have but who, because of domestic or other circumstances, cannot contemplate a career in a professional army. I believe that the maintenance of the Territorial Army and the understanding that it will perform some useful military service are essential

  1115
  to the defence of a free country, particularly a country such as ours. I hope that the Government will give every possible encouragement to it.
  I appeal to all those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and to others who ought to take an interest in seeing that the people over whom they have some control and for whom they have a responsibility are given an opportunity to discharge this duty of a citizen. I include the local governing bodies in this, for 1 have sometimes been rather shocked at the way in which some local governing bodies, sometimes for ideological reasons —I think that that is the proper way to phrase it—have not been as helpful as they might have been to men on the clerical and industrial staffs who have wished to have the opportunity to participate in this form of voluntary national service.
  Everyone should bear in mind that the young man who gives of his time and energy to this Service has to make some social sacrifices which are not inconsiderable. For instance, if it is known that he will have to attend battalion drills on a number of Saturdays during the cricket season, his place in the cricket team may sometimes be in jeopardy. Although my memories now go back, as I have hinted, to a time which everyone present must regard as completely antediluvian, I assure hon. Members that these are things today which ought to be borne in mind. I hope that anyone who is approached by a young man over whose circumstances he has some control will be willing to give that young man what help he can to enable him to perform what I regard as a highly patriotic duty, with as little inconvenience to the individual as possible. I am quite sure that such an employer will find that he will have no less willing and helpful an employee as a result of anything he does along those lines.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: The matter of our procedure has been mentioned again and my name was specifically referred to, so perhaps I might say a word or two about it. The problem which faces the Committee is the problem of keeping the Army Act up to date without taking up too much of the time of the House of
  1116
  Commons. In 1951, we were faced with an Army Act which was eighty years out of date. The Army Act is not only a code of law; it is a code of discipline. It is what binds the Army together; it gives a man his pay and gives him a square deal. We must remember, when we give enormous authority and power of life and death to a man's commanding officer, as we must, that, at the same time, after giving that power, we are bound to make absolutely sure that machinery exists to dig out any complaint or any unjustified working of the Act.
  When we dealt with this matter yearly, it had the result of keeping the Committee up. By tradition, the Government, by not moving the Closure on Vote A, were kept here. We have not given anything away now. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) that we put it in suspense for a period of five years. This procedure has gone on for three years and, in a year or two, the Government will once again have to remit the Army Act to a Select Committee.
  Mr. Bellenger: Surely that is quite separate from the Service Estimates.
  Mr. Wigg: They are tied up one with the other. On Vote A, the Government are continuing the practice of not moving the Closure and then they get the Vote under the 9.30 p.m. Guillotine later. The other difficulty arises because there are three separate Service Estimates. If one looks at page 735 of Erskine May, one sees the difficulty; no method has ever been found of taking the three Services together except on a Government Motion. If one takes a Government Motion, one then has an extra hour or two, by leave of the Government, whereas the old procedure, as we did it in 1951, was not by leave of the Government. We put down a sufficient number of Amendments to bring Government business to a standstill. That is why the Government appointed a Select Committee—not out of love for as but because there was no alternative.
  Having had our two-day debate, as it were, on the overall policy, and then the three, as it were, Second Reading debates on the Service Estimates, what happens today is an extension of the redress of grievances. This is why I resented, not as an individual but on behalf of the House of Commons, any apparent

  1117
  arrangement—I do not want to stress it —which took away the rights of the backbencher, because the right the backbencher exercises here he exercises on behalf of every humble man in the Army.
  The Army is the kind of institution in which one always remembers the things that go wrong. These things are heralded across the front page, but nobody remembers the good things which the Army does. I entirely agree on this subject with Lord Montgomery. The most efficient Department in Whitehall is the War Office. One has only to put the Colonial Office in juxtaposition with it and consider the mess which that Department is making to see the truth of that statement.
  We are not aiming our observations at the present Secretary of State. When we criticise, we are helping him, because we are keeping the Department on its Toes. That is why the räle played by the back-bencher on these occasions is of such paramount importance.
  Mr. Simmons: Will my hon. Friend say how he would get over the difficulty about squeezing out the other two Departments? Would he have one day for each Department?
  Mr. Wigg: Yes. I have long held that the existing procedure has become obsolescent if only because we are discussing many things which are on the edge of secrecy. There are many things which a Minister would say to us if we were behind closed doors but which he would not say here.
  I had the privilege of serving for two and a half years on the Select Committee on the Army. It was borne of the most bitter party strife. The terms of surrender were taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) who came to the House in the early hours of the morning to accept them. But once a Select Committee had been appointed and once the doors had closed and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) had been appointed Chairman there was never any question of Labour or Conservative. What voting took place was cross voting across parties. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South has just entered the Chamber, so I will repeat that from the moment he was appointed Chairman of that Select Committee all party considerations disappeared.
  1118
  I believe that the Estimates, in the interests of the Service Departments and in the interests of the defence of this country, should be handled with meticulous care and the Committee should have power to send for witnesses and papers. We should be given a great deal more information on this matter. A committee of secrecy should be set up every year to which the separate Estimates would be remitted so that they could be gone through with a toothcomb behind the scenes. The House could still retain its existing procedures. This would be in the interests of the House. It would build up an informed opinion on both sides of the House and would help the Government and the Opposition.
  Mr. Bellenger: As other Western Parliaments have done already.
  Mr. Wigg: I labour for my own cabbage patch. I do not know what happens in other countries, but I have tried to discover a method whereby our procedure can be improved, and I am sure that a great deal of the ignorant bilge which is talked on both sides of the House during defence debates would not be heard if hon. Members were given access to information. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) is always saying. We need more information, not general information such as at which end to put a bullet in and which end it comes out, although it is perfectly clear from the speeches of some hon. Members that they have not learned that. The first requirement of a democrat is the ability to make decisions on limited evidence. That may mean wriggling for facts. But I prefer wriggling for facts rather than trying to dodge them.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: If such a committee were set up, there would be only a limited number of Members on it and only that limited number could have the information to which my hon. Friend is referring. The rest of us would continue to talk bilge, because the rest of the Members of the Committee would be sworn to secrecy.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will not pursue this matter too far. It is rather out of order, but I did not want to interrupt him.
  Mr. Wigg: I did not pursue it in the first instance. I was led into it. I shall talk about Vote 2, which is concerned with the Territorial Army and the Reserve Forces which are governed by the Army Act. That enables me to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). Obviously, if a committee is appointed it cannot be a committee of the whole House, but there is no objection to having a secret session. Secret sessions should not be conducted as they were during the war, when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) kept copies of his speeches and circulated them as a book after the war. If one circulates one's speeches, they cease to be secret.
  Mr. Ede: We might not all get the same sale for them.
  Mr. Wigg: The point is that the right is there. I would not mind if the procedure were established that hon. Members who wanted to be members of such a committee could get that information provided that it was handled responsibly. It is perfectly clear that our defence debates suffer from a lack of information. I suggest that a committee of secrecy should be set up to discover what the procedures should be, or perhaps when the next Select Committee on the Army Estimates is set up—it cannot be more than two years—its remit should include an examination of any procedures which would best inform the House on the details of the Estimates. I agree that at the moment we are dealing with sums which are so vast and expressed with such a generality of expression that we do not know what they are all about.
  I now want to talk about Vote 2. We have had a two-day debate on defence and a three-day debate on the Army, Navy and Air Force Estimates, and yet what obviously is the most fundamental problem of all, the problem of expansion should unhappily we find ourselves threatened with war, has never once been mentioned. If we are to reorganise the Army, as the Government are setting out to do and in which we all hope they will succeed, the way in which the G.1098 is issued is of fundamental importance.
  My mind does not go back to 1899, but it goes back to not so long after. I am old enough to remember 1914 vividly. I have always honoured the "Old Con-
  1120
  temptibles," but what made the victory of Mons possible, as I have said many times in the House and I am sure I am right, was the genius of Haldane and his mobilisation plan which enabled us to put four divisions in France, together with 60,000 horses, inside nine days, so that at first light on 22nd August they were in a position to out-march, out-shoot and out-fight the cream of the German army. It was a superb mobilisation plan, and a superb Army.
  What was the basis of it? The cardinal system was that every man, every reservist, had a 5s. postal order in his pocket with his number on it. He went to the depot, and when he got there a rifle, two suits of uniform, two pairs of boots and equipment were waiting for him. Once he was inoculated and he got over his inoculations he was an effective member of that force. At Mons, 60 per cent. of the troops in action were reservists. We have nothing like that today. The silence of the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State on this matter means that, although the Government have departed from National Service and are retaining the same forms of Reserve service, they have given little or no thought to the Army Emergency Reserve.
  In the early part of the year I asked some questions about ordnance depots. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) has mentioned Donnington, but that is one only of a string of ordnance depots which contain the guns, ammunition and stores which would enable the peace-time set up to be mobilised and equipped if the necessity arose, one hopes, in a matter of hours. I do not believe there is a mobilisation plan at all or that the Government have even looked at the position on mobilisation.
  One of the significant features of the Grigg Committee's Report and of statements made by Ministers is that while they are pretty sure they will get the "teeth" arms, they are not sure about the ordnance. Those are the difficulties about recruiting. When men join they go to a depot and find themselves in Bicester or Donnington and they are there for two years neither as technicians nor as soldiers, but a bit of both. From time to time one sees reports of the reactions of these men and there are large numbers of courts martial of absentees because of this unhappy situation.
  Mr. W. Yates: I hope the hon. Member does; not refer to all ordnance depots M those terms.
  Mr. Wigg: I am not talking about Donning-ton, but of some of the others. The command ammunition depot at Kineton had over fifty courts martial in six months. These are unhappy places, not because their officers or N.C.O.s are bad, but because of the conditions in which they operate. They are neither civilians nor soldiers, yet they handle stores of enormous value expressed in terms of cash. Millions of items have to be handled and, if one happens to be missing, a man's life might be forfeited.
  I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary what has been done about the organisation of the great ordnance depots. I shall not mention them by name for security reasons. One or two have been mentioned, but I shall not give a complete picture, although I could do so. It is obvious that as the size of the Regular Army shrinks, the defence plans become more and more dependent on the method of swiftly mobilising and equipping reserves. I am sure it is right to hold the view that neither the 1914 nor the 1939 type of mobilisation would be practicable in the event of nuclear war, nor even if the necessity arose to reinforce those four or three and a half divisions in Germany at present.
  I was talking last week to someone who really ought to know better, about the troops in Germany. I asked if anything went wrong what would we do about it, and he replied, "It will not go wrong". This Committee has no right to leave our constituents, our relatives and kith and kin, on the end of a limb, or rather like a tethered goat, hoping that there will be no Russian attack. I do not believe there will be a Russian attack, but the reasons why they are getting tough on Berlin at present are the result of a switch of Russian policy, which is passing from nuclear stalemate to nuclear parity. They know that the Americans could kill 70 million of them in as many hours over the Pole, but they could kill 12 million or 15 million Americans in the same number of hours in the same way. They know there is no object in the world for which American policy w ill face the death of 12 million or 15 million Americans.
  1122
  In Berlin, we face the kind of situation which had its origin in the Spanish Civil War. It may bring chaos with the soldier on the ground being responsible for the maintenance of law and order. That is the issue. The boys who are made to bear the brunt are not the five American Pentagon divisions which are among the best equipped troops in the world, but the three and a half divisions of British troops, half trained and badly equipped for facing any attack on this country. It is an essential requirement for the Government to think out, if they have not already thought out, how they are to reinforce those three and a half divisions should the necessity arise.
  What is true of Berlin, is true of any part of the world in which British troops are called upon to serve. The problem is that if we put men there we must be in a position to get them out or to support them. I do not believe the Government have thought out a plan, but it is time they did. I shall be very interested to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about it.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. H. Fraser: On Vote 2, I should like to thank hon. Members on all sides of the Committee who have expressed their gratification at the improvement in recruiting and the size of the Territorial Army and to express thanks for the ideas put forward by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), speaking from almost unparalleled experience of voluntary organisations of all sorts in military and civil life. I am sure that his remarks will be taken to heart by all interested in these matters. I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for his remarks about trade unions and the part which could here be played. He discussed the rôle of the Territorial Army in general. If I may, I shall come to that in my general remarks at the end of this short speech.
  We still keep creeping back to the issue of how Army Estimates should be debated. If it is agreeable to all present, I ask that that debate should now cease until a later occasion, otherwise we could spend the rest of the time debating what our procedures should be. We have not much time, and there is a lot to be got through, as I am sure is the view on all sides of the Committee.

  1123
  The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) wanted more civil defence for the Territorial Army, but the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) seemed to want less. I cannot work that conflict out.
  Mr. Simmons rose—
  Mr. Fraser: I cannot give way as I am in a great hurry.
  The hon. Member for Brierley Hill seemed to say that they should not be just civil defence wallahs but men who were fighters. I do not know whether I am putting it in his words, but that was the point. There must be a proper balance and the balance we have achieved is that the function of the mobile defence corps should be taken over. We had a long Adjournment debate on it the other day. If hon. Members want information about the subject, they can find it there. We think that one year in four as the basis of civil defence training for the Territorial Army is about the right value.
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey, quite rightly, raised the issue of the rôle and equipment of the Territorial Army. This, as it is put in the Memorandum, shows it is obvious that a Territorial Army has a vital part to play in the defence of this country. What form and what size it should be and how it should be done, remains to be seen. I would point out to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that there is, of course, a mobilisation plan, but how far a mobilisation plan is to be effective depends enormously on the circumstances of whether it is a local, regional or global war. Of course this is in hand.
  Of course, we have not got the same heights of simplicity of efficiency as were possible under Haldane, but the whole problem is infinitely more complex than that of the inevitable European war on the coast of Europe and the availability and possibility of having reservists in the amazing movement the hon. Member described—60,000 of them out in ten days. I am sure our plans are well in hand on every conceivable problem we can see. I can assure the hon. Member of the possession of records and numbers. Until June this year we have a very large number of people available and after June we shall still have quite sufficient.
  1124
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey raised the question of equipment, which is a vital matter. Our immediate rôle is to see that the active Army is properly equipped. When we come on to Vote 7, we shall have to refer to a fair number of difficulties which we have had in this sphere of equipment. That is our first priority. Our second priority is to see that the Territorial and Reserve Armies are adequately and properly armed, which they are.
  The hon. Member for Dudley raised the question of the ordnance depots. I could not agree more with him that these depots are the key to any mobilisation and military plan, since they represent the equipment behind our Forces. I am glad to say that, since I have been in office, I have been to visit two of the largest depots, spending two days at each. The one at Kineton, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has greatly improved during the past five or six months. It has been amazing to me what an improvement has been made there, and also at Chilwell, where M.T. spare parts are stored. These organisations always keep in touch with the latest changes in the G.1098 issued by the War Office. These things are in line, and there are plans. There are plans dependent on the kinds of attack we may suffer, and I think that this organisation is sufficiently elastic, and certainly competent enough, to cope in so far as it is humanly possible to cope with the problems that may arise.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. W. Griffiths: I have been waiting to hear what the Minister had to say in reply to the debate, and I now want to say a few words on the rôle of the Territorial Army.
  I have heard hon. Members talking about the need for giving better pay to young officers, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) made an impassioned, or at any rate a very sincere, appeal for greater numbers to go into the Territorial Army, while my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) talked about the employment of the Territorial Army in Civil Defence. In my view, people do not enter services of this kind either for purely monetary reasons or in a vacuum. We cannot just say that we want trade unionists or people who work in the

  1125
  nationalised industries to be well paid; of course we do, but first of all we have to make people of that kind aware of the motive for that particular service. That is where I think the Government have fallen down.
  For example, how can we enthuse young men to go in for voluntary service in the Territorial Army when wide publicity is rightly given to the kind of statement which the Minister of Defence made in his speech of 11th February, when he said:
  "Therefore we could not honestly say to the people of this country that in the present mate of scientific knowledge there is any effective means of defending the country as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1174.]
  If that sort of observation is made by the Minister of Defence, the chief Defence Minister of the Government, it is hardly a spur or incentive to recruitment. Similarly, we have to explain to people what we intend them to do. The Minister of Defence has a conception of defending rocket sites—the point of launching the great deterrent. When we come to look at civil defence there will have to be a little more reality about this if we are to get people to take pleasure in service of this kind. It really will not do to have the kind of exercise, for instance, which we had in May of last year, when the Home Office on that occasion organised an exercise in which it was assumed that fifty hydrogen bombs had been dropped in the Preston, Birmingham and Leeds areas.
  Mr. H. Fraser: This has nothing to do with Vote 2 for the Army. Surely it is the Home Office Vote that is concerned. I hope the hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear that this has nothing to do with the Territorial Army.
  Mr. Griffiths: With the greatest respect to the Minister, Sir Gordon, I thought you were in charge of our proceedings. Certainly, if you call me to order I will resume my seat, but I do not think it is the Minister's job to usurp the functions of the Chair.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Questions relating to the Home Office cannot be discussed on this Vote, but I am not quite sure of the point which the hon. Member is now making.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am illustrating my argument. There has been much talk this afternoon about the rôle of the Territorial Army in the field of civil defence, and there has been an easy assumption that it will be the proper function in future of the Territorial Army. All I am seeking to show is that if the T.A. is to take part in civil defence, and I am not at the moment arguing whether it should or should not, civil defence as a whole will in future have to be conducted with a greater sense of reality than it has been in the past. If I am arguing that it has not been developed with a sense of reality, I am entitled to call in aid the answers given by the Department of Government which is responsible in this House a fortnight ago, and that is all I am doing.
  I am seeking to enlist the aid of the Under-Secretary in getting the Government as a whole, when the Territorials are used in a civil defence exercise in future, to conduct it with the sort of sense of reality that would persuade an intelligent trade unionist and workers in general to enlist in voluntary efforts of this kind. I feel very strongly indeed that no person is going to take part in something which is merely a charade and has no reality about it.
  I was going on to illustrate the point by saying that it is not good enough to conduct exercises in which it is assumed that fifty hydrogen bombs have fallen. I was going on to say that there is great controversy among physicists as to the effects of the dropping of hydrogen bombs of various sizes. I understand that it is generally agreed, however, that one 10-megaton bomb will destroy a densely populated area ten miles across, so that people are very concerned about these matters and discuss them in many places. Thus, the effects of the widespread devastation following upon such an attack are well known, and, therefore, to conduct an exercise which is supposed to be realistic and valuable in training for the future defence of the country when we are told that 13 of the bombs in that exercise were assumed to exceed the 10-megaton range is just ridiculous.
  For goodness sake, in our approach to this matter, let us consider whether we shall get voluntary service from our people unless we treat them with common sense and offer what appears to them to be sensible and also excites their interest.

  1127
  I should be out of order if I said that I do not think the conduct of the Government in the field of foreign affairs is an encouragement to the people to join in civil defence or to join the T.A. In fact, I think it is miraculous that the numbers in the Territorial Army are increasing, in view of what has happened. While I understand and support the motives of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey in seeking to encourage recruitment to the T.A., in which many members of my own family have taken part in past years, I say for goodness sake let us do it in a realistic and sensible manner.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £18,210,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 371.500. all ranks, including a number not exceeding 360,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 330.900, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 6, Supplies, etc.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £43,540,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of supplies, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  5.39 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: I wish to raise only one small point, but it seems that, with every Vote we take, somebody says something about procedure. In view of the fact that I got into trouble earlier, may I say that I am not responsible for what happened yesteryear on procedure in this House, and the way we did it then, nor am I responsible, nor am I ever likely to be, for any investigation which may be made later. What I am concerned about today is that I am very well aware that some of my colleagues are very anxious to talk about the Navy and the Royal Air Force. The matter is as simple as that. I am wondering what sort of arrangements we can arrive at so as to accommodate everybody in this difficult position of having to discuss all this amount of money and all these Votes.
  On Vote 6, I should like to know why there is a difference of £2 million in expenditure on solid fuel. Is it possible
  1128
  that we over-estimated last year? Was it just a wild guess then? Subhead A shows that the Army expects a reduction of £31 million in the cost of food. I notice from the Royal Air Force Estimates that, although the numbers are going down, that Service has decided to make hardly any cut at all in expenditure on food. Certainly, it is not anything like as drastic a cut as apparently is taking place in the Army's expenditure. In view of this enormous cut, I should like to have some information about the standards of food in the Army.
  Under Subhead Z there appears what seems to us a rather mean item in the Estimates. It relates to the receipts from the sale of food and animal feedingstuff, on which there is to be a saving. We understand that one of the reasons for this is that the discount on food purchases from N.A.A.F.I. will be acquired by the Treasury and will not go to the Soldiers' Amenities Fund. I am advised that this is a procedure which the Army has been compelled to adopt as a result of a recommendation by the Select Committee on Public Accounts.
  I am not, therefore, putting the meanness down to the Army, but this appears to be a very petty practice. When I was in the Army, the Soldiers' Amenities Fund was made up of this discount from N.A.A.F.I. I should like to have an assurance that, in spite of this imposed meanness, that fund will not be affected.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. H. Fraser: On the question of welfare, and the N.A.A.F.I. rebate, the Public Accounts Committee found that the Royal Air Force was doing something similar to what is now proposed. The Committee thought that the practice in the Army was also unsuitable and we have been asked to come into line with the Royal Air Force. The N.A.A.F.I. rebate, therefore, is absorbed back into Army funds on the ground that this is the correct procedure, but it makes no difference at all to the troops.
  Precisely the same funds are available now as were available when they came from the N.A.A.F.I. discount. Under Vote 9, for example, contributions towards Service entertainments, the general welfare fund, expenditure on libraries and on additional equipment for athletics are increased. As a result of this stroke of

  1129
  genius on the part of the P.A.C., everything is made infinitely more complicated and the troops have the impression that they are being defrauded of their N.A.A.F.I. rebate whereas, in fact, the sums available are exactly the same.
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) also raised the question of the decrease in expenditure on rations. This decrease is largely due to the fall in numbers in the Army. As he will remember, the whole of the ration issue was revised in 1957. I speak from memory but there are home-scale rations, foreignscale rations, a scale for recruits doing heavy training, and a special scale for the operational soldier. The lowest ration is 3,400 calories in this country. This is bumped up for recruits doing tough training in the first few weeks, and the average rate abroad is about 3,500 calories. We are doing a certain amount of reorganisation of supplies in Malta on an all-Services basis, and in the next few years we hope to have an all-Services scale of rationing which will have many advantages, especially on the supply side.
  The reason for the decreased expenditure on solid fuel is, to some extent, the decreased cost of the fuel in Germany, on account of a reduced first delivery or freight change. There has been a decrease in the prices of some of the solid fuels in the United Kingdom and there has been a reduction in the cost of electricity and gas. There has also been a decrease in consumption of solid fuel which I cannot attribute to any special cause except, perhaps, to the fact that we have had unseasonably warm weather at certain tines of the year.
  5.44 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: The Army's record in using the services of nutrition experts has not been very good. Two or three years ago the Army "dropped a clanger" by publishing an advertisement which caused the Service to be the laughing-stock of the academic world. I should like to know whether there has been an improvement in this respect. The Army has an advisory service which enables it to call in nutrition experts. What has happened to the experiments which were being made to produce rations, over and above emergency rations, which would enable men cut off from their supply depots to keep going for a long time?
  1130
  I remember seeing a demonstration of a food pack in a room occupied by the Minister's predecessor. It seemed to me stodgy stuff. I took the opportunity of consulting Professor Yudkin, who occupies the Chair of Nutrition at London University. He was caustic in his comments about Army rations. We have now the opportunity of hearing from the Minister what is happening.
  It is not good enough to dole out stacks of temporarily satisfying food. It needs to be related not only to the men's needs, but to operational requirements as well because of its effect upon weight. If the Minister is considering policy on the transport of troops by air this question of the weight of food carried is not unimportant. There is an operational need, a health need, and the need to get working not the best brains of the R.A.S.C. or the R.A.M.C., whom I do not wholly trust, but those readily available in universities where first-class work is being done on nutrition.
  5.49 p.m.
  Dr. Reginald Bennett: This is the first time that I have sought to address the Committee on the Army and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me. Though perhaps it is as unexpected as anything might be, the first item under Vote 6, Subhead E, is not very far removed from the salt water which, on various accounts, generally seems to surround me. There is a Royal Army Service Corps fleet whose activities I have observed for many years. I see that it continues to flourish, although I notice that a number of its vessels are now for disposal.
  Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling, as I have felt all along, that the very existence of this fleet is an incongruity. What makes me the more alarmed this year is to observe that the Vote is no less than £88,000 up on last year, when I should have thought that the functions of this fleet would be found to disappear almost spontaneously with the cessation of the existence of coastal batteries and forts in outlying spots which might need special attention by small craft.
  We have seen this often enough around the Isle of Wight. Now we can see quite clearly that target-towing is no longer required as batteries no longer exist. The

  1131
  forts are silent and are even offered for disposal. What, then, is the reason for the existence of this expensive fleet? I see that the explanatory sentence opposite states that the vessels are used for purposes for which commercial vessels are not suitable. That may be so. But I have seen them carrying out a parallel service to, with almost exactly the same speed as, the Ryde ferry steamers. The gentlemen taking passage have no doubt been coming on the same train to Ryde and are doubtless going on the same train to London, but for some reason or other they prefer the much less comfortable form of transport to an existing service.
  Let us recognise, in this Committee, that the existence of the fleet is incongrous and that its services should be disposed of, because there is, anyway, in existence an item in one of the other Services, on a different Estimate, called the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. That organisation performs almost identical services for the Navy, namely, the fetching and carrying. Surely such parts of the R.A.S.C.'s function as the transport of goods over long distances and deeper sea, are more suitable for the larger vessels of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
  The point I wish to put to my hon. Friend is that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and indeed the small fleet of assorted vessels owned by the Royal Air Force, together with the R.A.S.C. Fleet, could at this stage be fused, as they must overlap each other enormously. We should have a Royal Services Auxiliary, if necessary, and then three civilian admirals might give place to one.
  In my constituency, there has been a great deal of criticism of the very fact that the boats are built and refitted in various yards under a totally different system and a different inspectorate. Indeed, there may be similar launches built for the Navy and the Army alongside each other in the same slipways, and yet different inspectorates from different parts of the country have to come there to carry out identical inspections.
  This is a corner of the Army's empire which has been overlooked. Much more careful scrutiny by this House is needed and this fleet's existence should be justified.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. H. Fraser: In reply to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), we are looking constantly at the question of consulting experts. I do not know whether the services of Professor Yudkin have been used, but the services of other great dieticians have been used and I am sure that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman is kept under review.
  Turning to the almost piratical attempt of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. R. Bennett) to corner what few ships the Army has afloat, the main argument against his contention is that the Fleet Auxiliary is frequently manned by civilians, whereas in this case quite a large number of the small craft of the R.A.S.C. are landing craft, tank.
  They are, therefore, operational, and must be manned by full-time soldiers. This point is being discussed, but so far there is a strong case for keeping things as they are, unless other circumstances arise in the inquiry which cause us to change our minds.
  My hon. Friend also asked about expenditure. The small increase in expenditure is due to operational requirements.
  Dr. Bennett: Is it not a fact that the Navy, also, has been in the habit of operating landing craft tanks? Is it not doing so now?
  Mr. Fraser: The Navy personally, but not the Fleet Auxiliary.
  Mr. Wigg: The Minister arouses my fears. He says that the Army is consulting dieticians. That is not the issue. The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstood my point. Dieticians are in hospitals and are concerned with formulating on paper the appropriate diets for patients. This is a question of fundamental research by nutrition experts. As far as I know, the only university in the country which has a chair is London University, Queen Elizabeth College.
  I mentioned Professor Yudkin because he had served in the Army and had made his services available. There are also biochemists, and the like, who are expert and I will not be fobbed off with the yarn that the Army is consulting dieticians. This is what they did before. This is what they advertised for. They do not understand what is involved. This

  1133
  is a problem which might be of vital importance for the efficiency of our troops. It might also involve a saving of money and give the troops a much more satisfactory diet. The Army should drop its out-of-date habits of using tin openers and tins which have been bought not on the research of experts, but on the whims and fancies of the R.A.S.C.
  Question put and agreed to
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £43,540,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of supplies, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 7. Stores
  Motion made and Question proposed.
  That a sum, not exceeding £53,680,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1960.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: I want to ask three questions on this important Vote. The first concerns ammunition. We see in the Estimates that there is a substantial reductions in this respect of £3,659,000 under Subhead D. Can we know why there has been this big cut? We know that production of the ·303 is being stopped, except for the Vickers gun, but we must have the ·300 for the new F.N. rifle, and so we should like to know why the cut has been made.
  On Subheads E and F, with particular reference to technical stores, it is extraordinary that here again the Vote is badly underspent. When we look at the other Service Estimates we find that on this subhead the Navy is always overspent. One would have thought that with the new technical advances we are making, and with our new Army which is just around the corner, on these subheads there might have been anticipation of a larger figure.
  There is one other problem bothering us. Where is the provision under this Vote for guided missiles? I ask that question because the R.A.F. shows these under the ammunition subhead. So may we know where the Government show the provision for guided missiles in anticipation of the coming Estimates?
  1134
  There is one other small point which arises on page 126 under Subhead A on clothing, where again there is a substantial reduction. I recognise that much of this is due to the running down of the Army, but may we have an assurance from the Minister about the new clothes our soldiers are to wear? We were given some assurances in his excellent winding-up speech on the Army Estimates last week, but we should like to know more about the raincoat which our soldiers are supposed to be getting. Also, if we can get some dates a discussion on this subhead will have been worthwhile.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Mason: There is an item in Vote 7, under Subhead A, which puzzles me. It concerns clothing services, which cover fitting uniforms, the cleaning and repairing of clothing, including hospital clothing and the repair of boots. It then goes on to refer to hair-cutting of Gurkhas. How substantial is a Gurkha's haircut, and why is this item so specified in the Vote? I suppose that it may cause some consternation in the ranks of the British Army that we should have Gurkhas so specially itemised. How much does this item cost? Are we going in for Yul Brynners, Tony Curtis, or Edwardian hair styles? Can the Minister explain why it is that the shedding operation is placed under clothing services and why we give such special attention to a Gurkha's haircut?
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: I want to refer to technical stores and ammunition, since the burden of the Secretary of State's speech when introducing the Estimates the other day was that a great deal of equipment was projected for the current year. However, the sums provided for ammunition have fallen by the substantial amount of £4 million. That is a welcome reduction, but one wonders whether it is due to the general use of standardised ammunition or to some other cause. If such great economies have been effected by standardisation, it is even more serious that the Government have taken so long to achieve it.
  It is surprising to find that in technical stores it is intended to spend about £3 million less on signals and wireless equipment, a substantial reduction over the previous year. My impression was

  1135
  that a great deal of new signal equipment was to be issued in the current year, and it seems odd that there should be a substantial reduction in expenditure with an improvement in instruments to be used.
  It may be that equipment has been hoarded over previous years and has been paid for on previous Votes, in which case the Army has been negligent in not putting that equipment into commission. If that is the case, we must have good reasons why that equipment has not been issued.
  To a lesser extent, the same argument applies to mechanical transport and aircraft. There is a small increase in expenditure over last year, although we are told that practically the whole Army is to be equipped with new vehicles, Ferret cars and so on. The figures under the subheads do not tally with the Memorandum or the speech of the Secretary of State, who forecast a near revolution in the equipment and vehicles to be at the disposal of the Army in the financial year 1959–60.
  Finally, I should like an explanation about appropriations-in-aid. We can look with some relief at the substantial sums shown as appropriations-in-aid, in that way reducing the net expenditure falling on the Treasury, but I wonder why such very large sums have been recovered by the sale of surplus stores.
  For instance, receipts from the sale of surplus stores are estimated at £8,300,000 as against £13 million last year. One wonders what was the original cost of the stores now being sold. It is pleasant to see appropriations-in-aid offsetting expenditure, but we should know the original cost of the items of which the Army is now disposing. What machinery is there in the War Office to see that the ordering of stores and equipment bears some resemblance to what is needed?
  Substantial sales are disclosed in the list of appropriations-in-aid, and I would appreciate some idea of whether those sums represent one-quarter, one-third, one-half, or whatever it is of the original cost to the War Office of the items in the first instance. The constant appearance of these sums is not a matter for congratulation, but a subject on which we are entitled to some explanation.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), I too have been worried at the state of wireless equipment in the Army. I discussed this matter at some length during our debate last week. This is a subject which has been a matter of controversy for a long time. I believe that an improvement would be effected if responsibility for the development and procurement of Army wireless sets could be taken from the Ministry of Supply and handed to the War Office. During the debate on the Army Estimates, I asked the Under-Secretary whether any change in the procedure for development or procurement was contemplated. I wonder whether I shall have a reply now.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain why all the Votes are presented in this form? If he looks at page 16, he will see that there is a note to Vote 1 to say that it includes the Supplementary Estimate, whereas in Vote 7 a comparison of the revised figures and the Supplementary Estimate makes nonsense of the actual figures. Several of my hon. Friends have said that the figures are quite different.
  It is quite wrong that one Vote, particularly Vote 1, should be prepared in one way, taking into account the figures of revised estimates, while Vote 7 is prepared in another way It is especially unfortunate because it is on Vote 7 that the dirty work has been done during the last year. That is where the overall instructions of the Minister of Defence have been put into effect. The right hon. Gentleman has said that recruiting should be pushed forward and that there should be increased rates of pay but that the Departments must keep within their existing ceilings of expenditure. The result has been that the men have been obtained at the expense of equipment. That is a matter which requires explanation.
  There is a saving on Vote 7 under almost every heading. A study of the figures will show that the comparison of 1958–59 and 1959–60 is "phoney". The figures for technical stores are down by £3,600,000. They should be not £21,323,000 but £17,650,000. The hon. Gentleman has already been asked for an explanation about ammunition. In

  1137
  that respect the criticism is even stronger, because the figure is not £13.341,000, but £6,700,000, a true underspending of £6½ million, almost 50 per cent.
  Mr. H. Fraser: We must get this clear. At the moment we are discussing the Army Estimates for 1959–60. What the hon. Member says is important to certain arguments, but we are not discussing the Supplementary Estimate for 1958–59, which will be discussed separately after the other Votes have been discussed. That is the normal procedure which the hon. Member must bear in mind. We are now discussing Vote 7 of the Estimates for 1959–60.
  Mr. Wigg: I am clearly aware that we are discussing Votes on the Estimates for 1959–60. Is the hon. Member aware that in Vote 1 the figures shown for 1958–59 have been altered to take into account Supplementary Estimates? I am not suggesting that this is a trick. At any rate, if it is it is a very silly one, because the footnote (a) says, "Including Supplementary Estimate". The Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) have presumably fallen for this and have assumed that exactly the same procedure has been adopted in connection with Vote 7, and so my hon. Friend makes a legitimate comparison with the figure as it originally appeared.
  Mr. Mellish: I am not quite so stupid as that. I intended to ask a number of questions on the Supplementary Estimates. I have some notes here to ask questions about the decreases shown in the previous year's Estimates, particularly on Vote 7, Subheads E and F. I was not going to ignore them, but I thought that I ought to wait until we reached Vote 7.
  Mr. Wigg: I want to discuss the form in which the Vote is presented. I was saying that it is presented differently from the way in which Vote 1 is presented, and I want to know why. There must be some explanation. These are not mistakes. The Department must have some reason for revising Vote 1 and not Vote 7. The figure concerned represents 50 per cent. of the expenditure. We ought to know why there has been such an under-spending in 1958–59 before passing the 1959–60 figure.
  1138
  Can it be that the speech of the Secretary of State for War is another piece of window dressing? It would help if we were to have a categorical assurance that the Estimates for 1959–60 will be spent, because if they are not the Government will not have begun to answer the arguments put by hon. Members on this side of the Committee that the Army is badly equipped. It is very easy to inflate the figures in the Estimates and then play the same trick next year as has been played this year, by underspending. Everybody claps, except the Army, who will have obsolescent equipment and nothing but promises of better things to come.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I will deal, first, with the complex point concerning the reconciliation of the Supplementary Estimates with the main Estimates. Vote 1 is a comparatively simple one, which is easily calculated, but Vote 7 is the most complicated of all the Army Votes, because it contains something called the prior year adjustment.
  As the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) knows, the prior year adjustment is a form of accountancy which is accepted by Parliament and by the Public Accounts Committee. The prior year adjustment charges arise only in the last three or four months, and they arise because the Army has to have available sufficient funds to pay the Ministry of Supply and other providers of stores in the last three months of the financial year.
  Guesses have to be made, especially about lines of production, and intelligent guesses are made by the War Office and the Ministry of Supply. There nearly always has to be an adjustment, and in this case it is about £5 million. It would be better to discuss this question of reconciliation, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), when we reach the Supplementary Estimates at the end of our discussion.
  I would, therefore, prefer to turn to the various points raised on the 1959–60 Estimates. The question of clothing and allowances was raised by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and others. Raincoats are going into troop trials in April, and I hope that they will be able to go into full production and supplies to the troops begin next year.

  1139
  The hon. Member also raised the question of ammunition. As he rightly pointed out, there is a considerable shortfall there. The hon. Member for Dudley knows that the real shortfall is more than the figure given in the Estimates, because of the various adjustments which have had to be made. The deliveries of ammunition for last year will work out at £6·89 million. The difference therefore, is between the £6·89 million delivered last year and the £9 million that we believe will actually be delivered this year. In real terms it is an increase. This shows the complications of the matter. What hon. Members should be interested in is the figure for the actual deliveries.
  Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member ought to explain why he asks for £13 million and spends only half of it.
  Mr. Fraser: There were three main reasons for the shortfall. First, last year was the year when we had a reorganisation of the ordnance factories of the Ministry of Supply. Secondly, there was the problem of designing certain types of new fuses and shells. We are now moving into an era when the lethality of ammunition must be constantly improved. Thirdly, we decided at this time last year that it would be proper for the inspectorate to spend more time on refurbishing and maintaining the already existing stocks of ammunition. These factors account for the considerable fall in the Estimate that we set out to achieve.
  We believe that this year we will achieve the production of £9,682,000 estimated. I have been in touch with my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Supply. The problems of the ordnance factories have now been overcome and the period of consolidation is over. In addition, the problems related to the new fuses and other types of new equipment have been overcome and I very much hope that the figure of just over £9½ million will be a real one. Some of the ammunition that we are now producing is not only the best in Europe, but the best in the world.
  Moving on to the question of mechanical transport and aircraft. I was asked where the cost of guided missiles falls. That comes under Technical Stores, under Subhead F. Hon. Members who follow these matters closely will see that
  1140
  we are spending considerably more than last year on vehicles, aircraft, and so forth.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman's statement about technical stores is most unsatisfactory. If we are moving into a new era when we shall have an Army which is better equipped technically one would have thought that the tendency would be to overspend. How is it that we have underspent compared with the previous year?
  Mr. Fraser: The underspending in previous years on technical stores which we are referring to now—I am sorry, I meant mechanical transport, under Subhead E. I apologise to the Committee for having confused the items under Subheads E and F.
  There is underspending on technical stores which will mean, on a reconciliation of the two figures, an amount of nearly £3 million spent on wireless equipment. We have already discussed this to some extent in the previous debate. The situation is not satisfactory for the year, but the general situation over a period of years regarding the equipping of the Army with new radio sets is satisfactory. This is a programme which will cost about £20 million. Already, we are over the peak of the production of sets. One brigade group in Germany has got the sets and, I think I am right in saying, by this time next year six of the nine types of set necessary for the equipment of the whole of B.A.O.R. will be issued.
  The shortfall arose, as I explained the other day, because, again, there was what might be called over-enthusiasm for certain types of sets and a breakdown in the supply of parts for those sets. If hon. Gentlemen reconcile the figures for the two Estimates, they will find that we shall be firmly spending about £4 million this year, which is about the same real sum as was spent last year. As I explained previously, this situation is improving fairly rapidly. Sets are being issued fairly quickly and by this time next year nearly all of the British Army in Germany will be equipped with these new types of sets.
  I was asked about working out with the Ministry of Supply whether the present method of supply was the best. We are always keen on improving these matters and I am glad to say that even

  1141
  at this early stage of the year our firm orders on Vote 7 are 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. in excess of the figure for this time last year and that is a considerable improvement.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman said the figure for guided missiles was included in Subhead F. Can he say what is the figure?
  Mr. Fraser: No, I am sorry.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Obviously, in submitting these Estimates the War Office has had to take into consideration the stores and equipment which it alreidy possesses. We have just signed an agreement with Colonel Nasser under which we have said "Goodbye" to a large amount of stores and equipment in Egypt. Can the Minister tell me how that will affect this Estimate? Does it mean that before the end of the year we shall be confronted with a Supplementary Estimate to provide ourselves with stores and equipment to replace that which we thought would be available to us in Egypt, and which, because of the agreement with Colonel Nasser, is no longer available?
  Mr. Fraser: No, these stores were written off some time ago.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) raised an interesting point about haircuts for Gurkhas. I will write to him about the details. If Gurkhas wish to have their haircuts paid for by the British Army, the War Office will be delighted to find the necessary money.
  Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman will agree that he has not explained why this item should be mentioned under the paragraph in the Explanatory Notes relating to clothing services, and why, having been mentioned, there is no reference to how much is involved. Our lads, who are still suffering from the effect of "basin haircuts"—the usual Army haircuts—are not mentioned at all.
  Mr. Mulley: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has raised an important point regarding haircuts for Gurkhas and that it justifies further investigation. But I feel that the Under-Secretary should not be allowed to think that he can get away with the answer which he has given about ammunition. Last year, the Committee was asked to vote a sum of £13,300,000 and only half of that was spent. Before
  1142
  we approve this Vote we should like an assurance that the money which we are voting will be spent. It means that last year either the Ministry was asking for more money than was needed, and was proposing to waste several millions of pounds of public money, or else the Army was allowed to be under-equipped.
  That there was not sufficient ammunition is a most serious accusation to make. But either more money was asked for than was needed—and an explanation should be given about that—or, in the event of hostilities, the troops would have been short of ammunition. In the eyes of an infantryman that is a cardinal sin. Men may be allowed to go without clothing or food, but to an infantryman a shortage of ammunition is a cardinal sin. We must have an explanation.
  Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would have heard me explain what happened last year to cause this shortfall. It relates to new ammunition, new fuses and new types of tank ammunition. The breakdown was not in the old, standard ammunition, but in new ammunition which we are developing. Most of the problems relate to the Royal Ordnance Factories and are in connection with fuses and new antitank ammunition. These problems have been overcome and I can say with some certainty that when we state that we shall produce £9 million worth of ammunition, we shall do so this year, because the difficulties experienced last year have been overcome.
  Mr. Mellish: What it amounts to is that the Minister of Supply should be present answering these questions and not the Under-Secretary. It is not a case of the War Office under-ordering, but what the War Office received from the Ministry of Supply, and we know that that can be a very inefficient Department.
  Mr. Wigg: I do not wish to go into the question of the working of the Ministry of Supply. We shall be satisfied if the Under-Secretary will give an undertaking on behalf of his right hon. Friend that it is the firm intention of the War Office to spend all the money for which it is asking under this Vote; and that this year we shall not have the window dressing nonsense which finds expression in revised Supplementary Estimates.

  1143
  May I ask that Supplementary Estimates, whether revised or actual, should be shown in the future? Is it possible to indicate that a Supplementary Estimate is included and would it be asking too much to ensure that in future all Votes will have a heading which indicates whether or not the Supplementary Estimate is included?
  Mr. Fraser: So far as we can, we shall always see in the future that it is stated whether a Supplementary Estimate is included or not. Clearly, it should be put down as in Vote I, Supplementary Estimate, perhaps in larger type so that attention will be drawn to it. I do not know whether we can always guarantee to do it as in Vote I this year. I will, however, see that it is put more clearly next year to show whether there is any disparity in comparing like with like. There is no need to answer the first question put to me, because I and my right hon. Friends are determined to see that what we are asking to be spent shall be spent.
  Mr. Fernyhough: If I may revert to the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave me, it is true that the stores to which I referred may be written off, but they were stores which were available to the British forces had they been necessary. They are no longer available. The War Office must have thought, when maintaining that base, that some day these supplies might be necessary, and to that extent this is a short fall. I wondered whether it would be necessary to make up for that shortfall, because of the agreement that we have signed with Colonel Nasser. before the year was out.
  Mr. Fraser: No, it will not.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £53,680,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 8. Works, Buildings and Lands
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £30,230,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  6.33 p.m.
  Dr. Bennett: I have one small but rather sad observation to make on this Vote. It is the disagreeable experience which my constituents have had in respect of the closing by the War Office of a road called Wallington Hill, in the neighbourhood of Fareham. So far as I and my constituents are aware, this road was barricaded suddenly and without notice because it was on War Office land, and we in this part of Hampshire are in what might be called occupied Hampshire.
  It was a very rude thing to do, in my opinion. I believe that some public-spirited persons broke down this barrier and now there is an erection of pipes, tubes and girders which would stop anything but one of my hon. Friend's tanks. I should like to know what was the cost of the erection of this reinforced barrier, in the first instance, and the subsequent estimate for its removal. I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether in future when roads that have been used by leave by the public across War Office land are to be closed notice will be given and some attempt made to accommodate the local people concerned. This has been a great error in a neighbourhood on which my hon. Friend relies a good deal for recruiting.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I will look into it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £30,230,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £5,840,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: In connection with page 154 of this Vote—Payments in respect of the Suez Canal Base Contracts—my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) referred to the question of stores and said that as a result of the agreement with Colonel Nasser this country has lost about £100 million. We

  1145
  have just wiped that off. It is only part of the settlement on Suez. I would ask the Under-Secretary whether this £3,000 Estimate for 1959–60 is the last of it. Is there more to come, or is this going on continuously?
  Vote 9, Subhead 0 (2) refers to "Regimental Allowances and Entertainment Expenses". When we look at the Explanatory Notes, we find that this particular cost also concerns cleaning equipment. This is a charge which is made for regimental allowances and entertainment expenses, and I should like to know whether the Under-Secretary can give an assurance that the vast bulk of this money will be for regimental allowances and not for entertainment and cleaning equipment. This all comes under this subhead and it might give him a chance to break it down and tell us more about it.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: I want to raise two very serious and important matters. On the 14th September, 1857, Captain Robert Shebbeare won the Victoria Cross. This gallant officer volunteered for service in China and was engaged in the attack on Taku Forts. Unfortunately, he was stricken with illness and, after being embarked on the "Emu" for the United Kingdom, he died at sea off Shanghai on 16th September, 1860.
  His Victoria Cross, one of the earliest of these medals to be awarded, was, needless to say, cherished by his family. To say that it was an heirloom is to put it mildly. This very gallant officer, who had given his life for his country, was awarded this medal but did not live to be honoured by having it presented to him by the Queen, and his descendants received it.
  In 1949, this medal was loaned to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst Museum, together with the Mutiny medal. There it remained until the time approached for celebrating the 100th year of the award of this decoration. The family who loaned it—and I have seen a copy of a letter acknowledging the decoration—asked for it back, and it could not be found. Various excuses were offered. I corresponded with the Secretary of State and the family corre-
  1146
  sponded with the Commandant and were told that it was lost.
  Nothing in the Army is lost. Anything that is lost has been won, or, to put it in barrack-room language, someone pinched it. That is what happened. I do not know who it was, but someone stole the medal. It was a scandalous state of affairs. I will not go into the question of the medal itself or what the Secretary of State for War should do. What I am concerned with is the maladministration of the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. The Commandant wrote to the family and said that is was last seen in 1952 or 1953.
  There have been several commandants and a number of curators. In that establishment is gathered all that is best and greatest in the British Army. It is where officers are trained. Do they never have a take-over or any checking of equipment? When the present Commandant took over, did he not have a check to see what private and public stores he was taking over? This is no idle matter. It concerns a matter which is very dear to the Shebbeare family, but it would be just as important if it were the medal of the humblest of those who served in Her Majesty's Forces.
  What matters here is that the former C.I.G.S., Field Marshal Templer, is devoting the rest of his life to establishing an Army museum. I wish him well. It is a great enterprise which may do a great deal to make the public realise what they have owed to the Army in the past. It is not the way to behave to borrow a medal of this kind, of great sentimental and intrinsic value, and then to say that it has been lost. What were the circumstances in which it was lost? No doubt a court of inquiry was held, the police were informed and inquiries made.
  This is not the only thing that has been lost at Sandhurst. I have a newspaper cutting here, of which I unfortunately have not the date. It says:
  "'LOCK UP PISTOLS'—SANDHURST ORDER.
  All pistols, antique, to be locked away. That is the order for the day at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, after the latest 'arms' raid.
  A cleaner noticed that ten of the pistols, which date from the time of Waterloo, 144 years ago, had gone from the wall of Old College Ante Room. Last month 16 disappeared. Several hundred of them are on loan to the Academy from the Tower of London."

  1147
  I have another cutting here from the Evening News of 15th January, 1959. It says:
  "Many of the 1,000 antique pistols on the walls of the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst are to be taken down for storage and safe keeping following the theft of pistols worth over £300 in the past few months, said Colonel D. Taylor, Commanding Officer, today."
  I do not want to make heavy weather of this, but in view of what has happened—a considerable number of people now know what has happened at Sandhurst—would the Minister be good enough to give an assurance, not only to me but to the Committee, that there has been a most careful examination into the administration at Sandhurst, not only with a view to seeing, needless to say, that the thefts will stop, which goes without saying, but that the internal economy of Sandhurst is efficient and shall be so organised that whoever happens to be Commandant at a particular moment shall know for a certainty that the public stores he is supposed to be responsible for are actually there?
  In my day, if an officer commanding an unarmed company of a Pioneer Corps had behaved in this way he would have been relieved of his command. I see the Minister of Defence on the Government Front Bench. I have no doubt that the officer responsible in this case will be promoted, because he is qualified to be one of the right hon. Gentleman's military advisers. This is one of the deplorable things that happen in the Armed Forces. We find them over and over again. When one gets at the heart of things one finds. not the glorious pictures painted by White Papers and Defence Estimates, but the grossest of maladministration. This seems to be a perfect example of it.
  I turn to another matter. There is justice in the world, and it is only just that the Under-Secretary of State for War should be here to answer the questions I am now going to put before him. I remember that on the eve of the Suez operation he said, "Smash Nasser now". Some 700 of our fellow-countrymen have paid the price for that operation. They were gentlemen, many of them of high technical ability, who undertook to serve on a two-year contract in the Suez base. The base contained public stores which have been estimated at from £60 million
  1148
  to £100 million and were worth at any rate a very considerable sum.
  These 700 men, having signed contracts for two years, began their service in the Suez base. If they had been cattle they could not have been treated with less concern by the crowd of criminals on the Government Front Bench who undertook the Suez operation—an operation unplanned, ill-prepared, inefficient and fore doomed to failure from the very word "go". The Government never even undertook the elementary precaution of caring tuppence what happened to the lives and well-being of those 700 men. So far as the Government were concerned those men could have been dropped into the Canal. Nobody in the Government worried about them.
  I am told upon reliable information that these men on the spot had a pretty shrewd idea of what was cooking. They went to the consular authorities and, needless to say, they got no change. I can verify that, because shortly before the fun and games started out there I went to the British consul. The place was full of rumours, but I could get no information. Some of these 700 men got lorries and stocked them up with food. It would have been possible for them to escape. but they were loyal. They had signed contracts. They behaved in accordance with the finest traditions of our race, although not the finest traditions of the Tory Front Bench.
  They stuck to their jobs and they were imprisoned by the Egyptians. They were spat at and they were kept short of food. They were lousy and unwashed. Finally they were released. We would think that the criminals who had put them in this position would at least have done something, if only out of their own pockets, to make up to those men for the indignities which they had suffered. Instead the Government appointed assessors to find out what they had lost. They offered them six months' salary on a take-or-leave-it basis.
  Note a difference. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will remember this. The contracting firms who had gone into the Suez base were given six years' compensation. I think it was right that they should have it. Before they ever went to Suez they asked for a contract on a cost-plus basis for six years. That is what they got. The employees

  1149
  who had gone to prison on behalf of hon. and right hon. Gentleman on the Government benches got six months' compensation.
  The crowning act of indignity—I believe hon. Members do not know this. and I could hardly believe it myself—was that these chaps had some of their bank balances sequestrated. The Government allowed them to have their bank balances made up, but on one condition. which was that the Income Tax they owed to the Egyptian authorities should be deducted from those balances. So we have the hon. Gentleman who said "Smash Nasser now" in his present job where he acts as a tax collector for Nasser. This is what happened, and this is what is called "A policy through strength".
  These men have been treated scandalously, shockingly, inefficiently. Whenever again are we to civilianise bases overseas when this is how we treat men? They are burning with a deep sense of grievance. They left their motor cars behind. They were told by Brigadier Helmi of the Egyptian Army at El Gapp on 21st December, 1956, when they were going into Port Said, We are going to sell your motor cars and take your assets towards the cost of the damage which the British have done at Port Said." There was no justice in that. Government supporters, before they blow their brains out, should turn their pockets out and sell all they have and give to the poor of Port Said. The Egyptians took the motor cars and sold them at knock-put prices in Suez or in Port Said.
  Where the cars had been held on hire-purchase terms the Government even deducted, on behalf of Egyptian garages, from the balances they gave these men the money which was outstanding on the hire-purchase agreements. Could indignity go further? That is one of the products of the policy through strength. We have Blue Streaks and V-bombers and nuclear bombs, but our fellow-citizens are treated as criminals, and the Government accept the fact without a bleat.
  The facts are well known. I have written to the Foreign Secretary. I have written to the Secretary of State for War. He insists that there is a difference between the firm and the men. That is obviously Tory philosophy. There is a
  1150
  difference between the men who make the money and those who make it for them. I hope that hon. Members on this side will join with me in raising their voices in demanding justice for these men. They should have been treated in the same way as the firms. I wonder what the Daily Mail and Mr. Randolph Churchill and the Daily Express think about the idea that the British Government act as Nasser's tax collector.
  I hope that even at this eleventh hour, on behalf of the Government—not for the honour of th Conservative Party, but for the honour of Britain—the Under-Secretary will agree to treat these men with generosity for the humiliating position in which they were put, not as a result of their own actions, but because of the criminal act of right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I will deal, first, with the question raised by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) about regimental allowances and entertainment expenses. As the hon. Member will recall, it was part of the recommendation made by Sir James Grigg's Committee that commanding officers should have larger funds available to them. It is impossible, at this stage, without referring to individual units, to say how much of this money is to be spent on entertainment and how much on cleaning. I recall to the hon. Member, however, that we are this year introducing a webbing equipment which cannot be cleaned. I think that the common sense of commanding officers will see that a fair proportion of this money is spent on activities which are essential to the physical, moral and other wellbeing of the troops.
  The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) raised three main points. The first was the question of Captain Shebbeare's lost V.C. I would very much like to talk to the hon. Member about this afterwards. I fully agree that it is a bad matter. It is certainly being investigated.
  My right hon. Friend and myself are most concerned by the series of losses from Sandhurst. Full inquiry is being made. I can only assure the hon. Member that we are looking into this deeply to try to find out what is wrong and how these losses have arisen.

  1151
  The third and last point raised by the hon. Member was the important one of the Suez Contractors Employees' Association. That, I think, was the origin of the hon. Member's information. While having sympathy with the case as expressed by the hon. Member, I must inform him that the facts as I have them are somewhat different concerning the number of years' compensation given to the firms and the compensations to the individual men. My information is that most of the men accepted the compensation terms offered to them and that those compensation terms were—
  Mr. Wigg: Surely the hon. Gentleman is far too generous and decent to use that argument. These men had no alternative. They were told, "Either take this or you will get nothing." That is not acceptance.
  Mr. Fraser: I will certainly look into the matter again, but some of my information is contrary to that of the hon. Member.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £5,840,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 10. Non-effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £36,980,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: On the last Vote, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) spoke of a lost Victoria Cross. I want to talk about those who still have the V.C. The question has been raised before and we now have the chance to raise it again. Under the subhead, it is estimated that a sum of £2,650 is all that will be required for pensions for the existing holders of the Victoria Cross. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) is not present, because he has a particular interest in this matter. I know that some hon. Members opposite also are keen about it.
  1152
  We read in the Explanatory Notes that the Victoria Cross was instituted in 1856 and that
  "Recipients other than commissioned officers are entitled to an annuity (normally £10, which may be increased in certain circumstances)."
  When was the £10 first instituted? I should be horrified to think that it was as far back as 1856. Because of the fall in the value of money alone, the figure should now be nearer £100. I gather that the "certain circumstances" are when it is proved that the holder is in a state of poverty. We have had only one or two cases of distress. The matter is worth considering again and I ask the Under-Secretary whether he cannot assure us that under the subhead it is practicable to be a little more generous.
  Mr. H. Fraser: My impression is that the payment was instituted later than the introduction of the Victoria Cross. Two years ago, it was declared that more generous payments could be made to holders of the decoration, but, as the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) and others will know, no change was made in the standard payment awarded.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: I wish to raise the question of the Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, which I hold, and the Meritorious Service Medal, which I do not hold. Many servants of the House of Commons have the M.S.M. It is given on a rota system, but one has to be about 90 before he gets the gratuity. Is it not time that the Minister considered the procedures which are followed in this case and whether it is not possible to step up the gratuity, which is only £10? This amount was fixed many years ago, when the value of money was much greater. If £10 was right then, it should be nearer £50 today.
  A man is registered for the M.S.M. and eventually his turn comes, about twenty years after he has left the Service. Is it not possible, when his turn comes and he gets the medal, for him to get his gratuity? At present, he waits twenty years for the medal and then waits his turn again for the gratuity. If he gets it before he is 90, he is lucky. I do not plead for myself. I have no hope of getting either the medal or the gratuity. I certainly would not want it without the gratuity.

  1153
  For those who are eligible, however, will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to consider the method of award of the M.S.M. and the amount of the gratuity, as well as the Long Service Medal, the qualification for which is eighteen years of undetected crime? If the gratuity for this was £5 before the war, should it not now be £25 or even £50?
  Mr. H. Fraser: I will look at both points, although without making any commitment to take action. Concerning the Meritorious Service Medal, my own feeling is that there should be some adjustment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £36,980,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 11. Additional Married Quarters
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Fernyhough: I have raised previously the problem of men who have given long service to the Army and who, at the expiration of that service, find themselves without a home. I think that the only thing worse than being without a home is being without a home and without a job, and these men generally find themselves in both categories. What is the War Office doing to help men who, on completion of their service, are turned out of Army accommodation and have nowhere to go?
  I have repeatedly asked that the War Office should make funds available to local authorities so that the local authorities can build houses which would be specially allocated to men in this category, but the War Office argues that it has not the necessary power. I want the Minister to understand that if he came to the House and asked for the powers they would be readily granted. It is unfair to expect local authorities to give these men special priority, because the authorities are in great difficulty and have very long waiting lists.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): Order. May I remind the hon. Member that this Vote does not cover local authorities, but deals purely with Army housing? I allowed him to say a few words about it, but he must not go deeply into the question because it is not covered by the Vote.
  Mr. Fernyhough: The local authority cannot give these men special priority, because it has many other claimants. Moreover, the Army has the moral responsibility for them, and I am pointing out that the War Office ought to ask the House for the necessary powers in order to provide accommodation for men who have given long service and who, at the end of it, are thrown out on the streets with nowhere to go.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I do not know whether this is in order—I doubt it—but perhaps I may reply briefly. This matter must remain the interest and the prescriptive right of local authorities. The Army cannot take on this type of organisation. The Army must provide pensions and financial help to those who have served it, but it is not for the Army to provide housing accommodation for those who have left its service. Its chief job at present is to provide housing for those serving, whether married or single.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: I have much sympathy with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). The Army has gone a long way to gel as many long-serving soldiers as possible by means of the very fine pensions which have been introduced. There is every encouragement for a man to serve for twenty-two years in the Army. The young man at 20 who joins the Army and serves for twenty-two years is only 42 at the end of his service and, apart from employment, one of his biggest problems then is the absence of a home.
  The Army is being very good about this in giving some financial help. A terminal grant of £700 is given. Nevertheless, we must show some imagination here. I had a letter from the War Office explaining why it could not set up the apparatus of a hire-purchase scheme for housing for men. Probably this would be difficult. Nevertheless, I think that the time has come when we ought seriously to consider how we can help these men

  1155
  in establishing themselves in civilian life after they have left the forces. One of the biggest deterrents to recruiting today —and we are all keenly interested in recruiting—is what happens at the end of a man's Army career.
  I do not ask the Under-Secretary of State to reply tonight, because it would be unfair to do so, but I leave the point with him. If we give a guarantee of some help, for instance, by low loan charges, at the end of a man's service, it will eventually lead to our having more recruits at the beginning.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £100. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1958–59
  Resolved,
  That a supplementary sum, not exceeding,, 9900,010, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

  SCHEDULE

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  Vote

  £

  £

  1. Pay, &c., of the Army

  7,190,010

  1,630,000

  2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces

  1,500,000

  —

  3. War Office

  150,000

  —

  4. Civilians (Revised Sum)

  Cr.

  790,000

  370,000

  5. Movements

  625,000

  865,000

  6. Supplies, &c.

  Cr.

  1,590,000

  —

  7. Stores

  Cr.

  14,900,000

  1,250,000

  8. Works, Buildings and Lands

  Cr.

  1,150,000

  *—210,000

  9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  8,860,000

  —

  10. Non-Effective Services

  1,005,000

  11. Additional Married Quarters

  —

  *—135,000

  Total, Army (Supplementary), 1958–59

  £900,010

  £3,770,000

  * Deficit.

NAVY ESTIMATES

  Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £64,899,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I should like to ask one or two questions on this Vote, but before doing so I want to comment on the fact that as a percentage of naval expenditure this Vote has tended to diminish. It represents about 15 per cent. of the total Navy Estimate. I make that comment because of the remarks which are often made about increasing costs being due to increasing wages. That is not borne out in the Navy Estimates.
  Am I in order in asking what progress is being made in the Navy in respect of its consideration of the Report on Lower Deck Structure? This has been before the Admiralty for some time and it might make some difference, although not a considerable difference, to this Vote if the Admiralty made certain recommendations or certain changes during the current year. To what extent is the Navy bound in its consideration of the structure of the lower deck by the policy which has been pursued since the war of trying to equate branches of the Navy with branches of the other Services—a policy about which I think the Treasury feels much more keenly than does the Navy?
  I want also to draw attention to Subhead L, dealing with education allowances. This is increasing enormously this year and is almost four times as large as it was last year. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us something about it. What interests me particularly about the allowances is that in the Estimates for this year £275,000 is on account of children of officers while only £45,000 is on account of children of seamen and marines. When we remember that there are seven or eight times as many men as there are officers, this seems to be disproportionate, and it certainly draws attention to the fact that we have still a long way to go before we have equality of opportunity in education.

  1157
  Is the Minister satisfied that the men of the Navy know of these provisions? Possibly they do, but I am not certain. Is the hon. Member satisfied that these provisions are well known? It would help us if we could be given some idea of the number of seamen and marines who are expected to benefit this year. The hon. Member may not be able to give that figure, but it would help us in an appreciation of the situation if we had some idea of the numbers involved.
  7.9 p.m.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): Dealing first with the question about education allowances, I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the whole Committee welcomed the recommendations of the Grigg Committee in this matter and welcomed still more the Government's acceptance of those recommendations. I remember making an impassioned speech on this issue from the back benches about three or four years ago, asking that the allowances should be made more realistic and that they should start not at 11, but at nine, so that a child had a chance of continuity of education before the 11-plus examination.
  This is a very considerable step forward. The Estimate for which we are asking the Committee is very much what might describe as a "guestimate", because it is impossible to say how many officers and ratings will wan: to take up the new facilityes. If the hon. Member looks at the Supplementary Estimate he will find that in the current year we underestimated considerably. Instead of £.84.000, which the allowances were expected to cost, they cost, in fact, £134,000. Our guess is that in the coming year it will cost £320,000.
  The hon. Gentleman will observe that we have increased the officers' allowance two and a half times—that is only a guess —and we have increased the ratings' allowance four and a half times, which suggests that we believe that more ratings will take the chance of educating their children under this scheme. The scheme starts on 8th April. when the allow-z rice goes up from £75 to £150. I have not the figures by me of the number of people who are expected to apply, and perhaps we can leave that point. I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
  1158
  It is not true to say that there is not scope and opportunity. It is just a question of the way in which ratings on the lower deck and officers wish to educate their children. I hope that we shall find seamen and marines applying in greater numbers.
  I was also asked what progress was being made. The Committee on the Structure of the Lower Deck has recently made an interim Report, which is at present under consideration. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, it is a tremendous problem.
  7.12 p.m.
  Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port): I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to Vote 1, page 20, Subhead Z. I wish to speak about appropriations-in-aid. I understand that naval recruiting has been very good. It is a great pity that the amount of money allowed should have been cut down from £120,000 to £80,000. Surely it is better for those who are not happy in the Service to be able to leave it by purchasing their way out.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Lady is not in order in discussing appropriations-in-aid under the Estimate.
  7.13 p.m.
  Dr. Reginald Bennett: I do not wish to he the cause of the truncation of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). If she has any other points to raise—
  Miss Vickers: No.
  Dr. Bennett: —I feel sure that when she has recovered from her consternation she will he able to make them.
  If it is the pleasure of the Chair, I wish to raise one or two points which have come to my knowledge very recently, even yesterday, about the officers and men of the Reserve Fleet. I discovered one or two points while visiting my old friend H.M.S. "Guardsvan", that mighty ship which still dominates the upper reaches of Portsmouth Harbour. The first point is the astounding technical knowledge required of the ratings employed in the maintenance of these ships that are on what might be called immediate readiness reserve. I find that the ships are kept in such a condition that the men on board

  1159
  genuinely regret the fact that they may from time to time have to go into dockyard hands for refits in order to modernise them partially and in different departments. The men regret having their beautifully clean ships spoilt and the standard of maintenance reduced by a refit. That is a fine testimony to the way in which these chaps are maintaining. these first line reserve ships.
  The point that I want to make on this is about the senior ratings, chief petty officers and petty officers, who are doing this highly technical work, as my hon. Friend will well know, in the radio, radar and other such divisions of the ship where very experienced men must be employed. I believe that there is a reluctance at the moment to employ chief petty officers and petty officers in their fifth five-year engagement, or even their sixth five-year engagement, because it is thought that, if they were embodied in the crew in the event of an emergency when the ship had to return to sea, they would constitute a substantial bar to advancement for the younger ratings on active service who hope to achieve the rank of petty officer or chief petty officer. I know that some of these men are so employed, as I have had the simplest of all ways of finding out. I believe that there is a reluctance on the part of my hon. Friends' Department to employ them in suitable numbers, perhaps as supernumeraries, throughout the whole of the Reserve Fleet, where a man whose time has otherwise largely expired could spend his last years on keeping in the most magnificent trim the highly technical gadgetry of these most complex ships.
  My second point is on a somewhat more cheerful note. While on board this great ship, H.M.S. "Vanguard", I discovered that while she has now reverted to a purpose which we will all agree in the House is more suitable, namely, that of being a very appropriate accommodation and training ship while her life continues, she will in time have to be substituted by other no doubt smaller vessels. Nobody wants that time to be hastened in order that any excessive number of changes are brought about. In other words, if cruisers are to become flagships of the Reserve Fleet, any shift from H.M.S. "Vanguard" should not take place until such cruisers
  1160
  can be made available as will have a long life in the job.
  A point I have to mention about the conditions of service in this ship is the little but very delicate matter of the understanding with the Treasury on the officers' counterpart to "Nelson's Blood", "Pusser's bubbly"—the duty—free privileges in the wardroom. I believe that these privileges will terminate in a few months' time in H.M.S. "Vanguard", as she is clearly in a low state of readiness for action, regardless of whether she is suitable.
  Can my hon. Friend take a fresh grip on this subject and see if he can reach an understanding with his opposite numbers in the Treasury about the designation of ships to be entitled to duty-free privileges? It is a tricky problem, because clearly there are large numbers of ships almost ready for sea which are almost uninhabited. Also, ships which are inhabited may not be, as at present, particularly ready for sea. Her Majesty's Customs may feel that ships that are not particularly ready for sea are not particularly suitable for off-shore privileges. May I ask that the designation, de-designation, un-de-designation and re-unde-designation of these ships shall he taken firmly in hand so that the Treasury have no doubt which ships likely to be inhabited as depot ships, and also which ships being nearly ready for sea, can decently have these duty-free privileges.
  7.18 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I must confess to being in some difficulty, because the matter I want to raise comes partly under Vote 1, partly under Vote 6 and partly under Vote 10, all of which are due for consideration tonight. I cannot say with truth that this matter comes exclusively under any one of those Votes, but I must be guided by you, Mr. Hoy, and by the rules of order.
  The point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary is the staffing of the Royal Navy Engineering College at Manadon, which strictly speaking does not come under this Vote, although the pay of those concerned does and the establishment is covered by Vote 6, which covers scientific services and therefore scientific training, and the bricks and mortar of the establishment are no doubt comprised

  1161
  under Vote 10, which we will be considering later. For the convenience of the Committee it may be simpler to raise this point at an early stage.
  The Temporary Chairman: If, as the hon. and gallant Member says, his subject is educational, it might come much more appropriately under Vote 5.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I understand that Vote 5 is not to be considered tonight, Mr. Hoy.
  The Temporary Chairman: I certainly cannot see how this comes under Vote 1, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell me how it does I shall, of course. be delighted to listen to him.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I submit that it comes under Vote 1 because it concerns the pay of the officers who staff this establishment.
  The Temporary Chairman: I do not know how far the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to go, but this Vote concerns pay only, and not conditions.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: If I may proceed, Mr. Hoy, perhaps you will be good enough to stop me if I overstep the limits.
  In many of these establishments there are staffs of professional officers. That is very right and proper when the training is of such a nature that it needs to be done by officers of the active list of the Royal Navy. There comes a time, however, for scientific training, when the staff, in the opinion of some, should be civilian staff brought in—professors lent by universities, teachers who are not naval officers and the like—rather than exclusively professionally naval—
  The Temporary Chairman: I know that the hon. and gallant Member is having some difficulty, but I must point out that those people do not come within this Vote, neither does training. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will riot have an opportunity on Vote 5, but perhaps he may get it when Vote 6 is debated.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Thank you Mr. Hoy. In that case, I will await an opportunity on that Vote.
  7.22 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: Of two questions that I wish to ask my hon. Friend the first is whether there is to be any change during the coming year in the policy concerning Supplementary List officers. Is it intended to broaden the field of their employment, or is it still intended to confine them to aviation duties? I ask because there is some reference in the Explanatory Notes to the difficulty of obtaining officers with the necessary qualifications from the Dartmouth entry. It would repay the effort necessary to find out whether there are some technical jobs in the Navy that could be performed far more economically, and just as efficiently, by officers on the Supplementary List as by entry officers on a permanent career basis.
  My second question refers to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday when he moved Vote A. He then referred to the changed qualifications for the entry of officers into Dartmouth. I presume, Mr. Hoy that it is in order to speak on this subject, because this is the Vote by which those officers are paid—
  The Temporary Chairman: That may be so, but a study of their conditions certainly does not come within the Vote. I think that here we are pretty narrowly confined to pay itself, and not to conditions.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Then perhaps I can keep just within the bounds of order by asking whether my hon. Friend is satisfied that money is not to be wasted on this Vote by taking in under the new rules officers with insufficient qualifications.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) referred to H.M.S. "Vanguard", which, as he rightly commented, is in the lower state of readiness. It would not be right, under this Vote, to engage in a long debate about duty-free liquor. I would not wish to rob the Committee of that enjoyment, but I also would not wish to rob the hon. Gentleman of his duty-free liquor, which might be the result of a long debate on the subject.

  1163
  He also paid a well-deserved tribute to the standard achieved, and the pride that people feel on the ships at a high state of reserve. This is the result of the very wise policy of leaving the skeleton crews in their ships for some time so that the men feel that they are their ships, and that, in an emergency, they will sail with them. This has paid an abundant dividend, as I have seen for myself. They take a tremendous pride in keeping the ship very clean, and in a high state of readiness.
  I should like to investigate my hon. Friend's point about allowing chief petty officers, particularly in the skilled trades —I think that he mentioned the electronics trade—to serve in that capacity during their fifth and sixth engagements. It is true that, with C.P.O.s generally, we are having to restrict those who wish to continue on a sixth engagement, in order, to some extent, to clear the promotion ladder and improve the career prospects of the younger men. I shall certainly look at the question whether we are screening those billets, and not employing the men in the later stages in that capacity.
  I do not know quite how to reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) while keeping within the bounds of order. About 50 per cent. of the serving officers —the "schoolies"—come from Manadon. It is difficult to say more and keep within order, but of that staff I can say that 50 per cent. are officers who come under this Vote.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) asked whether the Supplementary List was in any way to be broadened. No change in the employment of Supplementary List officers is planned in the next year. Their ranks will continue to be restricted to aviators, but the position might change in a few years' time, and we will certainly consider his representations.
  I wondered at one time whether he intended to refer to the Supplementary List or to the Special List—the short-service officers or, in Service parlance, the branch officers—and whether those officers could serve in the capacity mentioned. In any case, no change is in-
  1164
  tended for the present, but we continue to have it under consideration.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £64,899,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £12,794,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I have only one question to ask and it refers to Subhead M. This Vote seems to have increased by 50 per cent. this year, and as there are now 6,000 fewer people serving in the Navy it would be interesting to have an explanation of that increase. I do not know whether or not it results from changes in uniform—something which, by the way, it is not a very good thing for the Admiralty to have done. That type of thing creates a certain amount of ill feeling. I do not want to press this matter unduly, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to let us know something about it.
  7.31 p.m.
  Miss Vickers: I wish to raise questions under Subhead M and Subhead K which deal with clothing and mess traps. I see that the amount for gratuities for civilian clothing to the W.R.N.S. on discharge is put down as £20,000, the same as for the current year, but gratuities in aid of outfits to petty officers, seamen and reservists have gone down from £38,000 to £27,000. I presume I shall be told that there are fewer of them, but I do not see why the gratuities for the W.R.N.S. who leave the Service should be the same as in the previous year.
  The same amount is put down this year as last year for washing and other miscellaneous charges. If the number has decreased, as would appear from the amount allowed for kit upkeep allowances, I should have thought it necessary to change that also. I notice that the amount for

  1165
  soap and tobacco is less, but for the other materials it is not less.
  I should like also to draw attention to the mess traps item, which is considerably down. I hope this does not mean that we are not going to put into our ships more modern gear. All ships should have the extra washing-up machines and all the necessary equipment to make work on board much easier. Also in the furnishing of married quarters the standard should not be allowed to become lower.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: A point which I proposed to raise on the Supplementary Estimates I shall raise now, as the matter has been brought to our notice. I should like to say a few words about it because there might be a very simple explanation of the whole matter. When one looks in page 22 at the wages table, particularly for the men, a very substantial decrease is indicated. Perhaps the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary may look at some other figures as well, which indicate what I have in mind.
  There is a substantial decrease in the payments made and also a decrease in the allowances paid in the case of married men, which suggests that there has been a rather impressive reduction in the number of men employed in the Service, yet, when we come to Subhead M, we find that the increase for clothing, soap and tobacco and allowances in lieu of clothing has considerably increased for the period. I wonder what the explanation for this increase is when there is an apparent decrease in the number of ratings and officers. It is evidently not in soap and tobacco; one cannot imagine that the increase is on those items only.
  Is some higher clothing allowance paid? I should be pleased to think that is the probable reason, because I had the experience of trying to buy clothes on the very meagre allowance given us in the First World War. It was very difficult to dress decently on the allowances given then. If this is an increase in the allowance for clothing, one would welcome it, but some explanation should be forthcoming.
  I very much regret that I was not present yesterday to take part in the debate on the Supplementary Estimates. I had an engagement in Wales. I should have liked to have taken part because
  1166
  I regret that so few hon. Members take an interest in the affairs of the Royal Navy. Whatever its functions may be in the modern age, it is a fact that it was the medium whereby the lives of the people of this country were secured in two world wars and it merits great interest on the part of all hon. Members.
  7.35 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I wish to pursue the question of the increase in the money required for clothing under this Vote and to ask what is the exact nature of the expenditure. I understand from announcements in the Press that a certain amount of changing of the uniform in the Service is in progress. Can my hon. Friend tell us what the changes amount to, whether they are complete or are still in progress, and whether the full cost of the changes is disclosed by these Estimates?
  I understand that a certain number of junior ratings, whose class of uniform I forget, are now being changed into blue jackets. Does that involve the abandonment of large stocks of uniform and is expenditure under this head allowed for in the Estimates? Secondly, I do not know whether it is in order to ask, but I should like to know the reason for the change, which must involve a great deal of expenditure. Does anyone really suppose that these young ratings prefer to be dressed as "blue jackets"? I am bound to say that those whom I have asked have expressed a rather emphatic view in the reverse direction. Perhaps we could be enlightened on the subject.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. W. Griffiths: Hon. Members are rightly concerned to seek from the Minister an explanation about the increase in this expenditure, but one class of case certainly has not incurred expenditure from the Admiralty. I take the opportunity of referring to a constituency case, although it may be typical of a kind of case.
  It concerns a man who was a Regular sailor who parted company with the Navy, I think by mutual consent. Had he continued in the Navy he had reached the stage at which I think he would not have been a satisfactory servant. I am not concerned for a moment to say very much about that—I apologise to the Minister for springing a personal case on

  1167
  him without notice—except to say that it was not in any way a question of the sailor being involved in criminal proceedings.
  When discharged, this man was sent from the depot with the very minimum of clothing. When I say "minimum" I really mean that. To the best of my recollection it was never denied, in correspondence with the Minister—not the present one, but the previous one—that the sailor had to do the best he could to obtain from mess traps and charitable sources enough clothing to take him to his home. When he attempted to make a new beginning in civilian life, his parents —ordinary working people who could not easily embark on the expenditure of considerable sums—were obliged to borrow to enable their son to have sufficient clothing to look presentable at the employment exchange or to appear before a prospective employer.
  If the Minister can tell us that any expenditure on clothing in future will provide in a case such as that of my constituent at least a minimum of clothing—which, I am assured, was not the fact in this case—he will certainly have my sympathy.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Howard (St. Ives): I wish to put two very short points to my hon. Friend. First, on the point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) made about clothing, I wonder whether my hon. Friend could say whether there is a new design of the seaman's cap, which I think has been under discussion for some time, and whether some standard type has been evolved?
  The other point is about mess accommodation in ships, which I mentioned in the general debate yesterday. Unfortunately, there was not sufficient time for an answer to be given to the point I raised. Is it a fact that dish-washing machines are being installed in all the larger ships, and, if so, in what types of ship they are being installed today.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Before dealing with the other questions raised in this debate, perhaps I should refer, first, to the point raised by the hon. Member for
  1168
  Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), who said that the numbers involved in Vote 2, Subhead A, "Salaries and Allowances", have come down. I should explain that they have come down because we have been concentrating our victualling yards. This is part of our general realignment of the Fleet and part of the rundown of shore establishments for a smaller streamlined fleet. We have concentrated on three victualling yards in the eastern area, five in the southern area, three in the south-western area, three in the northern area and three in the Scottish area. Then, we have abroad victualling yards at Malta, Gibraltar, Singapore and Hong Kong. There has been a streamlining, and that, to some extent, accounts for the rundown in Subhead A.
  If I may now turn to page 28 of the Estimates, Subhead M, which deals with clothing, etc., four hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that this subhead has risen almost 50 per cent. Even this figure does not in any way reflect the actual cost of clothing. What we are doing now, and have been doing for many years, is living on our fat. We have been living on our stocks of clothing, and we are coming to a time when this figure will have to start going up. If the figure were to reflect the replacement cost of the items under this subhead, the figure would be nearly £3 million, instead of the £961,000 which we find in the Estimates for the coming year.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Howard) both asked about changes made in clothing. No immediate changes are intended. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, but there is at present no new design in view for the seaman's cap.
  Now I turn to mess traps, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers). Here, again, we are living on our cutlery and glass stocks. If we were not living on stocks, the actual figures would be nearer £340,000 in the current year, instead of the £41,000 which is to be seen in the Estimates. Again, I am glad to have this opportunity of saying that it will not show any extravagance if in some future year these figures should go up very

  1169
  abruptly, when we finish the stocks, which were laid in at the time of Korea and even earlier, for a much bigger fleet. Therefore, we are coming to the time when there will be a marked increase in both these items for the same reason.
  The hon. Member for the Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) asked whether civilian clothing was provided on discharge. I should like to look at the case which he mentioned, and not answer "off the cuff", but, normally, of course, a man who has served for some time in the Royal Navy, and goes out with a pension would also go out with a terminal grant, which, under present arrangements, is about three times the annual pension. This may be very substantial indeed, running into £500 or even £700.
  However, I do not know the circumstances of this case, and would prefer to Fake it up and write to the hon. Gentleman. We would not wish it to be believed that people are discharged from he Royal Navy with nothing in which o go away, but, equally, I would have 1hought that someone who had done a long period of service would probably have provided for his future to the extent of a set of clothes for the time when he left the Navy. I think that I have now dealt with the important points which have arisen in the debate.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My hon. Friend has not referred to the point about the change in uniform which I raised, because it was only last week, when some Members of the Select Committee on Estimates visited one big naval hospital, that we certainly saw all the sick berth attendants dressed in blue jackets, and we got the impression that this change had only just been made. Actually, we misunderstood that, and that is the only point I was trying to make—whether the cost of a change of this nature is reflected in these Estimates.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should have to describe that as a little local difficulty. I was not aware that there had been a small change here, but it was not a policy change.
  Mr. Howard: Could my hon. Friend tell us something about the dish-washing machine?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is our policy to try to provide up-to-date equipment in Her
  1170
  Majesty's new ships. It is a question of space, to some extent, and I absolutely agree with the point which was made both by the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport and by the hon. Member for St. Ives that it is extremely important that we should minimise the chores and speed them up, because if things can be done by machines rather than by manpower we shall be saving space in the ships and altogether making them happier ships.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £12,794,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

    VOTE 6. SCIENTIFIC SERVICES
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £17,805,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That a sum, not exceeding £12,941,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence. purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected herewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: Having "missed the boat" on one occasion, I do not intend to miss it on this occasion. This Committee has lost a pearl in the contribution I would have made, but never mind, I will return to that question some other time.
  With respect to Vote 10, I should to ask one question, and that, of course as I think the Civil Lord will guess relates to H.M.S. "Caledonia". I should like to know whether there is any possibility of the replacement of the living accommodation being started this year This accommodation, which I think everybody who has seen it will agree is second-class, has been for many years considered to be temporary, and it is

  1171
  about time that it was replaced by permanent accommodation. This is an artificer establishment, and as artificers are difficult to recruit and to keep it is important that something should be done. I wonder whether the Civil Lord could tell us when he expects the job to he commenced.
  7.49 p.m.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had to say about the accommodation for artificer apprentices in H.M.S. "Caledonia". I appreciate his anxiety that these important members of the Navy should be well housed, but I am sure that he will realise that in these matters we must have a reasonable order of priority.
  Money is not as abundant as one would like it to be and the Admiralty's policy in this matter has been to give priority to instructional accommodation first of all. One can train a good artificer even if one has bad accommodation to live in, but one cannot train him without proper instructional facilities. Therefore, those have been given the priority. We are, however, gradually coming to the end of that programme and, without wanting to tie myself down to any definite date, within the fairly near future, but not this year, we shall be starting on building improved accommodation at "Caledonia".
  7.51 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I should like to know to what extent Vote 10 in this financial year is affected by the very welcome announcement in paragraph 106 of the First Lord's Explanatory Statement. I take it that the paragraph means that the expenditure which used to be classified under Vote 8 in respect of electric lighting and other services in buildings is now in process of being transferred to Vote 10. If that is so, I respectfully offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend for having brought about this notable reform. I understand that it was first recommended to their Lordships shortly before the First World War, but for upwards of fifty years has been successfully obstructed. It now looks as if the common sense thing has been done.
  I hope that the paragraph means that and that the Vote which we are now dis-
  1172
  cussing is on all fours with the corresponding works Votes in other Departments and that it represents the total cost of buildings and not the cost less the cost of their essential services. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that that is the meaning of paragraph 106.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: I should like to know from my hon. Friend whether there is any form of interchangeability in the provision of married quarters abroad whereby one Service which does not require all its married quarters can have pooling arrangements so that another Service which could make use of it may have that accommodation.
  Miss Vickers: I should like to know whether the new construction of married quarters for officers, ratings and certain key civilian staffs will cover under "key civilian staffs" some of the dockyard employees who are returning from Malta and Singapore. They are having great difficulty in obtaining accommodation. Are they to be included among civilian staff in the same way as ratings are to be included in the Navy staff?
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) asked whether we could not provide quarters for civilian employees coming back from abroad. I realise the difficulty in finding accommodation of this sort, particularly in the dockyard areas. We have housing committees which are set up to allocate such houses as are available either on Admiralty estates or on council estates, that is, houses which originally have been sponsored by the Admiralty. But my hon. Friend will appreciate that houses for civilian personnel could not come under the provision here. I hope that that answers her point.
  I have been asked about the pooling of married quarters. I do not think that I have come across any area yet where there is a surplus of married quarters so that this might be done, but the Services are not stupid and will not allow married quarters to remain empty if sister Services want to use them. I think, however, that the question is largely hypothetical.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) wanted to know what was happening to Votes 8 and 10. His assumption is largely correct.

  1173
  The new arrangements will not be in operation immediately in the coming financial year, but they should be fully in operation by 1960. This means that the whole of Vote 8, shore work outside the dockyard will be run by the one Department, the new Navy Works Department, which will also run Vote 10.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: It seems to me that the item for repair and maintenance under Subhead E is rather high still, considering that the total of the Vote is down to just under £13 million. It also seems rather high in relation to expenditure on major works, which no doubt is much reduced by the high appropriation-in-aid. Withtheclosing down of a number of establishments, and now that wartime arrears have been worked off, I had rather hoped that the repairs item would have been a little lower. Why has it been necessary to keep it so relatively high, as it appears to me?
  Mr. Galbraith: I am quite surprised at the comment of my hon. Friend. expected him to say the very reverse. I feel that we are not spending quite enough on repairs and maintenance. My hon. Friend referred to the backlog of repairs. but I regret to say that that still has not been put right and if anything this provision is a little on the low side. The benefits which he had hoped would come from closures has not reached us fully yet in this respect.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £12,941,000. be granted to Her Majesty. to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £8,324,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  7.57 p.m.
  Miss Vickers: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that the expenditure on telegrams, telephones
  1174
  and postage under this Vote is reduced by the large amount of £140,000. This is very creditable, considering that actually the cost of sending telegrams has gone up. I should like to know whether the increased allowance for ministers of religion means that the number has increased, or whether it means that individual ministers are receiving better pay, as I believe is the case with ministers who are not in the Services. I shall not repeat what I said yesterday, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could answer the questions, which I asked then about canteens.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I should like to have more information about Subhead J which is entitled "Finance of an Admiralty Company (S. G. Brown, Ltd.)." We are giving or advancing to this company a sum of £250,000 under terms and conditions to be decided in consultation with the Treasury. We are told that this is because of a change in the range of its products Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what this means? We want to know what are the changes in its range of products and also what is the present capital value of the company. Also it would be interesting to know the terms on which these loans to the company are negotiated.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Can my hon. Friend say a word about the rather strange increase under Subhead MM, "Instruction of Naval Personnel at Outside Establishments"? Is it because there are more pilots to be trained this year or because the charge for training them has increased?
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: First, I will answer the question of my hon. and gallant Friend about training and the cost. It is a bit of both. The cost has gone up and also, as the result of improved recruiting, particularly for the Supplementary List, more pilots will have to he trained.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked me about S. G. Brown, Limited. for which we are proposing to provide some extra money. This is a firm of instrument makers which was acquired in 1940 in order to secure better production for instruments required by the Navy. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that it is not our policy to hold on to firms of this kind which are not

  1175
  strictly connected with the naval service. Certainly 1940 seems a long way away.
  As long as we remain in control, the company is owned by the Admiralty. I regret to say that I do not know its capital value, but obviously it is substantially in excess of what we are putting in. The firm needs this money in order to expand its business. It makes complicated and delicate instruments for which we think there is a good market abroad, particularly in America. However, I do not want the Committee to think that the Admiralty wishes to hold on to the firm for ever.
  Mr. Willis: Why not?
  Mr. Galbraith: One can understand hon. Gentlemen opposite asking that question, but my hon. Friends may wonder why it is under our control at all. The answer is that we try to divest ourselves of anything ancillary to defence whenever the appropriate moment comes. That moment has not come yet. The money is needed so that the business can make the most of its opportunities, and that is why we are putting money into it.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) asked me a question about ministers of religion. She is right. The capitation fee is going up. Last night she asked me also a question about canteens and I am grateful to her for not repeating her speech this evening. I will answer the point she made then. I agree absolutely with her that the condition of our canteens is not anything like 100 per cent. of what it should be. Again, this is the old problem of not having enough money to do what we want. It is much more important that the money available to be spent on shore works should be spent on accommodation, on galleys and on those places where the sailors actually spend their time. These canteens, important though they may be, are used only for about three-quarters of an hour a day, so I am advised.
  Nevertheless, I do not want my hon. Friend to think that canteens are the Cinderella of the Service. The two in which she is particularly interested are those at Ernesettle and Bull Point. Plans to improve them are being produced at present but naturally I cannot give her any guarantee of when the work will be
  1176
  carried out. As my hon. Friend probably knows, a new canteen was built in her constituency in William Street last year, and to show the importance which the Admiralty attaches to this work in its right priority, I can tell her that an Admiralty Fleet Order was issued on the subject only this month.
  There is one other point I want to make. Anyone listening to what my hon. Friend said last night might think that the canteens were in a shocking condition. I agree that aesthetically they leave a lot to be desired, but I would point out that they come up to the proper standards of health and the demands of the factory inspectors.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £8,324,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 13. Non-effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £27,127,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I wish to make a few comments about pensions. It appears from this Estimate that the increases in pension and gratuities will not increase the Estimate; in other words, the Navy has made a gesture which does not appear to cost it any more. I do not know about the other Services.
  I am interested in what has happened, because the Grigg Committee, upon whose recommendations the new proposals were based, said that:
  "The Admiralty scheme was directly related to pay at the point of retirement…"
  The Committee said that this was apparently quite a different scheme from the one proposed by it in respect of the other Services. I am not altogether happy about the Admiralty scheme. The Report continued:
  "The Admiralty's engagement structure is, however, somewhat different from that of the other two Services, and we do not regard it as absolutely essential that the pension schemes should be identical. That being so, we suggest that the Admiralty might be left free to devise a scheme of its own to suit the needs

  1177
  of the Royal Navy, provided that the cost is roughly the same as that of applying to the Royal Navy the scheme we recommend for the other two Services."
  The recommendations of the Grigg Committee applied to the Army and the Air Force and said nothing about the Navy. The recommendations were not that the Navy should be fitted into the scheme for the Army and Air Force. Now, however, we find that each scheme is the same. It is difficult to work out the scheme in respect of individual ratings but in future, according to the White Paper dealing with the scheme, pensions will normally vary with the rank held at the time of discharge and total length of service. At present, these also vary with the length of service in each rank.
  Last night I drew attention to the effect of this upon the artificer branches, who get-very little out of the scheme. I understand that a chief artificer will get only a few shillings. I cannot give the exact figures because I have not found it possible to work them out from the White Paper, so I need more information. It can be seen that for anyone who has held the rank of chief petty officer for a long time the scheme will not provide very much. It gives little indeed to artificers.
  Why was the Navy pushed into the same scheme as the other Services? I presume that that was due to Treasury pressure. The Treasury is ridden with a desire to compel all Services to be exactly the same in respect of pay, pensions, gratuities and everything else. Personally, I am not altogether happy that that is a good policy. It may be easy from the Treasury point of view, but from the point of view of the Services it is not altogether right.
  What happened to the Admiralty scheme, and why has the Navy gone into the present scheme when the Grigg Committee recommended something quite different? It may be that the scheme which the Admiralty had in mind, as indicated in paragraph 115 of the Grigg Report, would have had the same effect. One does not know what that scheme was, but even if it had the same effect, it seems that the increase would have been of such a substantial character that the criticism which I am now making would not have arisen.
  Over many years I have spoken about pensions. For two or three years. pen-
  1178
  sions have been more important than pay. That is why I am disappointed with the results for the branches of the Navy which I have mentioned and for which it is difficult to get recruits. The hon. Gentleman knows all the problems of this matter as well as I do, and I do not want to go over them again, but I hope that we can hear something about this matter.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: I want to refer to Subhead F, under which there is a decrease of £9,500. There appears to be an anomaly. I believe that my figures are correct. A chief petty officer who retired in 1952 has a pension at the rate of £120 a year. Retirement in 1956 would have made that £200 and in 1959 it would have been approximately £360 a year.
  Three men retiring on those dates might be working in the same employment in civil life, with the added annoyance that they would all be subject to recall, possibly to the same sort of job, until they were 55. I do not know what the position would be if a Pensions (Increase) Bill were brought in this year. If there is such a Measure, I hope that the Government will consider bringing these pensions into line, because it is the children of these men who are our possible recruits for the Navy of the future.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Wilkins: My remarks closely follow those of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard). Can the hon. Gentleman remind us when the last pensions review took place? Under Subhead F, there is a reference to the Appendix to the Navy List, and to the Order in Council of 28th January, 1958, but that relates to ratings retiring prematurely. Below that is a paragraph which states that pensioners not entitled to pensions at current rates may receive increases of pension under conditions similar to those of the current Pensions (Increase) Acts.
  By sheer coincidence, one of the "old brigade" came to see me last Saturday week. He had joined the Royal Navy in 1900, at a time when, as he told me, sailors had to buy everything for themselves, their clothing, bedding and kit. He reminded me that today we provide most of those things, and in some cases

  1179
  all of them, and provide a substantial gratuity when men finish their service, giving that as an inducement to recruiting.
  This, again, is the case of the chief petty officer mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Ives. His original pension was £76 per annum. I do not want to make a personal case of this, because the same circumstances probably apply to a few other men, if not too many. His pension is now £145 per annum. I was interested in the figures which the hon. Member for St. Ives gave to the Committee. The number of people involved must be very small and, although I do not imagine that he can do it now, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether, in any pensions review, the claims of those people will be taken into account.
  If it is possible to get the information, I should like to know how many of these people are still left, how many would be affected by any pensions increase and how much such an increase would cost.
  8.16 p.m.
  Miss Vickers: There is an enormous decrease, about £¾ million, under Subhead A. I presume that that is due to a fall in numbers, but I should like to know how many men come under that heading. I should have thought that it was high time for pensions to be reviewed. We like to see savings, but not with pensions, and I should have thought that we might now be able to increase pensions for existing pensioners.
  I am glad to see from Subhead D that there has been an increase in the amount paid in pensions to widows, children, and other relatives of deceased officers. The amount has increased by £92,000. I presume that there has been a fall in numbers and that that means that some of those people have had further increases in their pensions.
  There is another decrease under Subhead F. We have to remember the magnificent service which these people have rendered the country and the fact that they see present-day recruits offered much better conditions. It also has to be remembered that the real value of their pensions has fallen. In view of their magnificent service. I think that they are due for an increase.
  There is one matter which I should like my hon. Friend to take up with the Treasury. That is the fact that pensioners
  1180
  still have to pay Income Tax on money they receive for any kind of medal which they have earned. For instance, the holder of the D.S.M. receives 6d. a day. Even that very small amount may be subject to taxation. Some pensioners are still working and have to pay tax on their pensions, which comes very harshly if they work overtime. Others may be completely retired. It is time that there was a review and that better pensions were paid for those who have given their services to their country.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) ask why the total amount under Subhead A had decreased by about £¾ million. That is not, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East suggested, because we have given with one hand and taken back with the other. It shows the amalgamation of three different sums and the net result is a decrease of £778,000. The retirement pension expenditure will increase by no less than £808,000 in the coming year.
  To offset that there will be a saving in terminal grants of £875,000. That is obvious because the rundown has been to a large extent effected. There will also be a saving on capital grant, which also comes under this heading and is more appropriately known as the "golden bowler" scheme. In this case, the saving will be about £720,000. The net result will be that although pensions will rise by £808,000 the two offsetting items will mean a total decrease on the Vote of £778,000.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East also asked what had happened to the Admiralty scheme. The Grigg Committee did not compel us to set up our own scheme; it merely suggested that we should not be dragooned into introducing the same scheme as operated in the other Services. We looked into the possibility of introducing our own scheme and discussed the matter with the other two Services. After considerable discussion we came to the conclusion that we might as well accept the same scheme as was operating in the other Services. We were trying to relate our scheme more exactly to our points of retirement, and that made our pensions largely out of step with the pensions paid by the other two Services at any particular time in a

  1181
  man's life. We thought that in the general interest we ought to row in and accept the same arrangements.
  The hon. Member was right when he said that the rating's pension is geared to his final rank multiplied by the number of years' service. He went on to say that this provision adversely affected the artificer branch. It is true that that branch will benefit only to a small extent, and chief artificers will get an increase of only about £50 a year under the new scheme. But we ought to remember that artificers have always had very much quicker promotion than people in other branches. Earlier in their Service life they are getting very much more pay, and they have always had it.
  It is one of the jealousies of other branches that the artificers have always been so well rewarded. I do not think that it is unfair, now that the new structure is being introduced, that the artificer should get less and everyone else very much more, thereby narrowing the differential at the end point. The artificer still gains in getting larger rewards earlier on in his career.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) pointed out that there are always hardships when a new pensions scheme is introduced, and I agree. There always are people who fall just on the wrong side of the date line and who quite understandably feel victimised. It may be that there are three chief petty officers who will each receive a different pension as a result of retiring in different years, but there is no easy solution to this problem.
  The Government have said that as a result of the recommendations made by the Grigg Committee in respect of all three Services they will consider, roughly every two years, pay and pensions conditions to make sure that they keep approximately in step with possible rises in the cost of living and with commensurate standards in civil life. But I do not think that we can retrospectively adjust the pensions in one branch of the public service only. The Government have made statements on this point, as did Sir James Grigg, who understood that on the narrow ground of recruiting he c3uld not recommend something which would have to be applied only in this part of the Government service. The Government are considering the question,
  1182
  but I am not in a position tonight—and certainly in a debate on a single Vote—to make any further statements.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, under Subhead D, said that she was pleased to see that the pensions and gratuities paid to widows, children and other relatives of deceased officers had risen. It is true that, with effect from the end of last year, women who had been widowed recently received an increase, but the whole of the £92,000 cannot be put down to that improvement; £57,000 of it arises from increased pensions, and another £32,000 arises from the very strange reason that the Paymaster-General has just introduced a system of mechanised payments and is also staggering them, so that they do not all come at a rush. He is trying to ensure a level loading throughout the year. The introduction of mechanised payments and the other adjustments mean that a number of people will receive an extra three week's payment in the coming year, and that accounts for £32,000 of the £92,000.
  I shall certainly consider the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol. South (Mr. Wilkins).
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £27,127,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 14. Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That a sum, not exceeding £16,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Directorate of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repairs and of certain miscellaneous expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: The third paragraph of the Explanatory Notes, on page 211, says:
  "As a result the Vote is now small, but it has been retained in order to bring out the Admiralty's continued responsibility as the production authority for the merchant shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industries and for maintaining contact with these industries on all matters of common concern."
  How far has the Admiralty faced the responsibility imposed upon it by this

  1183
  paragraph? What concern is it showing with regard to declining orders for shipbuilding, and, even more important at the moment, declining orders for ship repairing? In my constituency there is growing anxiety among those engaged in the ship-repairing industry.
  On Tyneside, in general we have a higher number of unemployed in ship repairing than we have had for many years. It does not appear that future prospects are very bright and I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether they will become brighter as a result of what the Admiralty is called on to do under this Vote. Thousands of workers in my constituency are concerned about this matter. They wish to know whether there is a future for them in the industry and it would be helpful to have some reassurance on the matter.
  In view of the competition for new orders and ship repairing, I wish to know whether the Admiralty is making representations to the Government to lift the nonsensical embargo which was placed some time ago on the provision of certain ships for foreign buyers. We know that restrictions on speed, capacity and other things were imposed for various ships because of the cold war. It was thought that some of these vessels might be converted from use for commercial purposes to naval purposes. I do not think that that argument applies in the day of the hydrogen bomb and I should like to think that the Admiralty was using its influence to ensure that any such restrictions which still apply will be removed.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will inform me about future prospects for ship repairing, particularly for Tyneside. The number of unemployed is substantial. Many men do not know of any further orders coming in and this causes great anxiety.
  8.30 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander C. Maydon: I wish to ask whether the Civil Lord can give the Committee any report of the progress of the Committee on Nuclear Powered Ships, which bears his name. Can he tell us how frequently the Committee is meeting and how many meetings have already been held? We read in the newspapers that the Russian icebreaker "Lenin" which, we are told, is nuclear powered, is almost ready to go
  1184
  to sea. The Americans are constructing a vessel which, I understand, is to be called the "Savannah" and is also nuclear powered. As we are predominantly a maritime nation I feel that this country should be in the forefront in this business.
  No one would contend that we should rush to a shipyard and lay down a vessel without giving the matter due consideration. From the very little knowledge which many of us have managed to glean on this matter we recognise that for some time ahead a vessel powered by this new form of engine is most unlikely to be an economic cargo carrier. But I do not think that is any reason to stand back and let other countries take the lead. I feel that in the near future Britain should embark on such a building project and get one of these ships afloat so that we may learn from actual experience of the difficulties and limitations which may be encountered.
  Mr. Wilkins: The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) are suffering from a large amount of unemployment due to the laying up of ships in that area. This results in pressure being exerted on some hon. Members and the argument being advanced that it is time that we thought in terms of nationalising this industry. Would there be any objection by the Admiralty if we borrowed the first phrase which appears on page 211 of the Navy Estimates:
  "On the outbreak of war in 1939 the Government brought into operation the planned control of the country's entire shipbuilding and ship-repair resources, thus securing co-ordination of design, allocation of Government shipbuilding to commercial yards and the requisite priority of labour and material."?
  8.35 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I wish to ask my hon. Friend one or two questions arising from the serious issues referred to by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend had to say on the subject yesterday and I suggest that it would clear our minds and be helpful were he to make an authoritative statement in amplification of the remarks that he made yesterday, if he is in a position to do so.
  In the first place, while we all understand that the major cause of the decline in orders is the general depression of the

  1185
  shipbuilding industries throughout the world, to what extent is it true to say that the United Kingdom is proportionately losing more orders than other countries? If it is a fact that we are going backwards relatively compared with our competitors, to what extent is the difficulty due to our prices being too high and to what extent is it due to the dates of delivery being uncertain?
  One sees assertions made in the Press, sometimes in one direction and somermes in the other. I should like to know whether the Admiralty has formed any opinion of its own on this very important matter.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I should like to ask the Civil Lord a question which I put to him last night. It concerns Scotland, which is also faced with this problem. We understand that in Scotland this year the shipbuilding industry will suffer more than last year and that next year it will, in fact, suffer more than this year. Therefore, for two or three years the outlook is exceedingly bleak.
  The only question that I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, because our time has almost run out, is: what is the Admiralty able to do and what is it doing? It would assist us very considerably in Scotland if we could be given some hopeful news about this industry. The Civil Lord may know the position himself, but it is certainly a very bleak prospect indeed for next year and I think that he ought to tell us what is being done to meet it.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: I see that on page 211 of the Estimates it is said that the Admiralty is endeavouring to assist whenever possible in the procurement of scarce materials and components. I had a case recently of a go-ahead shipyard in the South-West which was in trouble over getting a special type of steel plate for ship repairing. In the Admiralty there was considerable difficulty, although the local people said that they could supply it.
  I said a few words about consulting the Civil Lord and then I found that the steel plate was procured very quickly indeed. I hope that these words will be noted in the right place, that the next time those locally concerned will be able to
  1186
  produce it easily and quickly and that the obstructive elements in Queen Anne's Mansions may be a little less obstructive on future occasions.
  I should like to support fully what my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut. Commander Maydon) has said. This is a most important matter. We have stressed it so often that we should be told as much as possible about how this work on nuclear powered ships is going on. We have seen pictures of the "Lenin" afloat and I think that anything we can be told will be most useful, as this is a sphere of marine engineering in which I feel that we are not pressing quite so far ahead as we might do.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I suppose that tonight I ought to be able to make a better speech than I did last night, because last night was really a rehearsal of arguments on some points that have been put forward this evening. It is, however, very difficult for me to answer in any way other than I answered last night.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) talked about declining orders for shipbuilding and the difficulties over repair work. When he asked what the Admiralty intended to do about it, I do not know whether he was hoping that the Admiralty might be able to send some of their naval vessels for repair in civilian yards. if that is what he was hoping, I am sorry to have to say to him that there is an almost minimal chance of that happening because our own Royal Dockyards, as he probably knows, have been reduced in number and the ones kept have been kept at the right number to deal with a Fleet of the existing size.
  The outlook for ship-repairing depends upon an increase in world trade and improvements in the freight rate. That is the short answer, and it happens to be the true one. Whether it is palatable or not is another matter.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Would the Civil Lord like to say something on the point I raised concerning the embargo list? There is a rumour that orders have been given, and we want to do something about that in the future.
  Mr. Galbraith: It is true that immediately after the war there were various

  1187
  restrictions but, as result of negotiations recently between the various countries represented on the Consultative Committee, restrictions on building and repair in ships for the Eastern bloc have been reduced. I am satisfied that they are now so few that they do not affect any ordinary merchant ship. Warships. of course, are in another category.
  Mr. Fernyhough: When the hon. Gentleman says that restrictions are few, may I recall that we lost one order solely because we wanted a restricted speed? It was ridiculous. The people for whom that ship was intended said, "It will mean making two trips instead of three, because of the distance they have to go within any given period, because the speed is restricted." Therefore, they went somewhere else with their order. I do not want to lose such orders.
  Mr. Galbraith: Of course, and I quite understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman; but that was three years ago. There have been improvements and liberalisations since then. The most important thing is that we must go along with our Allies in this matter. We cannot go ahead of the times. There has been very considerable liberalising and I imagine that if a country wanted a ship of the nature which the hon. Gentleman described there would be no obstacle to having it built in this country.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut. Commander Maydon) asked me various questions about nuclear propulsion for ships. Again, I really do not know that I can add a great deal to what I said last night. I do not know whether he was in the Chamber when I wound up the debate, and, of course, he has not had an opportunity of reading my statement in HANSARD, because it was not published today. It will appear tomorrow. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee repeating what I said last night.
  My hon. and gallant Friend asked me how many times my committee had met. The answer, and I speak from memory, is seven or eight times. I quite understand how impatient hon. Members are but this is a very difficult and complicated thing. The two foreign ships that have been talked about employ a system of propulsion which is not anything like economic. The first ships that we
  1188
  produce probably will not be economic, but we want them to be within sight of being economic. Otherwise, the money will very largely have been wasted.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) had an answer for these difficulties, as so many hon. Members of the Opposition have. It was, "Just wave a wand, nationalise the industry, and everything is apparently going to be all right." That will not do. A great international industry like shipbuilding and ship-repairing depends upon international trade. Only when international trade is booming will we get an increase in ship-repairing and particularly in shipbuilding. I am afraid, therefore, that the hon. Member's suggestions would not produce the improvement that he seeks.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) asked me about what he called "proportionately going backwards"—that is, the tonnage that we were building in this country compared with other countries. It is true that other countries have gone ahead and built more tonnage than we have done, but we have maintained a steady production for a long number of years and our order books are carefully balanced. It is not a question merely of tonnage, but it concerns also the ancillary industries.
  Foreign countries, Japan in particular, are building large tankers which do not have a great deal of ancillary equipment to be put in them. It is much better to have a balanced industry such as we have, with not only tankers and large ore carriers, but passenger ships also.
  Mr. Fernyhough: When tonnage figures are published, could the Minister arrange also to publish the respective values? If the values were published, we would not appear so low down in the list. Everybody knows that a 20,000-ton liner is worth 100,000 tons of tankers.
  Mr. Galbraith: That is a very good point. It is one which has often occurred to me and I shall certainly look into it. It is a question not only of tonnage, but of value. We in this country build not only the larger ships: we build small ships which are of great value. There is in addition, of course, the naval building programme.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked what the Admiralty

  1189
  was doing. He seemed to think that it had no function to perform. The experience quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) shows, however, that a few whispered words of the Admiralty's interest sometimes produce what one wants. The Admiralty is the sponsor Department of the industry. It might be called, not the fairy godmother, but the kind, avuncular relative who looks at the ills of the industry and tries to help it to health.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £16,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Directorate of Merchant Shipbuilding and Repairs and of certain miscellaneous expenses, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1960.

  Vote 15. Additional Married Quarters
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during he year ending on the 31st day of March. 1960.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: I hope that my hon. Friend the Civil Lord will be able to tell us something about the married quarters programme. It is noticeable that in the Estimates the amount of expenditure in the coming year—£900,000—is somewhat below that of recent years. The explanation is probably that one programme is coming to an end and another is beginning, because it is also noticeable that a new programme of £2 million is being started, although only £20,000 is to be spent on it in the coming year. The Committee might like to know where this money is to be spent. Is it to be devoted to further married quarters in the home ports, for example?
  It is well known that in comparison with the other two Services. the Royal Navy is badly off for married quarters, because it started building them much later in the day. In the Army Estimates, however, a very large sum is devoted this year to the building of married quarters. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurance that this new programme will make good some of that disadvantage. Perhaps he may be able to indicate some of the places where the married quarters are to be built.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) about married quarters for the Service, because we all know that this is a serious problem, especially at air stations. In paragraph 3 on page 215 we read that
  "Building is normally financed under the Acts only when the quarters are suitably sited and designed for civilian occupation in the event of their no longer being required by the Admiralty."
  I suppose that this would apply where naval air stations are closed down and are no longer required.
  Does it mean that before being offered for sale privately in such cases the houses are offered to the other Services, or can they be disposed of at once? Secondly, are they then sold to local authorities or to private buyers?
  I do not suppose that my hon. Friend can answer all these questions now, but perhaps he can give some indication and can give further information later. If the houses are sold to local authorities, how do the authorities pay for them?
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) was concerned about what he thought was a decline in the married quarters programme. This year we are to spend slightly under f 1 million, which is a little lower than usual, but that is because the second housing loan is running out and the new loan has not begun. Building under the new loan is due to begin in 1960-61. This new programme, together with the number of houses built under previous programmes, should provide married quarters for about 25 per cent. of entitled officers and about 20 per cent. of entitled ratings.
  I know that those figures may seem rather low, but we have discovered that sometimes people do not like living in married quarters, and we feel that it would be a mistake to reach the stage at which there were so many married quarters that we had to force people to live in them.
  In addition to married quarters there are furnished hirings, which come under a separate Vote. Married quarters and furnished hirings together will eventually provide accommodation or housing for about one-third of the entitled people.

  1191
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West wanted to know where we should build the houses. In principle we shall build them in outlandish places like air stations, where there are no other houses. When we dispose of this property the normal practice is to offer it to the other Services and, if they do not want it, to offer it to the highest bidder.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1958–59
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,200,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

  SCHEDULE

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  Vote

  £

  £

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

  Cr. 1,225,000

  —

  2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  700,000

  *—300,000

  3. Medical Establishments and Ser vices

  145,000

  *—15,000

  4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  295,000

  —

  5. Educational Services

  40,000

  —

  6. Scientific Services

  Cr.200,000

  200,000

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  Vote

  £

  £

  8. Shipbuilding, Repairs and Main tenance,&c.— Section I—Personnel

  730,000

  130,000

  Section II—Matériel

  4,800,000

  *—2,400,000

  Section III— Contract Work

  34,150,000

  *—1,200,000

  9. Naval Armaments

  Cr.575,000

  *—1,050,000

  10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  1,075,000

  *—2,275,000

  11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  Cr.1,040,000

  1,140.000

  12. Admiralty Office

  975,000

  —

  13. Non-Effective Services

  2,330,000

  —

  15. Additional Married Quarters

  —

  *—230,000

  Total, Navy (Supplementary), 1958–59

  £42,200,000

  *—6,000,000

  *Deficit.

  Mr. Wilkins: There is a welcome decrease in Subhead F, of Vote 9, of £1,650,000. May we have an explanation of that decrease?
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: There is a reduction of £1·65 million on guns, torpedoes, mines and ammunition. That merely means that we have reviewed our stocks. We have considered the day-to-day requirements with the rundown of the ships, and this is our new assessment of what is needed to supply the Fleet with up-to-date equipment.
  Mr. Wilkins: I was merely trying to discover whether it was partially due to the rundown of ships.
  Question put and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES

  Vote I. Pay, &c., of the Air Force
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum. not exceeding £109,200,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: We are dealing in Vote 1 with the pay and allowances of 180,000 officers and men serving in the Royal Air Force. There is an increase of £7·29 million. I appreciate that this is due to the greater number of Regulars, and so on. One of the reasons given by the Government for the increase is the greater number of families abroad. If that be so, it behoves us to look very carefully at Subhead E, which deals with education allowances
  "issued for the purpose of assisting officers, airmen and airwomen in the secondary, vocational and technical education of their children when the personnel are serving abroad".
  At first sight, the increase in relation to officers from £179,000 to £500,000, and in relation to airmen and airwomen from £31,000 to £90,000, looks fairly good. When we take into account the Minister's statement in the Estimates that there are a greater number of families abroad it does not look so good.
  I am far from happy about the relationship of participation in education allowances as between airmen and officers. We managed to say a word or two on this matter when we were discussing the main Air Estimates on Thursday, 5th March. The aggregate amount estimated for airmen and airwomen would be very much greater than it is if we had solved the problem of meeting the educational needs of the children of airmen.
  The educational facilities available to the children of airmen should not be related to rank. They should be equal for officers and men. That is a principle to which we have attached considerable attention in the past in the part of Britain from which I come, where we have not a public school system such as there is south of the Border. The generally accepted principle in Scotland is that everybody goes to the nearest school, which means that the Scottish airman will
  1194
  be even more penalised than the English airman in this respect, being denied educational facilities such as he would get if he were not in the Services.
  It is obvious that rank, and the pay attaching to it, decide whether the child will go to a particular type of school according to this system. I know that the Minister will say that exactly the same allowances are granted whether it be for an officer or airman; £150 is payable if the child is going to a boarding school at home and the family is abroad and that allowance of £150 is available for the airman as well as for the officer. It is obvious that the amount of pay which airmen have as compared with officers will decide whether the men will avail themselves of the educational facilities given. It means that if we want equality of opportunity, £150 may be enough for an officer, but not enough for an airman.
  We can see from the Estimate what is happening. The children of the officers are being sent home to boarding-schools, while the children of the airmen are being educated either locally, or at home under the care of grandparents or guardians. We should look at this again. The Grigg Committee made various suggestions on education, but I do not think that it paid sufficient attention to the problem as it affects other ranks. It suggested the provision of secondary education "at selected places overseas." That is something that we must take into account if more families are being sent overseas. Is anything to be done about that?
  The Grigg Committee also suggested that as well as increases in the allowances —and we welcome that provision, although not as it has worked out—arrangements should be made for
  "…the provision of special boarding facilities in connection with schools in the United Kingdom."
  The idea was that certain local authorities should establish, near the schools, hostels of which the children of Service men should avail themselves.
  That has already been done in connection with secondary education in certain parts of the country where there is a scattered population. It applies equally to Scotland as to England. The children live in the hostel accommodation and get their education in a centrally-sited

  1195
  secondary school. There is no reason why this should not be looked at again. We might be able to link it up with the Royal Air Force itself if, somewhere within the new married accommodation, a hostel were established where service people could keep their eye on these Service children. I think that that is worth consideration.
  Another point worries me. If the husband is serving, and his family is with him in a not very delectable spot overseas, there must be a tremendous temptation for the parents to try to scrape enough together to send the child to boarding school. Here let us be frank. Not all boarding schools are good boarding schools. Is any advice as to the quality of the boarding school given, or available to those anxious to take advantage of this scheme?
  This question cropped up over the education allowances paid by the Ministry of Pensions when I was a member of the Ministry of Pensions Advisory Council. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) will bear me out when I say that we got the impression that money was being wasted through children being sent to boarding schools that did not provide the desired education. Now that we are again looking at this question of education with some urgency we might reconsider this aspect, and see whether guidance cannot be given in respect of those facilities.
  A query I have on Subhead H is, I confess, purely a matter of curiosity—though not exactly idle curiosity. Under Subhead H.2 there appears a sum of £282,000 for "Other Allowances." The Explanatory Notes say that these include "Entertainment Allowance"; and that
  "This allowance is issued at varying rates to officers holding certain appointments to enable them to meet the cost of the necessary official entertainment attaching to the appointments"
  I wonder whether we could have a little more information about this because, as the Under-Secretary will know, it is not the only item for official entertainment covered in the Estimates. Who are these officers? What are their particular appointments, and what is the definition of "necessary official entertainment" which is to cost the country about £282,000?
  9.6 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Airey Neave): On this Vote the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has asked a number of questions about educational allowances, as he did in the previous debate on 5th March. He implied that in some way or another we were planning to provide for the children of officers on a different basis than for the children of airmen. I think I explained in the previous debate that that is not so. The choice of the parents is unfettered. To officers and airmen alike precisely the same opportunities and benefits are available. I seek now to explain that.
  I said in the former debate that the figures we had in the Estimates represented the extent to which officers and airmen are expected to take advantage of the new rates. There is no fixed ceiling, but, if more officers or men than we expect accept the allowance, the expenditure will have to go up. Officers and men have the same allowance under the same conditions and the rates, including those for the privately boarded child, are those recommended by the Grigg Committee. There is no question of distinguishing between officers and airmen in this allowance. Serving men in comparable stations would be eligible for the same allowances and, now the allowances are available for technical and vocational training, I hope that more airmen will take advantage of them.
  The hon. Member made other points of which I shall certainly take note. He mentioned the provision of hostels near schools. The position at the moment is that the Minister of Education has been, and still is, considering in conjunction with certain local authorities the question of the provision of extra boarding accommodation for children of Service parents and we hope that soon proposals might be forthcoming. The hon. Member made a point about the education of children abroad which I thought important. Strictly speaking, those amounts arise on other Votes, but the provision for the education of children in stations abroad is in fact rising substantially. The hon. Member will find that under Subhead C of Vote 9.
  Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point I was trying to make about educational allowances. It is all very well saying that officers

  1197
  and men get the same allowance and so the opportunities are equal. That is like saying that everyone can dine at the Ritz; it is open to everyone provided he has the money. The addition of £100 to the salary of someone in a senior rank is entirely different in consequence from the addition of £150 to someone with the rank of corporal. It is when we make the addition sum that we get the result which enables us to work out whether or not there is equality of opportunity. Let us face it; there just is not. The figures demonstrate that.
  I wonder if the Under-Secretary—if not now, perhaps at a later date—could give the number of airmen actually participating in the boarding school facilities of £150. I should think it is a very small number indeed.
  Mr. Neave: I know the interest of the hon. Member in this point, and I certainly undertake to give him the information.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £109,200,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1960.

  Vote 2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £1,139,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 188,400, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 4,100, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year eliding on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  9. I 1 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I put a quick question on Subhead F of this Vote. We are spending here £247,000 on the Royal Observer Corps, and that is an increase of £28,000. My concern is that the functions of this body are described as including
  "the measuring and reporting of radioactive 'fall-out' "
  I should like to know how many people are so engaged, because, after all, this is a spare-time civilian body of people who are in R.A.F. uniform. How many are engaged in this quite important task, and to whom do they report?
  I should have thought that the information which they received would be of
  1198
  more value to the Home Office than to the Air Ministry, and since this is, I should have thought, a more or less continuing civil job which they are doing, it could have been organised in some other way than under the Air Estimates. It seems to be an increasing liability. I wonder whether the increase of £28,000 is related to this particular task. I should be very glad if we could have an answer on that point.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: I want to discuss exactly the same point as that which has just been mentioned by my hon. Friend. The Under-Secretary of State for Air will recognise that this is repetition of a point which I raised in the debate on the Air Estimates, to which we never received any reply.
  As my hon. Friend has just said, £28,000 extra has been allocated this year to members of the Royal Observer Corps, and £26,000 of that sum is given for grants, allowances and the National Insurance of spare-time officers and observers. I should, therefore, be much obliged if the hon. Gentleman could tell us a little more about the rôle of the Royal Observer Corps in manning these 1,500 radioactivity detector stations.
  First, to what extent have these stations been built? Is the country now literally covered with these detectors, and what form will the stations take? I wonder about the form, because I have not seen one yet, but I should imagine that 1,500 stations are very difficult to hide, unless they are very small stations which perhaps need weekend maintenance only by part-time members of the Royal Observer Corps. We ought to have a little more information about them.
  Precisely what is to be the rôle of the Royal Observer Corps when the stations are being manned, and what are the possibilities—I asked the Under-Secretary about this in the debate on the Air Estimates—of peace-time exercises in manning the 1,500 stations, and in assessing the fall-out that has taken place already over the country because of H-bomb and atom bomb tests, and which regions of the country have been more affected than others? I think that such exercises could be useful, and I do not see any reason, in view of the fact that the Royal Observer Corps is coming into civil defence, why we should not have them.

  1199
  I have already spoken in the debate on the Army Estimates, and have been very pleased to see that the Territorial Army is now coming into civil defence. I am therefore also pleased to see that the Royal Observer Corps is now taking part, because I have always said that civil defence in a nuclear war will be a military operation. I am glad that we are now to see members of the Armed Forces responsible to Service Ministers gradually taking over that rôle, but so far very little information has been given to us. This is a good opportunity for the Minister, bearing in mind the fact that if we do not receive satisfactory replies, we shall have the opportunity of raising the matter once again before the Vote goes through.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Neave: This matter was raised in last week's debate on the Estimates and I answered several questions put to me by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) at that time, though I agree that this was not one of them. As well as its traditional rôle of tracking low-flying aircraft, the Royal Observer Corps has the task of tracking and measuring radioactive fall-out in the event of air attack. On the point made by the hon. Member about exercises, the officers and others are part-time. I doubt whether it would be possible to organise a full-scale exercise so that all the personnel were present at the same time. I see difficulties in that, but I note the point. The Corps, being composed of part-time officers, also has no responsibility for the regular measurement, as a check, of radioactivity at levels with which the research bodies are concerned. The Corns reports in peace and war to Fighter Command.
  The hon. Member asked whether the Corps could undertake measurements of radioactivity in peace. He asked this on a previous occasion. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in his statement on 31st October, arrangements have been made for checking peace-time radioactivity in the air, water, soil, herbage, milk and food stuffs. The Royal Observer Corps has no part in these arrangements. Its rôle is essentially a war-time one, as my right hon. Friend explained in answer to questions which the hon. Member for Barnsley put to him. Its training is not directed to detecting radioactivity at the level with which research bodies are concerned. I
  1200
  will take note of what the hon. Member has suggested, but this must be the present rôle of the Corps.
  Mr. Mason: But are the stations completed? Have we now the 1,500 stations which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air told me in the past year it was intended to build? I see no reason why we should enlarge the difficulty of having a peace-time exercise. According to the Explanatory Notes, we already have 15,000 observers. I understand that the stations are bound to be small with possibly one person detecting at ground level. Therefore, we should need to use only one-tenth of those who are enrolled in the Corps. This suggestion is worthy of consideration. Will the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the progress made in the building of the detector stations?
  Mr. Neave: It would be necessary to man these stations twenty-four hours a day and it is not easy to achieve exactly what the hon. Member wants. We have most of these stations, but I should like notice of the question about the total number erected.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £1,139,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 188,400, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 4,100, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 7. Aircraft and Stores
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £213,850,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: In a total Estimate of £490 million we have this Vote for £213 million. I wonder how realistic it is. Last year, there was a considerable churning up of the Estimates as presented, in the light of what eventually happened. Vote A for airframes was estimated to be £74 million, which upset quite a number of people when they considered it in relation to what was to be spent on guided missiles, but eventually we spent £86 million under that Vote.

  1201
  Instead of spending £55 million on aero engines, we spent £48 million. It becomes a burden when we have arguments about Estimates and about the relative importance being placed on the traditional and modern rôle of the Royal Air Force as compared with the modern and coming guided weapons and missiles, and then we discover that things are so completely altered. For the same thing happened in relation to Subhead C, "Armament, Ammunition and Explosives", which includes guided missiles. We were told last year that we would spend £42 million, but we were out by about 25 per cent. and spent only £32 million.
  Could we be told whether there is to be any churning up of policy within the Government during the coming year which will render these Estimates as unreliable as they were last year? It is important not only from the point of view of the Royal Air Force, but of industry. There is no Estimate that is of more importance to men employed in the aircraft industry. The widespread nature of this interest goes from the Isle of Wight, in the South, to an important place called Prestwick, in the North, where we make the Twin Pioneer; and I thank the Secretary of State for Air for giving us an extra four, which were welcomed in that part of Scotland.
  We are entitled to ask the Minister whether or not there is now a settled policy, in the hope that the forecast of deliveries, which is all this is, is likely to be more accurate this year than it was last. We are threatened with an increase of £17 million, and that despite a decrease of £6¼ million in airframes and aero engines as compared with the original Estimate last year. It is nonsense to talk about a comparison, however, when we know that things were so completely changed.
  There is one other point which worries me and that is under Subhead C, which is much more important than its title would make one believe. This is divided into two parts. The first concerns armament and the second deals with ammunition and explosives. Included in armament is ancillary equipment for guided missiles and under ammunition and explosives come the guided missiles themselves.
  1202
  In view of the increasing development and importance of these missiles, it is time they were taken out of the general melange of ammunition and explosives and given a heading of their own. We would then get a far better idea of the balance of the new R.A.F. as between the traditional means of fighting and delivery as compared with the modern weapon systems. We talk of weapon systems and we are promised new ones. It would give us a much clearer picture if we could get these separate and apart, so that we would know exactly the balance of expenditure in relation to these matters.
  There is an increase of about £1 million on Subhead F, mechanical transport vehicles and marine craft, an increase from £5½ million to £6½ million. I should welcome an explanation of how it is hoped to spend this additional £1 million and whether there has been any standardisation of the needs of the Services for mechanical transport vehicles. It may be difficult with specialised types of vehicles required on airfields, for instance, to get standardisation, but with general purpose vehicles we would get some economy by that means.
  Can the hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the increased expenditure on marine craft? We were told in the Memorandum about the closing down of certain marine stations, and yet we are spending more money. That may be due to re-equipping new ocean weather ships, but I should be grateful for an explanation of this aspect of the matter and a reply to my criticism of the reliability of the Estimates.
  9.26 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: The total Vote is considerably increased, by about £20 million. At the same time, redundancy in Scotland is increasing. We have had a great struggle, which, in the long run, has proved unsuccessful, to keep open the Ministry of Supply factory in Dunbartonshire.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) mentioned Prestwick, and I agree with him that we have had some help in keeping the industry there going. I see that the amount for airframes is down and I assume that because of that there will be a general reduction in airframe production over the country as a whole. That is also

  1203
  true of aero engines. I should like the Under-Secretary to refer to that and to give an assurance that Scotland is getting a fair crack of the whip in the manufacture of aero engines.
  There has been a good deal of redundancy in the Rolls-Royce factories. It is a legitimate complaint that when the total Vote is going up, there is unfair distribution in that the amount of work for Scotland seems to be decreasing. Glasgow is the most heavily hit city in the United Kingdom in respect of unemployment. And unemployment in Scotland is still increasing, even though in the United Kingdom it is decreasing.
  This is the Vote which absorbs the greatest single sum of money and concerns industries in which Scotland is interested. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to assure us that Scotland's position will be at least maintained, and that he can say something about the manufacture of aircraft at Prestwick and assure us that our position there will improve and not deteriorate.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Neave: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members will recognise the difficulty involved in deciding the form of this Vote, which he criticised. The difficulty arises from the numerous imponderables involved in the development of new weapons and aircraft. The changes in the Vote were due not to changes in policy, but, very often, to shortfalls in deliveries, and in some cases to accelerated deliveries. This Vote is always liable to large fluctuations. I shall have something to say about what the hon. Member mentioned in regard to guided weapons.
  Turning to the question of our responsibility to the aircraft industry, I would point out that my right hon. Friend's first responsibility is not to the aircraft industry as such; that is primarily the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. Nonetheless, the Royal Air Force is the industry's largest single customer, and we are well aware that a thriving and healthy manufacturing organisation is of prime importance to the future of the Service.
  We assist in the promotion of sales in many ways. In the normal course of their duties air attachés keep other countries informed of the latest developments in
  1204
  British aircraft and equipment; we have special arrangements with many of our Allies to facilitate the supply of Royal Air Force type equipment, and showing the flag in various countries, as my right hon. Friend pointed out in the Air Estimates debate, evokes the greatest interest in the products of British industry. I accept what hon. Members have said about the matter, but there is nothing further that I can say now about my right hon. Friend's connection with and responsibility for it.
  The hon. Member referred particularly to Subhead C, and asked whether the Vote could be split up so that recent deliveries of guided weapons could be shown. That point will no doubt be taken note of, but I cannot say anything further about it at the moment, except that there is an increase in the estimated expenditure.
  As for motor transport standardisation, much work continues to be done on the standardisation of mechanical transport vehicles and components which are common to the three Services. The N.A.T.O. Military Agency for Standardisation is also active in this connection, to ensure the greatest possible degree of uniformity with our N.A.T.O. Allies, but we should bear in mind that the Royal Air Force needs a wide variety of specialised vehicles for its many purposes.
  I was also asked about marine craft. We did not buy any new marine craft last year, but we are providing this year for the purchase of an ocean weathership and the conversion of two others. Last year we provided for the purchase of only one.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £213,850,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 8. Works and Lands
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeeding £30,550,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  9.34 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: A number of Royal Air Force stations surround my constituency, and I wish to

  1205
  refer to the station at Hemswell. Subhead G refers to rents of accommodation hired for use as married quarters, and I should like to know what is the position at Hemswell, where there is a serious shortage of married quarters both for officers and airmen. One of the ways of solving the problem is by building, but that question comes under another Vote.
  While these quarters are being built, can anything be done to help by renting accommodation for use as married quarters? I know that this would not be easy in a scattered country area, but I should like an assurance that this matter will be examined again to see whether something can be done to help those officers and airmen who are on the waiting list for quarters.
  9.36 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: This Vote shows a decrease of nearly £1 million. I am interested in what is promised about married quarters and accommodation for personnel. If we are to keep the new Regulars, especially the unmarried men, we must pay particular attention to accommodation for them and also to the question of accommodation when they become married. We are told that we shall start new construction of married quarters which will cost over £7 million and accommodation for personnel amounting to £10 million, which looks wonderful until we examine what has already happened.
  I wish to know whether it was because of a change in policy, or whether other aspects of policy caused an interference with the plans for last year. Then we were told that we should start new schemes for married quarters costing £6½ million. We started new schemes costing £2½ million. We were proposing in the first year to spend £1,300,000 on this and we actually spent only £600,000. That does not augur well for what is promised in the Estimates this year and in the Explanatory Statement.
  It is difficult—in fact, looking at the Estimates as they are now presented—at Subhead A, "New works, Additions and Alterations"—it is impossible to see that we shall spend nearly £26 million compared with the figure of £30 million for last year. When we look at what has happened in the revised Estimate we realise that the performance did not
  1206
  reach the proposed standard. I hope that we shall not be told that we had a wet summer after a hard spring, because the weather does not make all that difference. Our performance amounted to only 50 per cent. If the same thing happens this year—I do not suppose that we shall have any better summer than last year; it is unwise to bank on it—it would be unwise to suggest that the weather be advanced as an alibi for failing to live up to expectations. In any case, the Air Ministry is responsible for the Meteorological Service. I stress this matter because it is important.
  As the Estimates are presented to the Committee we get no indication that we have failed so lamentably. For workshops and technical buildings there is a total estimate of £14 million for new services started. We are to spend £2 million on that new work, which would seem to reveal that there is more urgency about the provision of workshops and technical buildings than what is proposed for married quarters. Of the £7 million which is the total estimate of the value of the work we are to start, we are to spend £500,000 in the coming year. It will take a long time to finish if the progress is not any better than it was last year.
  I think that the scrutiny of these Estimates is hampered by their form. We are given this year the total estimate of what these works will cost by the time they are finished, which is £7 million, but next year that will be lost sight of. We shall have no indication of the progress that is being made, or whether or not a change in policy has scrapped half of that. We shall be given only the sum that is to be voted in respect of works that were started earlier.
  I suggest that we ought to have an aggregate total estimate of work started in previous years and still under construction and that we should have notes of any revised total estimates on these works, because it is amazing how total estimates have a habit of rising and in this particular form of Estimates we have no form of presenting it at all. Then we get the Comptroller and Auditor General breaking it to us completely unexpectedly regarding certain Departments. But let us give the Air Ministry the benefit of the doubt and say that we are surprised when a mistake of a substantial nature is made. The House

  1207
  should be kept informed of what is happening, what has been completed and what is still to be done.
  I am sure that the Under-Secretary will say that he cannot give us details about the works which are going on in connection with the Air Ministry and Royal Air Force because of defence considerations. But surely that does not apply to married quarters. We should be given much more information about them. We should be told what the total estimate is, what Vote is required in the current year, and the estimate that will be required for future years. We shall then get an idea of what work is in progress and what work has been completed. If the hon. Gentleman can tell us about the works that are proposed and have been abandoned he may help us to get over certain difficulties in dealing with the Supplementary Estimates.
  Vote 1 refers to the construction and use of houses by the United States military forces in the United Kingdom. I should like to know exactly how much is included in new works started and in payment for works already started that is applicable to this particular item.
  I notice that in appropriations-in-aid £1¼ million is being paid back in relation to what has already been provided. I think that to get proper Estimates of what is being done in respect of our own forces we should have that information. From the point of view of the morale and spirit of the Service, this is where we can best spend money and spend it urgently. I certainly hope that the failure of last year will have goaded the Ministry to have achieved something much better this year. We cannot be complacent about what happened last year and it was not the first year in which this accomplishment was not quite up to expectations. If we can have a better idea of what is to happen this year the Committee will be more likely to look with favour upon the present Estimates.
  Under Subhead F of Vote 8, I notice that we have "Purchases of Land and Buildings", exactly the same as last year —£500,000. Are we to get a Supplementary Estimate for this? The Under-Secretary should be made aware of the fact that there is going through the House at present a Bill relating to this very matter, which will increase the cost of buildings in relation to compensation
  1208
  when they are required for this purpose. It might well be that there should have been intelligent anticipation here. We might be told now whether there is to be an increase in respect of this matter.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: I fear that any reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) gets will be hardly worth the paper it is written on, so to speak. It is not that I distrust the integrity of the Under-Secretary of State for Air but that I have no respect for the calculations of his Ministry.
  I base that statement on the fact that four or five years ago the Ministry was anxious to build 230 houses near St. Mawgan Aerodrome in Cornwall. The houses would have been miles from anywhere and would have created confusion in the transport of children to school because some were outside the limit of free transport and some were within it. The county planning authority and the local education authority objected. The Newquay Urban District Council objected also, but the Ministry said, "No, we must go on." Fortunately for us in Cornwall, there came one of the financial crises that have happened under this Government, and the job was postponed.
  The Ministry is now able to house all the staff of St. Mawgan at the adjoining aerodrome at St. Eval, which has now been abandoned. A school which was built at St. Eval by the local education authority at great cost to house the children of the personnel at St. Eval will now be used for the children of the men serving at St. Mawgan. This may seem confusing to the Committee and it has certainly been confusing to us in Cornwall. It means that we distrust anything that the Minister says about housing by the Air Ministry. We were able to delay the Ministry long enough by our protests to prevent it making a very big mistake.
  9.48 p.m.
  Mr. Neave: We attach great importance to this question of married quarters and to building generally. Let me deal with the point of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about the form of the Estimate for Vote 8. This form applies equally to the works Votes of all the Service Departments and it would be desirable to maintain common form for these Estimates. That is

  1209
  not to say that there is not something in what the hon. Gentleman says, so I will look into the matter and see whether any improvement in presentation is possible. I will consult my right hon. Friends about it.
  It is difficult to answer in very great detail the hon. Gentleman's comments on the position that arose last year. The reason for the under-spending was mainly changes in deployment arising from the introduction of weapons, delays in building projects, and particularly the political difficulties which occurred in Cyprus and in the Middle East. They were reasons why the building programme did not proceed. It is our intention to do as much building as we can afford and as quickly as possible. I do not think the lion. Gentleman should altogether ignore the fact, whatever the responsibility of my right hon. Friend may be for the Meteorological Office, that last year there was bad weather which affected the building programme.
  Mr. Ross: Is there a better weather forecast with these Estimates?
  The Deputy-Chairman rose—
  Mr. Neave: I beg your pardon, Sir Gordon. I was interrupted at that point upon a matter of weather forecasts. I should not like to sit down without answering the point about his constituency mentioned by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). He mentioned a station in his constituency, or just outside it. I cannot go into much detail about the married quarters programme, for this station, but I can say that we have already rather more than one-third of the married quarters which are likely to be needed in the long-term. During the next two years, new building and conversion of existing buildings should increase the proportion to at least two-thirds and we shall take as many hirings as we can in the vicinity of this station until the number of married quarters is sufficient for our needs.
  Question put and agreed to
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £30,550,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £4,040,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including certain grants in aid and a subscription to the World Meteorological Organisation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I notice in Subhead G that in compensation to members of the public we are providing £240,000 this year as against £120,000 last year. This is an Estimate which
  "Provides for compensation payments in respect of injury to the person, or damage to the property, of third parties arising from aircraft, road traffic and miscellaneous accidents".
  We are actually doubling this provision. Can the Under-Secretary justify this pessimism that there will be more accidents?
  In his Memorandum, the Secretary of State made it clear that the number of accidents over the past year had been the lowest ever. We were all gratified by that. Now, I am shocked by this pessimism and wonder what is the reason for it. Alternatively, is it a sudden access of generosity that because there are so many fewer accidents the payments are being doubled?
  Whatever the reason, if it were generosity in relation to the possibility of accidents among civilians, there might have been a slight carry-over in the treatment of men in the Air Force. When we look at the compensation for Air Force personnel and civilian staff, we see that the provisional compensation is reduced from £24,000 last year to only £4,000 This year. Can the hon. Gentleman, in the one case, justify his pessimism and, in the other case, justify his optimism, or in the one case, as it may be, generosity and in the other case his mean-heartedness towards Air Force personnel who are to be compensated.
  "for unavoidable loss of, or damage to, uniform, personal equipment, etc., incurred on service …"?
  We will be very interested to have the hon. Gentleman's answer.
  Mr. Rankin: I notice that under Subhead U the Secretary of State has decided to sustain the welfare work of the R.A.F.

  1211
  in Germany by setting aside £30,000 for the Malcolm Clubs. I also notice that in the Supplementary Estimate he was making provision for the rest of this year to the extent of £8,500. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this provision which he is making for these clubs. It proves that when a Minister says "No", he does not always mean "No" and that a little judicious advice applied in the proper way is something to which a Minister of the quality of the Secretary of State for Air will respond. I am sure that an both sides we hope that when we come to the Estimates a year hence the provision will still be there for the Malcolm Clubs.
  Mr. Neave: In answer to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the increase under Subhead G of Vote 9 in compensation for losses and damage is due in the main to compensation payments in Germany falling as a charge on United Kingdom funds instead of being borne, as in the past, by German support costs. That is the main reason. In addition, it is not so much a question of pessimism about future accidents as of payment for past accidents. Fairly heavy payments are expected to be made as a result of the Vulcan crash near Detroit, which unfortunately took place recently.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) raised the question of Malcolm Clubs. As the Committee knows, we decided to take no steps as a preliminary to the closing down of the clubs before the end of the year in the hope that during this period Malcolm Clubs will be able materially to improve their financial position. I thank the hon. Member for what he said about my right hon. Friend's attitude.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £4,040,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including certain grants in aid and a subscription to the
  1212
  World Meteorological Organisation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

  Vote 9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

    VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

    AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1958–59
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,750,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

    SCHEDULE

    Sums not exceeding

    Supply Grants

    Appropriations in Aid

    Vote

    £

    £

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

    8,050,000

    *—5,250,000

    3. Air Ministry (Revised Sum)

    510,000

    *—70,000

    4. Civilians at Outstations (Revised Sum)

    2,620,000

    *½220,000

    5. Movements

    1,100,000

    680,000

    6. Supplies

    Cr.900,000

    970,000

    7. Aircraft and Stores

    Cr.6,200,000

    *—80,000

    8. Works and Lands

    Cr. 1,200,000

    *—3,100,000

    9. Miscellaneous Effective Services.

    Cr.660,000

    *—210,000

    10. Non-effective Services

    430,000

    30,000

    Total, Air (Supplementary), 1958–59

    £3,750,000

    *—7,250,000

    *Deficit.

    Resolutions to be reported.
    Report to be received Tomorrow;
    Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

TRURO CATHEDRAL
9.58 p.m.
Sir Peter Agnew: I beg to move,
That the Truro Cathedral Measure, 1959, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The diocese to which this Measure relates is not one of the ancient dioceses of the Church of England. It was revived or recreated, with the boundaries coterminous with the County of Cornwall, as late as 1877 and its constitution was regulated by an Act of 1878 followed by an Act of 1887. The diocese, in its setup, has two unusual features. First, the bishop is allowed to be his own dean. Up to the present, that practice has always been followed. It has now been found possible financially, however, for a separate dean to be appointed and maintained.
That arrangement is, of course, advantageous to the bishop, who is able to give up that side of his present duties, and it is also advantageous to the see of Truro itself that the arrangement under which there has been a doubling of duties should be ended and the cathedral looked after by its own officer. Under this Measure there will be a separate dean. There is already a chapter. The constitution of Truro Cathedral in that respect will be brought into line with all the other cathedrals of the Church of England, which possess a dean and chapter.
The second feature is that when Truro Cathedral was built in the last century it was built on the site of, and indeed it swallowed up and enveloped, an existing parish church with a parish round it. That was the Parish of St. Mary. Today a part of the cathedral building is called St. Mary's Aisle and has the status of a parish church. Up to the present time the sub-dean has been the rector of the parish church. Under this Measure the office of rector will be taken away from the sub-dean and transferred to the new dean to be appointed.
As soon as the constitution for the cathedral conies into force the office of sub-dean will be abolished, and the dean
1214
therefore will have the full authority that other deans have over the whole of the cathedral building, although in the case of St. Mary's Aisle it will be in his capacity as rector.
There are only two other matters that I need mention, both of a minor character, but important in detail. First, up to the present time, the bishop has been the patron of the Parish of St. Mary. Under the Measure that patronage will be transferred, and necessarily so, to the Crown, because the appointment of dean will be made by Her Majesty.
The second matter relates to the cathedral buildings and their precincts. When Truro diocese was established there was no dean and chapter, and, therefore, the cathedral and its precincts were vested in the bishop. Now that there is to be a dean and chapter that possession is being taken away from the bishop and being vested in the dean and chapter, as is the case with all other cathedrals that possess a dean and chapter.
This Measure passed through the Church Assembly without a vote at any stage and it has received a favourable report from the Ecclesiastical Committee.
10.3 p.m.
Mr. F. H. Hayman: I rise to second the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Worcerstershire, South (Sir P. Agnew). I do so with sonic feeling, because I was born in Truro and lived and worked there for the first twenty-five years of my life.
The hon. Baronet has said that Truro is one of the modern dioceses of this country, but I remind the House that Cornwall was a Celtic country originally and was christianised long before St. Augustine came to Kent. Therefore, Truro as some very old connections with the Church in this country.
The first cathedral of Cornwall was at St. Germans and was erected by King Athelstan in A.D. 936. That diocese lasted for a century, when it was incorporated with Exeter. I have said that Cornwall was a Celtic country. From Truro on the south coast, to which the River Fal is navigable, up to Crantock on the north coast, there was one of the ancient Celtic highways. Therefore, this site at Truro is very much linked with the history of my county.

1215
Truro was granted its first charter in 1180, almost eight centuries ago. It is interesting to remember that at Michaelmas in 1259 Bishop Branscombe of Exeter consecrated the Chapel of St. Mary at Truro. That chapel eventually became the parish church of St. Mary and, as the hon. Baronet has just said, the south aisle of the cathedral will, by this Measure, be known as St. Mary's Aisle, and so carry on this centuries-old parish.
I feel somewhat nostalgic about this, because the present Truro Cathedral was erected in the twenty-five years before the First World War. During the latter part of that period I was a youngster, and was able to watch the completion of the towers at the west end of the cathedral. This is already a historic occasion, but it is also historic in the sense that one of the most famous Parliamentarians of this House, Sir John Elliot, lived in St. Germans, where the first cathedral of Cornwall was erected. It is because of these things that I ask the indulgence of the House for having dwelt on this aspect.
10.7 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Marshall: Having had the privilege of serving in the House with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) when he represented a Cornish division for so very long, I am extremely glad to have heard him move this Motion. As a licensed lay reader of the diocese, I am only too happy to support the Motion.
10.8 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Howard (St. Ives): I, too, would like to support the Motion so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew). Our bishop in Cornwall is a very wonderful man, and anything that can be done to make his task less onerous by appointing a dean will be a most excellent thing to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Truro Cathedral Measure, 1959, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

NATIONAL THEATRE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Ten years ago yesterday, on 9th March, 1949, a Bill allocating up to £1 million of public money towards the building of a National Theatre received the Royal Assent. As those of us who were in the House at the time will remember, the Bill was passed with the enthusiastic support of members of all parties. We felt that, at long last, the stigma under which this country has suffered for so long, of not having such an institution, was about to be removed. We realised that the work could not be started for some little while; that there was a great need for housing, for generating stations, for factories, and for making good war damage. Nevertheless, I do not think that any of us then thought for a moment that ten years would pass and that nothing had been done. So far as I can see, nothing is intended to be done for a long time yet.
It is for that reason that I want, quite briefly, to ask whether the Economic Secretary can let us know the Government's intentions in this matter. This subject was referred to by the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) on 23rd January last, when he moved his Motion on the needs of the arts. In the same debate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Carr) also raised the matter, if I may say so, in a most persuasive way. Unfortunately, when the Financial Secretary replied he did not refer at all to the National Theatre. I may be wrong, but I am of the opinion that he deliberately avoided answering the questions put to him.
I ask the Economic Secretary tonight why that was. This House, the public, the London County Council and the Joint Council of the National Theatre and the Old Vic are entitled to know what the intentions of the Government are. We all have a right to know, seeing that it is ten years since the Bill became an Act.
The Act of 1949 was no ordinary enabling Act giving the Treasury power to advance up to £1 million for the

1217
building of a National Theatre anywhere. It was the sequel to a bargain which has been come to by the trustees of the National Memorial Theatre Fund and the London County Council under which about an acre in Cromwell Gardens was exchanged for little more than an acre belonging to London County Council in Lambeth on a site quite near to the Festival Hall.
That transaction, if my recollection is correct, would not have taken place if the London County Council had not been assured that money would be forthcoming for the building of a theatre. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Sir Stafford Cripps, when appealed to, very readily agreed to advance the money so that at long last we might see, at no distant date, a National Theatre arising in the centre of London.
At that time, as far as my memory serves me, architects had been appointed and I believe that plans had been drawn. It was to be a very fine structure, comprising two theatres, one capable of holding 1,200 and another 500, with workshops and room for developments of various kinds. It was expected, in fact decided, that as part of the scheme repertory companies would go out to various parts of the country. Not only would Shakespeare be played, but also works of other dramatists of note, including Bernard Shaw and other well-known dramatists, as well as younger playwrights as they came along.
The Queen Mother in, I think, 1951, laid the foundation stone and there was then every expectation that at long last we were to get this theatre. When we debated the needs of the arts, on 23rd January, the Financial Secretary announced additional help from the Treasury towards opera, ballet, the buying of pictures and the like, but he said nothing about finding money for the National Theatre. Although £1 million would have been adequate ten years ago, I doubt whether twice that sum would not now have to be found to build this theatre. If much more time is allowed to elapse, I am sure that not even £2 million would cover the cost.
Some time ago, the Treasury, I understand, invited the Arts Council to report on the housing of the Arts. I believe that that Report is now in the hands of the
1218
Treasury. I ask the Economic Secretary whether he will be good enough to let us know if that is so, and when we may expect its publication. I do not know, but I have been told that the Arts Council, in that Report, has given very high priority to the building of a National Theatre. If that is so, I think we ought to know, and also ought to know why it is that the Treasury has paid no attention to that suggestion.
I would also like to ask the Economic Secretary whether he will tell us what is the attitude of the L.C.C. to this long delay? Has the L.C.C. made any representations? I saw in The Times a week or ten days ago a letter from Sir Donald Wolfit, the actor, who suggested, that under the General Powers Bill which London County Council is now promoting, the County Council proposes, I think under Clause 21, to make the site which had been dedicated to a National Theatre an open space. I have looked at the Bill, and my reading of the Clause is not quite the same as that of Sir Donald Wolfit, but I think that the public needs some reassurance on this matter. Perhaps the Economic Secretary this evening, or, if not, at some future time, could let us know just what the position is.
Mr. George Jeger
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I was, of course, aware of what my hon. Friend has been good enough to say. Nevertheless, there is some disquiet in the public mind, and I think that on this occasion, as we are dealing with this matter, it would be a good thing if the Economic Secretary could reassure us on this point.
This country is almost unique amongst civilised nations in that it has no National Theatre. This is the country that gave birth to Shakespeare, the greatest playwright the world has ever seen, and yet we are one of the few civilised nations which has not got a National Theatre. For over fifty years, efforts have been made to collect funds and to interest people in such a project. As far back as 1903, those interested began to collect

1219
the money and to try to interest people in such a venture. It was hoped, on the tercentenary of Shakespeare's death, in 1916, to have collected money and have the building finished and to open such a theatre, but war came in 1914 and the scheme fell through. As I have already said, at long last, in 1949, we thought that we would see a National Theatre materialise, but here we are, in 1959, no nearer to the culmination of our hopes.
I hope that the Economic Secretary tonight will not simply tell us that we have the Old Vic. The Old Vic is a very fine institution, but it is no substitute for a National Theatre, and I assume that in years to come—it may be ten, or even twenty years—the Old Vic will have to come down to make room for street widening. What we want is a National Theatre in the fullest sense of the word, and I hope that tonight the Economic Secretary will be able to reassure us and to tell us that at long last the Treasury does mean to allow a start to be made on this great memorial to the greatest playwright, William Shakespeare.
10.19 p.m.
Mr. Roy Mason: I rise only to reinforce the plea so ably made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury knows, I have questioned the Chancellor on the increase of moneys to the Arts Council purposely to resurrect the live theatre, and as I see the possibility of a National Theatre helping in this regard, I should like to make some comments about it. It seems to me an exciting possibility that once we had a National Theatre it would help to keep the provincial theatres going. It would keep them alive, feed them with talent and with shows, after they had served a useful period in the City.
I am sorry to think that ten years after acquiring the land we are still waiting for the National Theatre to be erected. Many of our small repertory theatres are closing down—in Halifax, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley. In many of the provincial towns and particularly in the heart of the Provinces, in places like York, we are losing the repertory theatre. The erection of a National Theatre may help to stave off that decline. The new medium of television has come into the fore and we see our small live theatres
1220
dying. Many people who were unknown before are coming on television to act 'before, enormous audiences. Artists have never been able to command such a massive array of people as they do now by means of television. Yet these artists are not adequately trained. The training grounds are all on the decline. The standards of television will likewise decline unless we help in this matter.
In trying to reinforce my right hon. Friend's plea, I express the hope that the Economic Secretary will try to give the House some hope, first, that the National Theatre is a possibility and, secondly, that we shall eventually see one in the City and thereby help maintain the cultural standards in the Provinces and help television as well.
10.22 p.m.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I am sure that the House would not wish me to take up the short time left to me in going over the long history of the National Theatre project, particularly as the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) has sketched it in fully and adequately. The facts are particularly well known to the right hon. Gentleman because, as he pointed out to the House, it was he who introduced in the House the Bill which became the National Theatre Act, 1949.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I did not mention that.
Mr. Erroll: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned his connection with the matter. It is so well known that I felt entitled to refer to it.
The Government have been accused of some delay in carrying out the intentions of the National Theatre Act, but the delay really began with the right hon. Gentleman himself. Quite understandably, he raised great expectations when he introduced the Second Reading of the National Theatre Bill on 21st January, 1949. I am sure that at the time his intentions were of the best, but he was surely quite right, as events have subsequently proved, to add these words very near the end of his speech:
"I should perhaps utter a word of warning as to when this project may begin to mature. It is quite obvious to the Government that it will be some little time before the building can be started."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 442.]

1221
The National Theatre was in fact no further forward when the right hon. Gentleman went out of office towards the end of 1951.
At the very best it had been a hope, a wish, and if this was not such a non-controversial evening, I should be tempted to say that it was perhaps hardly fair to get the credit for the Bill when right hon. Gentlemen opposite must have known that they would not be able to build the theatre for some years. As he right hon. Gentleman pointed out, here were other priorities which had to rank ahead of a national theatre—power stations and other forms of construction. That must have been well-known in 1949 when the Bill, nevertheless, was promoted.
I should like to turn from the early years to the more recent history of the project. In July last year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a distinguished deputation representative of the National Theatre Committee and the Arts Council. Two important facts came to light in the discussion which then took place. The first was that the capital cost of the National Theatre building was likely to be as much as £1¾ million. The second fact was that it would need a continuing annual subsidy which might be as much as £300,000 per annum but which would, even if not as much as that, at any rate be very considerable.
I must tell the House that following this discussion my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt obliged to write to Lord Chandos, who, incidentally, headed the deputation, saying that he could not hold out any hope that we should in the near future be able to make a beginning on the expenditure of nearly £2 million for the National Theatre. As he pointed out, it was a big sum, and a substantial annual subsidy would be required in addition. My right hon. Friend, in his letter, added that the Arts Council was making an inquiry into the housing of the arts at the request of his predecessor, and he hoped that the report which the Arts Council was preparing would indicate priorities amongst the various projects for cultural buildings, a al he said that this would give an opportunity for considering the long-term prospects of the National Theatre against the background of a number of competing claims.
1222
I can now carry the story one stage further by telling the House, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman, that the Arts Council has decided to prepare its report on the housing of the Arts in four separate sections, namely, London, the English provinces, Scotland and Wales. Three sections, namely those dealing with London, Scotland and Wales, have now reached my right hon. Friend from the Arts Council. I understand that it is the intention of the Council to publish the report shortly, but as it is a report of the Council and not a Government report, it is for the Council to decide on the exact time when the sections are published.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I interrupt the Minister? I believe from what we were told on 23rd January that the part of the report dealing with Scotland is already being implemented. Why not London?
Mr. Erroll: I was dealing with publication. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as I know, there is no particular cause for delay in publication. It is a matter of checking through the scripts, and perhaps tidying up certain passages, and then there will be the usual processes of printing, so that the sections should be expected shortly and will be generally available. The section on the English provinces will follow later in the year, and there will then be an opportunity of public discussion on the four sections as a whole. I regret that I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman on his point about the supposed implementation of the Scottish section, as that is a new point to me.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will give careful consideration to the report wherever it concerns the Government. He will, of course, want to consider the sections together, which I am sure the House would agree is the right course, so that the demands of the country as a whole can be seen and judged in balance. This is a point which I hope will appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), in view of the remarks he made during his brief intervention.
In the short time left to me I do not want to anticipate my right hon. Friend's consideration of the report on the housing of the Arts or even to discuss its contents

1223
before the Arts Council has had time to publish it. However, it may help the House if I mention one or two points which are bound to be in the mind of the Chancellor in considering any recommedation about the National Theatre.
First, we want to be satisfied that there is general acceptance for the concept of building a National Theatre. There are those who argue, both in this House and elsewhere, that the money needed for it would be better spent elsewhere. Secondly, it has been suggested that drama in the provinces deserves a higher priority, especially if the National Theatre would need a large annual subvention. Of that, there is little doubt.
A great deal has been achieved by the existing British theatre since the war on modest rates of subsidy. Arts Council expenditure on drama in 1957–58 was some £75,000. We would all want to pay tribute to all those in the British theatre, and also in the Arts Council, who have made possible so much at such modest cost to the taxpayer. I have in mind not only the great achievements of our nationally-known theatres, such as Stratford and the Old Vic, but also the repertory companies up and down the country which struggle, year in year out, to maintain our theatrical tradition and to preserve and improve their standards. To return to the National Theatre, however, it seems reasonable in considering any annual subsidy which would be needed for it to bear in mind the present figure of £75,000 for drama as a whole, which I have just mentioned.
At the time of the closure of the St. James's Theatre, there were suggestions that money could be better spent preserving existing theatres than in building new ones.
Mr. G. Jeger Mr. G. Jeger indicated dissent.
Mr. Erroll: The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) shakes his head, but I feel that it would be wrong to ignore the suggestions that were then made and which should be taken into account before a decision is arrived at.
Mr. Jeger: Why I was shaking my head concerning the St. James's Theatre
1224
was that everyone who knew anything about the theatre knew that it was obsolete and could not be renovated, and that it would have to be completely gutted and rebuilt.
Mr. Erroll: Whether or not the suggestions that were made were valid, the fact remains—and everybody must agree with this—that the National Theatre would tend to compete to some extent for audiences with the commercial theatre of London.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley referred to Clause 21 of the London County Council General Powers Bill. As I understand the matter, the Clause will not in any way restrict the option which at present exists on the site but will, in fact, probably make it simpler and more effective. I have had only a few minutes in which to obtain this information. If what I have said needs modification or qualification, I will, of course, inform the House; but that is as I understand it at the moment.
Finally, I must make the point that the National Theatre is an expensive project. A large capital sum is needed. What would make it particularly difficult for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to proceed would be the need from the outset for a large annual subsidy, which would be likely to grow rapidly. I do not want to paint too black a picture. We all hope that it may be possible to find a way out of these difficulties.
My right hon. Friend will, as I have said, be considering the matter closely now that he has received the London section of the report by the Arts Council on the housing of the Arts. Moreover, he can look forward soon to receiving the Provincial section, perhaps with some indication of priorities as between one part of the United Kingdom and another. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley, who introduced this debate and who is experienced in these matters, will understand that I cannot go further tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AFRICAN TERRITORIES
  Status of Women
  Status of Women
NYASALAND
  African National Congress
  African National Congress
  Troops and Police (Movements)
  Troops and Police (Movements)
  Election Registers
  Election Registers
  Disturbances (Investigation)
  Disturbances (Investigation)
TANGANYIKA
  Secondary School, Iringa
  Secondary School, Iringa
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Political Rights of Women (United Nations Convention)
  Political Rights of Women (United Nations Convention)
  POSITION OF THE OVERSEAS TERRITORIES VIS-À-VIS THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN
  POSITION OF THE OVERSEAS TERRITORIES VIS-À-VIS THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN
  Students, United Kingdom (Banking and Insurance)
  Students, United Kingdom (Banking and Insurance)
KENYA
  Highlands (European Farmers)
  Highlands (European Farmers)
  MINISTERS (OFFICIAL MISSIONS ABROAD)
  MINISTERS (OFFICIAL MISSIONS ABROAD)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Big Ben (Centenary)
  Big Ben (Centenary)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope
  Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope
SCOTLAND
  Mental Health Legislation (Report)
  Mental Health Legislation (Report)
  Law of Succession (Mackintosh Committee)
  Law of Succession (Mackintosh Committee)
  Midwives
  Midwives
  Works, Aberdeen (Noxious Fumes)
  Works, Aberdeen (Noxious Fumes)
  Public Works
  Public Works
  Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956 (Section 9)
  Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956 (Section 9)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Dutch Flower Bulbs (Quota)
  Dutch Flower Bulbs (Quota)
  Lleyn Peninsula, Caernarvonshire (New Industries)
  Lleyn Peninsula, Caernarvonshire (New Industries)
  Advance Factory, Scotland (Location)
  Advance Factory, Scotland (Location)
  Trade With Spain
  Trade With Spain
  Aberdeen and the Highlands
  Aberdeen and the Highlands
  Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958
  Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  National Savings
  National Savings
  River Trent, Scunthorpe (Neap House Wharf)
  River Trent, Scunthorpe (Neap House Wharf)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Foot Clinic, Beckenham
  Foot Clinic, Beckenham
HOUSING
  Owner-Occupied Houses, Bristol (Compulsory Acquisition)
  Owner-Occupied Houses, Bristol (Compulsory Acquisition)
  Caravans (Rents)
  Caravans (Rents)
  Rent Rebate and Differential Rent Schemes
  Rent Rebate and Differential Rent Schemes
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Epworth (National Agricultural Advisory Service Office)
  Epworth (National Agricultural Advisory Service Office)
  New International Wheat Agreement (United Kingdom Participation)
  New International Wheat Agreement (United Kingdom Participation)
EMPLOYMENT
  School-Leavers, Aberdeen
  School-Leavers, Aberdeen
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Offices, Heanor and Ilkeston
  Offices, Heanor and Ilkeston
TRANSPORT
  Wembley Park Station (Car Park)
  Wembley Park Station (Car Park)

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

LORD STOPFORD OF FALLOWFIELD
Sir John Sebastian Bach Stopford, K.B.E., having been created Baron Stop-ford of Fallowfield, of Hindley Green in the County Palatine of Lancaster, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME
Sir Eric John Francis James, Knight, having been created Baron James of Rusholme, of Fallowfield in the County Palatine of Lancaster, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Earl of Arran (L. Sudley)—Sat first in Parliament after the deaths of his father and brother.

GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
2.27 p.m.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRACTOR SALES TO CHINA
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the number and value of tractors sold by British manufacturers to China since the embargo on these vehicles was removed.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Viscount for the absence of some noble friend whom I have not yet identified. I hope that he will forgive me if the Government appear to have been caught without a Minister.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, might I ask my Question following upon the other two?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I shall be delighted, if this is in accordance with your Lordships' wishes. I hope that the noble Viscount will not in any way be prejudiced, and I can only apologise humbly on behalf of the Government. Certainly, if the noble Viscount will raise his Question again following upon the other two Questions, I will do my best to get somebody here. I am afraid that I was taken completely by surprise, as was the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I absolutely understand these little local difficulties.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I wish all "little local difficulties" were treated as courteously and as friendly as this.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The Government could resign!

I.C.A.O. AND DECCA NAVIGATIONAL AID
2.29 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they are aware that the recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, to the effect that the obsolete American V.O.R. system should be adopted as standard for the world's air liners, will result in an arbitrary increase in American sales at the expense of superior British equipment, and what advice or instructions on this subject they have given to British airline operators.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are certainly aware of the implication in the first part of the noble Lord's Question. The purpose of the recent Special International Civil Aviation Organisation Meeting in Montreal was to determine the operational requirement for a short-range navigational aid which would be suitable in all conditions including conditions of high density traffic in restricted airspace, and to select the kind of system which

845
would best meet such requirements. The Conference decided to recommend V.O.R., with the addition of a distance-measuring equipment known as D.M.E.T., as a standard for this purpose. V.O.R. as such has been a standard short-range aid since 1949. It is a useful aid under many conditions and is by no means obsolete.
The United Kingdom delegation expressly reserved the position of Her Majesty's Government on D.M.E.T. and withdrew its proposal for the adoption of Decca as a protest, because in their view the Conference had not based its considerations on sound and objective technical grounds. Her Majesty's Government fully endorse the action of the delegation. It is essential to the future of safe navigation in the air that I.C.A.O. should establish adequate technical criteria for defining navigational requirements and that a detailed examination should then be made of the extent to which systems meet those requirements. Neither of these things has been done.
Before V.O.R./D.M.E.T. can be accepted as an international standard, however, it must be approved by a two-thirds majority in the Council of I.C.A.O. Her Majesty's Government will continue to press in I.C.A.O. for a more satisfactory solution, since we consider that the present standards of safety in congested airspace cannot be maintained with the use of V.O.R./D.M.E.T. without seriously reducing the efficiency of air traffic control. In the meantime the further development and evaluation of the Mark X Decca System will continue. It is thus premature to give any special advice or instructions to airline operators.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while fully supporting Her Majesty's Government in that very vigorous and satisfactory Answer, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not the case that although V.O.R. may not necessarily be obsolete—it may do for airfields with very few landings—it is not accurate enough for the safe maximum use of airspace in major airfields, and consequently that at those airports it is uneconomic because, for safety reasons, aircraft have to be delayed both on the ground and in the air? And can be bring that fact to the notice of the Governments concerned.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the kind reception by the noble Lord of my Answer. I will certainly bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the remarks made by the noble Lord, but I feel that as the question itself is still at a rather delicate stage it would be quite wrong for me to discuss it now.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to say officially from this Front Bench that we welcome very much the stand so far taken by Her Majesty's Government on this matter which is of the utmost importance to the whole basis of safety in flying at large and essentially to our defence; and I hope that they will be successful in their future submissions to I.C.A.O.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that local helicopter services in New York areas have adopted the Decca system and are more than satisfied with it as an accurate navigational aid?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl tell us whether there are any countries in this Association which are not involved in high density flying, particularly around London and New York.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, there are many members who are not interested in high density flying. That, I believe, is the problem.

THE ANGLO-EGYPTIAN SETTLEMENT
2.34 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) by what right or authority not only for themselves but on behalf of United Kingdom nationals they have declared in Article IV (5) of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of February 28th that the payment prescribed in that Agreement "fully and finally discharges the Government of the united Arab Republic" and their nationals "from all liability to the United Kingdom Government and United Kingdom

847
nationals"; and (2) whether British subjects holding claims against Egypt arising out of the Suez incident were consulted in any form before the undertaking was given by Her Majesty's Government on their behalf.]
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord must be aware, it is a well-established practice, where a foreign Government has expropriated British property, for Her Majesty's Government to achieve the best settlement possible and in arriving at that settlement to waive the claims of their nationals.
As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in reply to a Question in another place on March 3, the general issues arising in the financial negotiations with Egypt were discussed at a series of meetings between representatives of the Departments concerned and the representatives of persons and organisations with interests in Egypt. It would not have been practicable, however, to consult such persons and organisations at every stage in the negotiations.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Viscount the Minister for his Answer, on which I do not propose to make detailed comment, may I ask him to cast his memory back to what he said in this House on February 25—that is, just three days before the agreement was signed? When I then asked him whether what he had then said to me was liable to allay the fear of British claimants, the noble and learned Viscount ended with these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 214 (No. 43), col. 492]:
"I am sure the noble Lord"—
that is, myself—
"will do his best to allay any alarm … because I can assure him that the alarm is not, at any rate in my judgment, well founded."
Does the noble and learned Viscount repeat and confirm that affirmation of his view?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, certainly, but I must say I am surprised at the noble Lord for having taken out of their context words which were used in answer to a Question by him very different in character. The noble Lord will remember that he was asking me about the release of £3 million of the sterling balances to the Suez Canal
848
Company, and the alarm to which he was there referring quite clearly had that connotation. I really must say that the noble Lord's use of those words in this context is wholly inappropriate and quite unjustified.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I must rebut that at once. Under the rules I must not make a speech, but what had happened was that £3 million had been released from the general security which, by Government assurance in this and another place, was the final security for payment of these claims against Egypt. Contrary to the assurances given, as I maintain, £3 million-odd had been released from that security, thereby reducing the security pro tanto. It is one and the same question.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that when the matter comes to be debated it will be found, I believe, that the release has cost nobody anything. When the noble Lord put his Question to me it was plain, at any rate to me, that he intended it to refer in general to the Anglo-Egyptian financial agreement and not to the specific question of release, to which my words applied in the first place. My only complaint was that he should apply words intended in one context to another. I go on to say that I see no reason for alarm either in relation to this matter. But I say it is a great mistake to misuse Question Time for the purpose of making tendentious observations.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Well, well!
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could the noble and learned Viscount answer one question? Does the signing of the Anglo-Egyptian pact on behalf of British nationals preclude any British national from attempting to get redress either from the Egyptian courts or any international court?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Certainly!
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Would the noble Lord kindly repeat his question.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I ask: does the signature of this pact by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of British nationals effectively prevent any British national who feels so

849
inclined from endeavouring to get redress either in the Egyptian courts or in any international court?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is obviously a question of law, and my noble friend will forgive me if I say quite frankly that if he wanted a definitive reply he would have to put down a Question. But if I may speak "off the cuff", and with that qualification, I do not think that these claims previously were justiciable in any municipal court or any international court. They were in the field of diplomacy, and therefore the signature of the agreement would not, I believe, affect the justiciability of the claims; because I would not myself think that ordinarily they were justiciable.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, is it not now apparent that in view of these results of Government diplomacy in this matter British nationals would probably have done better had they opened their own negotiations in an attempt to mitigate the disastrous policy of Her Majesty's Government?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should have thought they would have got nothing whatever had they tried to do that.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope it is not too tendentious to ask whether Her Majesty's Government have received any general approval from the associations and individuals concerned in the British claims? Have they accepted the settlement with grace and thanks to Her Majesty's Government?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should say that the approval which the Government seeks, and, I hope, will obtain, will be from Parliament. That is the appropriate constitutional body from which to seek it.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he can indicate what remedy there is now for these people?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it would be difficult for me, in the compass of a short answer, to give more than a
850
tentative reply, and I hope that the noble Lord will put that question in debate when we discuss the subject; but I think he will find that the Foreign. Claims Corn-mission is, at any rate in the first place, the primary source for claiming against the Cash Fund and that the Mission with diplomatic immunity to be established in Cairo probably will be the source for help through the Foreign Office in the case of sequestrated properly. Perhaps I should say—and again I apologise for dealing with the question in a tentative way—that I think that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has sent an individual letter to everybody known to be a claimant, giving him full instructions as to the way he should proceed.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, if, after the settlement of these claims is made, certain hard cases should emerge, would Her Majesty's Government give sympathetic consideration to them?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that that is a question which could be appropriately raised in debate.

TRACTOR SALES TO CHINA
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, by permission of the House I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper—but out of order.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the number and value of tractors sold by British manufacturers to China since the embargo on these vehicles was removed.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I must apologise for having failed to apprehend that your Lordships were meeting to-day at 2 o'clock. The embargo on exports to China was removed from all tractors except four-wheel drive types of 100 h.p. and over in June, 1957. Between that date and the end of 1958, 1,356 tractors, valued at £779,013, were exported. Since August, 1958, no tractors other than those specially designed for military use have been embargoed. This further relaxation has not resulted in any increase in our exports of tractors.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his encouraging Answer, which demonstrates, does it not, the value to the exporting industry of this country of relaxations in the China embargo.

SITUATION IN IRAQ
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice: Whether they have any statement to make on the situation in Iraq.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, as stated yesterday in another place, reports have been circulating for some days that the situation in Iraq was deteriorating and that there was reason to fear that trouble might break out, especially in the North. The situation appears to be very confused. But Her Majesty's Ambassador at Baghdad has reported an official statement by the Director of Baghdad Radio that the Iraq Government forces are in complete control of the whole country, including Mosul, and that there are no pockets of resistance left there. Reports reaching Baghdad from Mosul indicate that Mosul and the oil fields are quiet and that British lives are not in danger. The situation in Baghdad and Basra is also reported quiet, except for demonstrations in the streets.
There are some 3,700 British subjects in the whole of Iraq, of whom some 850 live in Northern Iraq. Of these, however, fewer than 200 are in the Mosul area and the majority of these are concentrated in the oil fields of the Iraq Petroleum Company some considerable way from the town of Mosul itself. As Your Lordships will be aware, standing plans are in existence for the evacuation of British subjects in the shortest possible time, should this become necessary: Although, as I have said, there is no evidence of danger at present, these plans have now been brought to a high state of readiness.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged for the Answer that the Minister
852
has given. In view of the anxiety which has been expressed in some quarters, I think that a good deal of the Answer will be reassuring, and for that we are grateful. I hope that, if any further news comes in during the day, we might have it, unless it is officially reported in the Press, so that we may know of it during the course of our long Sitting to-day.

HOUSING (UNDERGROUND ROOMS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (AMEND MENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
EMERGENCY LAWS (REPEAL) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BRITAIN'S FIVE-YEAR DEFENCE PLAN
2.47 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME) rose to move to resolve, That this House approves the report on the Progress of the Five-Year Defence Plan contained in Command Paper No. 662. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I often think that it would be well if, before the annual assessment of progress in defence, we had in Parliament a comprehensive review of foreign policy, because the shape and the evolution of our military planning must stem directly from the state of our international relations and from the aims of our policy in the field of foreign affairs. The scale of our defence expenditure, and the effort of it, will be conditioned not only by the security of the base in this Island but also by the range of our responsibilities for the overseas territories in our Colonial Empire, by the obligations which we have accepted under the Alliances of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Baghdad

853
Pact and South East Asia Treaty Organisation, and by the general contribution which we make to collective security. And your Lordships will realise that, so long as Britain is a world Power in her own right, and has this wide scope of duties in the international field, defence cannot be had "on the cheap".
The bill for 1959–60, which totals, as your Lordships will have seen, some £1,514 million, is a formidable one; but I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that, thanks to our stronger economic position, it is within our means. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of HILLSBOROUGH, or any other of your Lordships will suggest (luring the course of our debate that we should add to this global sum which we are spending on defence. If so, I think it well, perhaps, to issue a warning in advance that we could very soon put a strain on our economy which would bring back the recurring financial crises of the post-war years. It has been my lot in recent years to travel a good deal overseas, and to look back at this country from Commonwealth countries and other countries, and I am certain of this: that nothing did more to weaken our authority and influence on the world stage than the fact that Britain was on the edge of inflation and was threatened with bankruptcy. No nation can be physically strong if it is on the edge of bankruptcy. In other words, my Lords, a strong pound if the first line of Britain's defence.
Secondly, so long as there is no change in human nature, and until all combine within the United Nations in collective defence—until the 99 combine against the one who is tempted to aggression; and twat system would suit the United Kingdom hotter than any other system of security: that is, indeed, why we were pioneers in the League of Nations, and why our support for the United Nations has been consistent and strong—the historic conception of the balance of power remains.
My Lords, judging the matter by results, some may argue that that is an imperfect instrument for keeping the peace—and that case can be made. I will not inflict it on your Lordships to-day, but I could advance a very convincing thesis that peace has been threatened, not by the balance of power, but by the unbalance
854
of power, and that it has been the soft spot, the weak spot, which has invited wars and which has been irresistible to the aggressor. At any rate, the balance of power holds the field, and, in its modern structure, the balance of power demands two military elements from those who contribute: first of all, atomic and nuclear weapons so devastating in their punishment that they will in fact deter the aggressor; and, secondly, forces and tactical weapons which are necessary to contain local penetrations and situations in which police action in time will stop the spread of the conflict over a wider field.
I am not going to argue to your Lordships to-day the morality of the nuclear bomb: whether we ourselves should manufacture the nuclear bomb, or whether we should buy nuclear weapons from the United States. I think that, largely, there is agreement between the Government and the Opposition that we should include in our defence a nuclear element of our own possession, and I believe (although there will be exceptions to this) that the country has largely accepted that we must make and own our own nuclear elements for defence. There is, however, a legitimate field for discussion, in which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of HILLSBOROUGH, has shown interest before; and that is whether, within the total defence effort, we have got the correct balance between nuclear deterrent and the conventional fighting forces for use in what are known as "limited emergencies" overseas.
My Lords, I think it would be very unwise to be dogmatic, but one test is the test of expenditure. Your Lordships may be interested to know that the proportion of the total defence budget absorbed by the V-bomber force and its nuclear weapons, and ballistic rockets, including the element of research and development, amounts to less than one-tenth of the whole. Even if we add the cost of the protection of the nuclear bases, which means another one-tenth, we arrive at only about one-fifth of the total. It is then necessary to make two adjustments, because two-thirds of the expenditure on bases would be necessary whether we had a nuclear deterrent or not; and, of course, the V-bomber has other military uses apart from the delivery of the deterrent. Thus, the proportion of expenditure on

855
the nuclear deterrent would be somewhere nearer one-sixth, I would suggest, than one-fifth.
If we are to have the nuclear bomb, then we must have the most accurate and efficient means of delivery. Your Lordships will see that the Mark II of the Vulcan and the Victor, which will be coming into service, are aeroplanes as good as any of their kind; and when they come into service they will hold their own with the best. But as, in this business of air warfare, plans have to be made many years ahead, and as the experts are certain that the missile will succeed the bomb, so it is forecast in this White Paper that the Blue Streak will eventually replace the strategic bomber, and that the Bloodhound will be adopted as a ground-to-air defence weapon. So, my Lords, in this particular field of strategic air warfare and the nuclear element, while we must certainly remain flexible in our plans, I would suggest that, if we are to have the nuclear deterrent, then one-sixth of the total expenditure is not an unreasonable proportion to devote to it, and is hardly excessive.
My Lords, I now turn to the second aspect of our task. For convenience, I must mention each of the Services separately, but I should not like to stress that aspect, because in the type of overseas operation with which we are familiar in these unstable years almost every operation demands the complete cooperation of the three Services—the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. They are co-ordinated under the new defence organisation, and that co-ordination does and must flow from the point of operational planning, at the top, to execution and action at all subsequent levels. Over the years we have had many arguments in Parliament, in another place and in this House, about the best machinery for the organisation of our defence system, but I believe I can say that, the working of the system established by my right honourable friend is now smooth and efficient—and long may it remain so!
The White Paper sets out certain developments which give added significance and greater efficiency to our conventional forces, and the first that I must mention is the success of the voluntary recruiting campaign, which will enable us to achieve full-time Regular
856
forces—and, in particular, a Regular Army. I remember the almost monthly partings which the noble Viscount used to give to my noble friend Lord Mancroft for over-optimism in this field, and I am sure the noble Viscount will be the first to, rejoice that his forecasts were too glum. We have, in fact, done what we thought was possible—that is, to raise the recruiting level so that, within the foreseeable future, we shall be able to have all-Regular forces.
There are other features in the White Paper on which I think we may feel a legitimate satisfaction. First in this field, perhaps, is that so many routine, nonmilitary jobs can now be done by civilians; that the present rate of recruiting exceeds our hopes of a year ago; and that we are able—as was said in another place in respect of the Navy, and as is said in this White Paper in respect of the Army—to launch certain plans for ensuring that we get the highest quality of officers in the Service. Then I believe that, as the modern types of equipment and weapons are joined on to the new professional Army and professional forces, we shall have what this House has looked for for so long—effective and efficient arms of the Forces.
I would stress again that the improved conditions of service which have enabled us to increase recruiting to these satisfactory levels would not have been possible if the national finances had not been able to bear the burden. To the gains I think I would also add the fact that the Cyprus settlement will pay us a considerable dividend, because we shall be able to build up the strategic reserve so that it may be available for use in the right place, at the right time. In this field of recruiting and the establishment of full-time Forces I think we can record progress which, even if we are not completely satisfied by it, is certainly encouraging and along the right lines.
Your Lordships will have realised, and previous White Papers have emphasised, that the two decisive elements in modern war are mobility and striking power. And there have been legitimate anxieties and fears expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of HILLSBOROUGH, in my hearing in previous debates about transport aircraft. It is clear that if a bottleneck were to develop at this point it might seriously limit the

857
impact and conduct of any military campaign. I have no doubt that much will be said in the course of the debate about this matter, but I am glad to say some progress is being made. Hastings aircraft are to be replaced by Britannias; and Comets are doing good work. But an air transport force is not an end in itself. It must move in step with the Army's changing needs; and in the coming year the Comets, Hastings and Beverleys will be joined by the Britannias. By 1960, capacity will have been increased by 50 per cent. But as that will not meet the long-term need, noble Lords will notice that orders have been placed for the military version of the Armstrong Whitworth Argosy and Britannia long-range strategic freighter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May we know what this 50 per cent. is based upon? Fifty per cent. of what?
THE EARL OF HOME: I meant to say a 50 per cent. increase on the present levels this year. I will get my noble friend to elaborate that, if the noble Viscount so wishes.
If we are looking at the impact of striking forces, noble Lords will see that the general purpose aircraft mentioned in paragraph 10 of the White Paper, the T.S.R.2, is being developed for support of the Army and tactical operations; while the improved Lightning, which in a year or two will take the place of the Hunter, will add to our air strike power.
Now, although the First Lord of the Admiraity is sitting beside me, I am going to allow myself one or two reflections on the rôle of the Navy in the context of our defence preparations. Like any other military arm, the Navy will evolve and adapt itself to the new pattern of global strategy and defence. But it will continue to perform two tasks which are traditional and, I suggest, of absolute value. The first is that of showing the Flag in peace time. The demonstration of our wide interests in the world and our influence as a leading partner in the Commonwealth cannot, in my opinion, be more effectively illustrated by anything than by a ship of Her Majesty's Navy visiting the different countries in the world.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF HOME: Whenever one of Her Majesty's ships is seen it is recog-
858
nised as an influence for stability and neighbourliness in international relations.
In 1958 alone the Royal Navy paid 400 visits to posts overseas. There were the joint exercises with the Commonwealth Navies, to which I know the Commonwealth Navies look forward as a regular feature in training each year. And the importance which is attached to the rôle, of the Navy, particularly in the Indian and Far East waters—East of Suez—is illustrated by the fact that our Fleet is being strengthened in that area. As long as they are able to appear and be seen in these Far Eastern and Indian waters—and I am glad to see the addition of frigates which is going to be made next year—and so long as these activities in peace-time continue, the Pax Britannica, although we may not use the term in its 19th century context, still has a meaning on the high seas.
The second traditional rôle of the Navy is defence of our life lines—our existence as an island and our standard of living. In the modern Navy, with its high degree of mobility, with its air strike and cover, I believe we shall find that we have a convincing instrument of power, and we may easily find that the Navy, in the years ahead, has a strategic rôle of even greater significance than in the past. No doubt my noble friend Lord Selkirk will be saying more about this aspect. The most important problem before the Navy to-day, looking ahead to a world war or even to a limited war, is dealing with the fast and silent submarine, even a small number of which could cause serious damage and put this island's life in jeopardy. In another place yesterday a good deal of information was given on that aspect of our defence preparations. And so, whether we take the new Regular Army or the improved striking force and the new methods of defence in the air, or whether we take the modernised Navy, I think we can truly say that in this Paper progress is recorded on the lines which we all wish to see.
Like many of your Lordships, I have reflected in the last few weeks on the challenging debate which we had on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, on the question of nuclear weapons, and on the particular proposal that we might surrender that particular section of our defence to the United States. I have been able to

859
ponder all this, and I am bound to say that my second thoughts confirm my original conclusion which I gave to this House: that we cannot, indeed that no Government can, transfer any important section of our defence to another country. Whether it is the Navy looking after our life-lines or the Army or the Air Force, each must be equipped with weapons adequate to meet anything which the enemy may bring against them; the second best just will not do.
So, my Lords, I hope that, as Parliament and as a country, we shall agree that, having taken the decision to include the nuclear element, then we must go ahead and arm our Forces with the best weapons. Although no one can be completely satisfied—and, indeed, no one ought to be satisfied, because there is yet much to be done—and although there may be criticisms about the pace of re-equipment or some particular aspect of progress in this White Paper, I believe I can claim on behalf of my right honourable friend that the policy is well founded in its essentials and that within the money available it is being executed with drive.
I notice that in the debate in another place a warning was given against resting so far on the nuclear element in our defence that we may fall into the pitfall of what one honourable Member called "the mentality of the Maginot Line". That would be wrong for ourselves and our Allies, and I trust I have shown in the few remarks I have made that we have tried to preserve a sense of proportion and flexibility between the amount of effort put into the nuclear deterrent and that put into conventional forces for limited operations and more limited dangers.
There are so many speakers on the list to-day that I have not spoken about the United Nations and the ultimate aim of collective security enforced by truly international opinion, although we must never lose sight of that goal, and it may be that in the last few years and months we have seen the modest beginnings of an increase of authority in the United Nations. I have not talked about controlled disarmament, though we must pursue that with an infinite patience, as the Prime Minister has done lately in Moscow, and as we shall continue to do at Geneva and whenever opportunity offers, because part of our policy to lessen
860
tension and increase security must be to seek disarmament over the whole field of weapons.
Nor have I talked about publicity and propaganda, which must be part of our defence effort in the cold war. We can debate these things in their turn. But I hope I have faced, in the short time available to me, the challenges that are posed to this country, in particular, as an island gateway to Europe, as the leading partner in the Commonwealth and as a Power whose interests and authority runs wide in the world. I trust that this report, Progress of the Five Year Defence Plan will give confidence to the House that we can do three things: that we can shoulder our share in preventing a world war; that we can assume an active rôle in containing local conflict and in promoting law and order; and that, leading from strength, and, in particular, economic strength, we can exercise influence in the world for stability and peace.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the report on the Progress of the Five-Year Defence Plan contained in Command Paper No. 662.—(The Earl of Home.)
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for the manner in which he has introduced the Government's Motion for the approval of the White Paper on Defence. I would say that on a number of the points he has made there does not seem to be much doubt that we shall be, if not completely in agreement, at least near agreement. While I should like to be 100 per cent. in agreement upon all the proposals made in the national interest for defence, I am bound to say that it would be improper, in the light of our experience between, for example, 1935 and 1939, not to make some criticism and to draw attention to particular points. However, while I have been sitting here I have been resolving to turn the whole of my speech round. The more I listened to the noble Earl, the more I felt that, instead of going through some of the paragraphs item by item, I ought, in the interests of pure debate, to take up some of the particular points he has made. When, towards the opening of his speech he

861
referred to the cost of defence, I was immediately very interested; and as he wound up, almost in the last sentence in his speech, with a reference to the place of our economy in our defence, perhaps I may be permitted to say first a word or two about that aspect.
In the year 1950 we decided to accept the suggestions of the North Atlantic Organisation, largely imposed upon us by the United States, greatly to increase our Defence budget at that time; and, as we have so often reiterated, it cost £4,700 million on the Estimate for three years. It is now nearly nine years since the final conferences which came to that decision took place. That programme was to have been completed, at least at that rate of expenditure, in three years; but, in fact, on the average we have never spent in any one of the three years a normal one-year part of the three-year programme. When we look at that programme and think of what we have available to us to-day by way of defensive equipment and personnel it makes us wonder exactly what has happened. No one is going to deny that a stable method of exchange is essential to our prosperity, and that of almost every other country in the world. But our economy is very much subject to how we pay attention in our own country to our production, its expansion, and its actual costs in relation to our power to export and import.
Our defence programme has been vastly affected by the policy of Her Majesty's Government now in office and their predecessors since 1951; and the consequence is, as I have had to point out in the last two debates to which I have contributed, that in 1958 and 1957, for the amount of money in the Budget estimated for and spent in the last few years we have been getting nothing like the provision of personnel and equipment that was planned for in the three years which were laid down in that big joint scheme of N.A.T.O. Whose fault is that? I am bound to say that I think a large part of it is due to the economic policy followed by the Government. If the present Government are called upon, as we were, to make a vast contribution to the defence of our country and the defence (we hope) of peace, then it is essential to organise in such a way, even to the point of austerity for the people
862
of the country, and to control the way production is expanded. That is the only way to be successful in achieving both a standard of living and also adequate provision on defence.
Prior to 1951, we were urged on the wireless, in the Press, and all the way round, that what was wanted at once was a policy of free-for-all—"Set the people free!"; "take off the controls!"; "let the people have what they like, and do what they like!" In consequence, that has had a vast effect upon rising costs and, therefore, upon the lack of available provision each year to the Government to maintain the kind of progress that was required, especially in research, development and new equipment, as well as improving the status and accommodation for the troops in the three Services. I hope the noble Earl the Leader of the House will not mind my drawing his attention to that point.
It is important that the noble Earl should have raised this subject, because one recognises completely that the change in policy which brought about the appointment of the sixth Minister of Defence of the Conservative Government, who came into office late in 1956, and which is set out in the White Paper for 1957, placed the country in the position, if Parliament approved it—and Parliament did approve it, whatever we said against it—of making the nuclear weapon the ultimate deterrent. I agree with the noble Earl that such a decision must always be a particular difficulty at any time for any Government, and I have sympathy with them on this point. I have sympathy with the Minister of Defence also on having to distinguish how much, from the sum available to him, had to be spent on the ultimate deterrent in relation to the other tasks of the Forces, which the noble Lord so clearly outlined, so as to keep sufficient conventional forces in order to do their general jobs in peace-time and to be effective if any local wars break out which may blow up into something far worse if we have not sufficient conventional forces to keep them in check.
We have been studying the figures in the White Paper, and I must say that I am greatly indebted to the noble Earl the Leader of the House because he has given us for the first time something like an estimate—although I had formed a

863
rough estimate in my own mind—of the expenditure upon the actual production of nuclear material and equipment and the things that go with it, special bases and the like. I should estimate from what he has said that the combination of the two main items he mentioned must mean an expenditure of round about £300 million a year. It might be a little less, and it might be a little more. That is less than the cost of the whole of one of the Services. The figure for the Navy is more than £300 million this year; for the Army it is, I think, £450 or £460 million, and for the Air Force an even larger sum still. Looked at upon that basis, if the nuclear weapon is essential in the view of Parliament—and Parliament has decided it is—then one cannot altogether grumble at the part of the general overall defence budget which has been sat aside for that purpose, if it is to be effective.
That brings me to the next point I would make: is it effective as an alternative deterrent? Do we not find it said by nearly all the expert commentators in the Press—some of them in Parliament; professional men, more professional than I am, and some outside—that the change which has taken place in thinking since the end of 1956, when the main discussions of the Government were being held before agreeing to the policy of the 1957 White Paper, is obvious? Some of us were looked at askance when we said that the policy of the ultimate deterrent was ultimately a policy of suicide or a threat to suicide. But that is common language in The Times to-day. Who could read the leader in The Times last Wednesday, I think it was, without seeing how they are reflecting the change of opinion about the actual wisdom of this policy and the power of the ultimate deterrent? If you take the utterance by the noble and gallant Viscount, Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein, which was quoted in another place last week, and which was made on October 24, you will find that he imagines that nobody is going to let off this threat to suicide. He certainly thinks it quite impossible to believe that a British Government, or any similar Government, would use the main and nuclear attack upon the cities of Russia in the case of their making an attack against us. In fact be uses those words
864
and says that that would be suicide, because it would mean the inevitable destruction of our own country. It is only a few months since the noble and gallant Viscount left his High Command in N.A.T.O. Do we take note of his words?
Of course, when we look at the speech of the Minister of Defence last week and see what his answers were on questions of this sort, we might try to make ourselves believe that it does not depend on the exact weapon we have, or the weight of the kiloton bomb, or how far it may remain tactical or how far it becomes strategic; it depends upon our target. That is an extraordinary thing. I suppose it might be argued from the statement of the noble and gallant Viscount that because he referred to an attack upon the cities of Russia he was thinking of special targets. But is it not perfectly plain that directly there is an attack of that kind, especially if it is first engineered by ourselves or our allies, against an attack by Russia or her satellites with conventional arms, then the very first attack made brings back a holocaust on ourselves straight away? What we said two years ago is in fact true: it is a policy of suicide.
The whole point is whether, so long as it remains only a threat of suicide, it is going to be effective. On that, I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Earl that there are little signs here and there in the international conversations which would give us a little more hope of getting closer to some form of agreement which might lead on, stage by stage, to a wider agreement for collective security and a permanent peace. That would be a great thing, and it is one which we all greatly desire. Believe me, the Government have not all the wisdom upon what is necessary in our economy in order to secure an adequate defence, and it is not all to be found in the minds of the financiers in the City of London who have been advised by Mr. Thorneycroft and others in the past. You must have not only a wide view on what your production ought to be during the period of rearmament, and also during the period of disarmament, but also one which is based upon the solidity of the population as a whole and their belief in what you are doing in maintaining their standard and in obtaining for them an adequate collective defence.

865
I turn for a moment or two to the White Paper itself. I was glad to hear the sympathetic reference made by the noble Earl to the work of the Royal Navy. We know that, while in the view of many of us the most important rôle of the Royal Navy will prove to be in the combating of the enormous submarine threat, nevertheless, if it is properly backed, supported and cooperated with, it will always have a vital part to play in any minor or major war in which we may be engaged. In all my long years of experience of the Royal Navy I have never known it fall down on a job—jobs of all kinds, sorts and sizes and at all places. I therefore valued very much the sympathetic reference which the noble Earl made to the work of the Royal Navy. But when we are dealing with the Commonwealth at large, and other world commitments as well, and we look at the number of units we have on duty at the present time, it makes one pause to think. It was good news to know that there had been 400 visits made by ships of the Royal Navy and that they had same influence; I am sure they had influence, as they always have. But I just marvel how they managed to make 400 visits with the numbers in commission at the present time, especially if the visits are made by vessels with sufficient personnel on board to be given shore leave and to make the proper contacts and interchange of civilities—a very useful factor in the life of the Royal Navy.
I am bound to say that in regard to the Royal Navy I find in this report of progress much that is tentative all the time; something is always coming but hardly ever arriving. That is the great difficulty. We on this side of the House have not the detailed management of the actual defence budget at the present time; but hope deferred always makes the heart of those responsible for the Services pretty sick, and hope deferred is illustrated in paragraph after paragraph of this White Paper. Take, for example, paragraph 2:
"Preliminary work has begun on four guided missile ships of the County class."
I suppose, in a way, that is news, but it does not add much to the strength of the Royal Navy at the moment. I hope those ships will not be required before they are complete and that they are not the last of that class of ship that
866
are to be provided. At the bottom of the page, paragraph 4 says:
"It has also been decided to proceed with the production of the N.A.39, a strike-reconnaissance aircraft with high speed performance …"
and so on. "It has been decided to proceed …"; when will it arrive? We have been talking about the N.A.39 in this House for nearly three years. Again it is a matter of deferment and delay.
Incidentally, I may be quite wrong technically on this, but I am wondering how far the delay is because the Royal Air Force would not accept the N.A.39 as being an aircraft which could serve both the Navy and the Air Force. We now have the T.S.R.2, which, except for its latest characteristics, would do a job which could well have been done by the N.A.39 for both Services. What economies that would have secured, and how much we need those economies to-day! Perhaps later the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, will let us know when the N.A.39 will arrive.
There is the same thing with regard to the nuclear-propelled submarine "Dreadnought":
"Preparations for the construction of the nuclear submarine 'Dreadnought' are proceeding."
How long have they been proceeding—five years, seven years? A very conservative progress! I was glad to get the news that there was to be some further progress, because of the agreement arrived at with the United States as to the provision of the propulsive apparatus engines and so on, in the "Dreadnought", but I think we ought to have had it long before now. This is interesting:
"The first of the three 'Tiger' class cruisers will be commissioned next month."
The first of those "Tigers" was in my original programme; that must be ten years ago, just after the war; and the first is just being produced. Again it seems a little conservative in progress.
The same thing goes on with regard to the Army. In paragraph 7, "Re-equipment of Army", it says, "… present plans provide …"—of course that might be changed. It continues:
"… present plans provide for the extensive re-equipment of the Army. …. Work has for some time been proceeding on the development of a new family of weapons, vehicles and other equipment. These are now coming into service."

867
Have they arrived? It would be interesting to know and to have a few more details. I know the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, will have a lot of ground to cover. Perhaps we will have to return on the Service Estimates to some of these points. The White Paper says:
"Within the next twelve months, half the Army will have been re-equipped with F.N. rifles and deliveries of Sterling sub-machine guns will be nearly completed."
Fancy! in the next twelve months half the Army will have the F.N. rifle, on which we were committed at least four or five years ago. I am not at all sure that on examination the experts would not tell us it was a longer period than that. I understand you have hardly started to supply the F.N. rifles to our Army in Germany.
Then, when we look at the reference to the Thunderbird in paragraph 9, I should like to know whether the development mentioned in that paragraph means we are still in the research stage or actually going into line production. Is it merely developmental experiment or in production? You must cheer us up with something when we get this long list of conservative delays. I have referred to the T.S.R.2 and I do not want to do so again. I go on to paragraph 12, which reads:
"In addition, it is proposed to order a small number of long-distance air freighters, capable of carrying bulky equipment …"
The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, said to-day that he would estimate that there would be about a 50 per cent. increase in terms of Air Force transport aircraft. I should like to know whether that is based upon the number of personnel they can carry or what, because it varies a great deal upon whether you are counting aircraft or personnel or the payload the aircraft are capable of carrying.
Then you talk about the strategic bombers, and say:
"In addition to the growing stock of kiloton bombs, the production of British megaton weapons is proceeding steadily."
How many have you got? Do you mind telling us? Is it a secret, or can you say that you have now an adequate stock for any emergency? If you are tied to the policy you have adopted yourself, have you got the goods? This report of progress is so hazy as to leave us in con-
868
siderable dubiety. It is the same with regard to the propelled stand-off bombs. I think it would be a pity to spend as much time in our House as they spent downstairs upon the details of the Blue Streak; but what stands out a mile is that it is nowhere near being ready to use. I do not suppose you have even finalised its actual detailed construction. When are you going to get it? If, as we are told, the missile is going to take the place of the bomber—although there seems to be a little departure from that, in the spirit of this White Paper compared to the White Paper in 1957—when will the Blue Streak arrive?
I am looking at the clock, and I ought not to speak longer. I have a whole number of other things of the same sort to refer to—these hazy references to, "it is proceeding"; "it is developing", or "they will be ordered", appear all the way through the White Paper. I suppose that, when a Minister, I may have been guilty at some time of using Civil Service language of that kind, -but I hope that the Ministers will also feel, when they are questioned upon it, that as near as they can they should give real information. Finally, there is one important point in which I am vastly interested—namely, what exactly is meant by the references to the strategic reserve? One has to take a large microscope to find those references.
It is most pleasant to have little exchanges between the noble Earl the Leader of the House and myself upon estimates as to recruiting and the like. I am as delighted as anybody that at the moment recruits are coming in at a much better rate than I thought would be possible. I had hoped that we should get them, but I did not think that my hopes would be fulfilled. At the present time, however, it must be remembered (this is borne out by an Answer given a couple of days ago in another place) that recruitment has been largely aided—it has been a fortuitous help to the programme—by the growth of unemployment. A considerable percentage, at any rate, of the new recruits have come along from some of the heaviest centres of unemployment in the country. The figures can be looked up; noble Lords can look them up in the Answers given in another place a day or two ago. Nevertheless, I greatly hope that with the new conditions, expensive

869
as they are, the rate of progress will be maintained sufficiently.
It is regarded as a great feat for the Army to increase the total number from 165,000 to 180,000. The White Paper says that this force is to be divided between two tasks—first, to the making up of the strength of battalions and regiments overseas, and secondly, to increasing the strategic reserve. I do not think flat that is, very much. I said in this House two years ago—and I still stick to my opinion, although I do not make myself awkward about it—that I am not one of those who believe that you can do everything with all the enormous commitments of this country in the present state of world affairs based entirely on the voluntary services. I do not think we could ever have got through our task from 1945 to 1951 without the men who were made available by National Service. And I still hold that view.
When I look at the tasks that are to be left to a standing Army of no more, in all, than 180,000, and at a target that can always be hurled back at the War Office, of 165,000, I cannot see that they will be able to handle all the modern equipment, or the changes in armament, when everything is different and almost every article of equipment requires a larger amount of technical attention than its predecessor. I have never found that modern armament saves labour; it always increases it. When you say you are doing something wonderful in adding 9 per cent. to the target previously recorded, and then you divide the 9 per cent. of the increase between those two great tasks, comprising the strategic reserve and the making up of what is already known to be a shortage of strength in battalions and regiments overseas, I do not think the achievement is quite so praiseworthy as would be made out.
Now I come to my last appeal to this House. I have never given way to those who feel that we should not possess for ourselves any weapon which is available and valuable to us in the general trend of things. That is why I made the speech that I did on February 11, on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. I have never agreed with his Motion. But I am bound to say that unless we are marching on into an
870
age in which destruction is bound to come upon us, then noble Lords had better read the speech in another place of the former Minister of Defence and Secretary of State for War, Mr. Antony Head, upon the need to capture men's minds. The only criticism that I would make of the right honourable gentleman who made that speech is that the Government seem to have no other idea for the capture of men's minds but that of military and political propaganda.
I am convinced that the greatness of this country has been based upon her following the path of liberty and freedom, from the period of the Renaissance and the uprise of the Protestant Reformation. I am convinced, too, that in facing the situation in regard to peace in the world to-day there is no effective method of changing men's minds unless you can convince them of what is said in Zechariah, in the sixth verse of the fourth chapter:
"Not by might, nor by power but by my Spirit, saith The Lord of hosts ".
If you want to get the state of men's minds changed in the right direction upon whether it is right or wrong to murder or to savagely injure each other, you will have to come back to studying both the prophecies of the Old Testament and the fulfilments in the New Testament.
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the Leader of the House has commended the White Paper to us to-day in a clear, straightforward and objective speech. I think it is a clear and objective, if modest, White Paper, giving a plain report upon defence policy and development. If it is modest, I still do not think it merits the strictures which were cast upon it more vigorously, or at any rate, more verbosely in another place, by Motion and by vote, and less vigorously, I think, to-day by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, traditionally it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose. I cannot help feeling that the noble Viscount, skilled and fluent debater as he is, had a good deal of difficulty in hunting up material for his attack. So far as I could follow him—the task was made simpler by the Motion put down in another place—the criticisms of this White Paper are really twofold: first of all, that the Government to-day have no coherent policy of defence; secondly, that the equipment of the forces is inadequate.

871
I venture to say that neither of those charges is justified.
Let me for a moment deal with policy—I am going to be brief. Surely, whatever else can be said about our defence policy, it is certainly coherent; it is consistent, and it is continuous. The policy which is reported upon in this White Paper is, after all, the policy which was agreed by the whole of the Commonwealth at our Conference at the end of 1954. It was also set out quite plainly in the White Paper of the Spring of 1955 which was accepted and approved by both Houses of Parliament. That was the defence policy based on the deterrent, buttressed by the Grand Alliance of N.A.T.O., now celebrating its tenth anniversary; and buttressed, too, by the co-operation of the Commonwealth, the United States and Western Europe. As the noble Earl the Leader of the House has said to-day, that policy is, in fact, the balance of power, which, after all, in its older form, preserved the peace of the world longer than for any period since the Augustan Age; and it is the balance of power in practice to-day. I found some difficulty in following the noble Viscount because he seemed—and I am not saying this offensively—rather to box the compass. I thought he came round again, at the end of his speech, to complete support for this policy. I certainly understood from his speech, with which I found myself entirely in agreement, on the Motion in the nuclear debate the other day that the two major Parties were agreed upon this policy.
The noble Viscount was critical to-day about the deterrent, although apparently he still accepts it. He said that the deterrent is really a bad policy if we come to think of it, because if it were ever put into force and came into operation it would be suicidal. Of course it would. But surely that is the whole force of the deterrent. One recalls the famous words of Sir Winston Churchill, to which perhaps someone may refer later in this debate, about safety being the child of terror. This horror, if ever used, would certainly destroy us all. It would be suicide—not co-existence but coextermination. Surely the very fact that that is the effect of the deterrent makes the deterrent effective, and I am sure the noble Viscount, on
872
reflection, would agree that if we had not got that deterrent and had the great forces of Communism deployed against us, that certainly would be suicidal for us and we should not last very long.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to make my position quite clear. I have agreed all the way through that if we are going to have an alliance with countries which are manufacturing for themselves nuclear weapons which are to be held in reserve in case any of our enemies use nuclear weapons, then we, as a country, ought not to be without that type of weapon. That has always been my position; but I have never ceased to campaign for the banning and abolition of this weapon altogether, if all nations will agree. But they must all agree; and must agree, at the same time, to enter into a general discussion on a more general disarmament.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I do not for one moment dissent from that. It shows how close together we are on these great defence questions, and it is supremely important that the country should be together on a consistent policy, I agree, of course, and I believe every Government, irrespective of Party, who have been in office have done their best to bring about effective disarmament. The noble Viscount, however, will agree—for he stated it in the nuclear debate—that effective disarmament does not mean that we, or all countries, should abandon nuclear weapons while still leaving what are called conventional forces at exactly the same size as they are to-day; for that, again, would be inviting suicide. I believe, however, that we are completely agreed that, side by side with holding this deterrent, we must never relax our efforts to bring about complete and effectively controlled and co-ordinated disarmament.
I believe that we are very close together, and that if we are close together on what the policies should be, while we have the right to assume that in any major war we shall be acting with our Allies we must ourselves play our full part in the Alliance. We have also the right and duty to exert our influence on Allied policy, and we shall be able tee exercise that right of exerting our influence only if we pull our weight in the Alliance. That means, surely, that, just

873
as it was right in the Labour Government's day to manufacture the atomic bomb, it is right for us to manufacture and to have the hydrogen bomb to-day I am sure that to shelter wholly behind the United States—although they will always be the major partner—would be neither dignified nor wise. If we did that we could not carry the same weight in council. We could not expect to share information—which I am glad to see we are increasingly doing. We can be very valuable partners in scientific knowledge as well as in our experience of world affairs.
There is one other aspect which I should like to put to Her Majesty's Government, and I would ask whether they can confirm it. It occurs to me that it shows how important it is that we ourselves should be manufacturers of this bomb. In our development and production it is axiomatic that the development and production of military aircraft is of enormous importance to the development and production of civilian aircraft; indeed, the two are so interlinked that one cannot really separate them. I should be greatly surprised if the same were not true, at any rate to a considerable extent, of nuclear weapons and nuclear production for peace.
I propose to spend hardly any time on the other branch of criticism, which is that the Forces—particularly the Army—are inadequate and that the Army has been "starved" and ill-equipped. I am very glad to see that the strength of the Army is being increased now by 17,000, for I consider that a very wise move. I am also glad that recruiting is going as well as it is. Although the equipment is not yet all there, all of us who have ever been in this business know that production is apt to be slow, but I should have thought that, with the rifle, the machine-gun, the tank, anti-tank weapons and, perhaps above all, with the increasing mobility in the air, making our strategic reserve mobile, a very considerable advance has been made.
On a more general theme, I welcome most heartily the setting up of the Inter-Services Commands, which are referred to in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the White Paper. I am sure that that is the right trend of co-operation between the Services. The closer the co-operation and integration, the better. That kind of
874
thing is much better than the old agitation, which I hope is now dead, about whether or not we ought to transfer Coastal Command. After all, when we have thirty, forty or fifty Atlantic crossings every day, summer and winter, I suppose that nobody would to-day suggest that one has to be a sailor to fly across the sea. That sort of thing only makes for friction and not for cooperation. I may put it colloquially by saying that "Beggar my neighbour" is never a good game for partners to play. I think it may be that some day we may see complete integration of two or more of the Services. But that cannot be rushed. It can come only as a natural growth, out of close and trusting cooperation and successful experiments—ad hoc experiments, if you will—in integration between equal partners. On those lines the closer together we come, the better shall I be pleased.
One thought, in conclusion—and I think that here I echo something which the noble Earl the Leader of the House said: it is impossible to consider defence, whether our own or Allied defence, in isolation. However good, technically or strategically, that defence may be, and however close the inter-allied co-operation over the whole field of defence, all those defence problems are inseparably linked with foreign policy and with economics. Indeed, the more effective the armed deterrent is, the truer that is. I think that the deterrent may well prevent a hot war, but it certainly cannot win the cold war. I am not going to develop that theme to-day, in view of the great number of speakers, but I am sure it must be in all our minds, and I think we shall all be agreed upon it. I would only say, in a sentence, that it is just as important that we and our Allies should be agreed on a common approach and a common policy in foreign affairs, in economic co-operation and aid, and in propaganda—which I would rather call the spreading of truth and our way of life—as in those other aspects of defence which figure in the White Paper. And I am sure that I shall carry the House with me in saying—and I make no Party point—that no one appreciates that more, or has done more to try to bring it about, than the Prime Minister. I am sure that the whole House and the whole country wishes him Godspeed on his journeys.
4.4 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, whatever differences there may be between us (and perhaps they are not on this subject as great as upon others), we shall all unite in the sentiment last expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, of good wishes to the Prime Minister in his efforts. My Lords, I noticed that the noble Earl who has last spoken, like the noble Earl the Leader of the House, referred to the intersection of foreign policy with armaments. I seem during these past years to have noticed something of a change in the general approach. In the old days it used to be said that foreign policy depended upon armaments; to-day I believe it is increasingly clear that armaments depend upon foreign policy, and indeed that foreign policy is our main defence, and skilled and adroit and sincere diplomacy should help us where perhaps armaments cannot. I wish good fortune to all, from wherever they may be drawn in politics, who are engaged upon the task of pursuing a policy by which we may live, rather than one of increasing armaments which destroy so many achievements.
There is no one, I think, on this side of your Lordships' House who would not agree that in the world in which we live the "great deterrent", subject to the objective of banning it—that is the common hope of us all—is indispensable and that we should be possessed of it. Whether the "great deterrent" will have all the effect which some claim for it is a matter which may well be open to debate. But if we are to have it, then I would urge upon those upon whom responsibility rests that we should ensure that we have it in a form and under conditions in which, however it has to be used, it can be used to the best effect. I would also urge that we should not take on commitments as to either using it or not using it. The phrases, "We shall not use it unless …" or, "We shall use it if …" are words not of expansion but of limitation. I would urge Her Majesty's Government to keep in all this a free hand, waiting upon circumstances as they may arise. I hope and pray that the situation may never arise in which it is to be used; and I believe that the conscience of the British people will be such that it will be only under the influence of the most extreme urgency and necessity that any Government would have the
876
support of the people in using it. But it might be necessary, and I should not myself, nor would my friends, shrink from it if occasion should arise.
The position with regard to these weapons and with regard to missiles is somewhat changing. I noticed in the White Paper, although it is stated to be a progress statement based upon the Paper of 1957, that whereas in that earlier Paper the Minister of Defence referred to the "great deterrent" in explicit words, one might almost say in explosive words, he now slants somewhat from it, and his main emphasis, instead of being on the deterrent, is rather towards more conventional weapons. Indeed, in another place the Minister of Defence, and here to-day the noble Earl the Leader of the House, were insistent upon pointing out the relatively small proportion of our expenditure upon defence that is devoted to that particular end.
I want to say a word about ballistic missiles—and I should say to your Lordships that I speak not as some expert but as an interested layman. I think the position there is changing. Russia announced in 1957 the testing of an intercontinental ballistic missile. The United States fired Atlas, their inter-continental ballistic missile, for the first time successfully in 1958; and Russia is a little ahead. Until Atlas can be got into operational use the United States are, temporarily at all events, more dependent than ever before on intermediate-range bases in this country, in Spain, in Morocco, in Japan and in Arabia. From the United States' point of view, these bases are for the intermediate-range missiles, and they would seem to serve only an interim purpose pending the successful development of Atlas. When Atlas does come into operational use, the importance of these bases for the United States will greatly diminish, and, politically, America's hands will be greatly strengthened.
My Lords, the United Kingdom must then he prepared to be independent of the United States for intermediate-range ballistic capacity, and we must look to ourselves. That is really the basis upon which we work in connection with Blue Streak. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government how matters stand as regards Blue Streak. I should also like to know what is the position as regards anti-missile missiles. I saw in the Press the other

877
day that we had abandoned the production of anti-missile missiles. It will be interesting to know from Her Majesty's Government what the position is in that respect, for be it noted that, when once a man-manned aircraft leaves these shores, it will be too late to call it back in the event of an attack upon us, and as regards missiles that have once been despatched, they of course cannot be called back at all. It is therefore important to know how we stand as regards the anti-missile missiles.
If it is right—and I believe it to be—that we should attach more importance to a substantial contribution to the N.A.T.O. force in Western Europe than we have been inclined to do hitherto, it is essential that we should be satisfied that that is going to be effective for its purpose. I should like to know—indeed, my noble friend Lord Alexander of HILLSBOROUGH hinted at this question—how far the Army on the Rhine is equipped with the modern rifle. I should like to know what its position is with regard to tanks, and, in particular, with regard to antitank weapons. I am also interested in the area of operation of the Second Tactical Air Force. It is now half the size that it was. Is it sufficient for its purpose? Is it designed to work in close co-operation with the Army, or is it to operate with a degree of independence, as an Air Force on its own? That we shall certainly wish to know from the Government.
I suppose that, of the 250 divisions said to be available to be brought into use against Western Europe, 100 might be deployed to the areas which we have to defend. Opposed to them, as matters stand now, we should have not more than 28½ divisions. Are we satisfied that those divisions are not only fully equipped so far as our contribution is concerned, but that the 28½ of them—contributed to by other nations, also—are all competently equipped and ready to take the field? Is the Force self-supporting? Can it conduct its operations without re-equipment, without reinforcement, and without being resupplied? All those are essential questions in the circumstances we have to envisage. The likelihood of our being able to reinforce them in supplies or equipment or men is not very great, judging from the situation disclosed by the White Paper and by many discussions in your Lordships' House.
878
Perhaps I should pause there for a moment to say that, when the noble Earl the Leader of the House spoke just now he used a phrase with regard to the forces not comprised in the Army on the Rhine, and he referred to their purposes in terms of "limited emergencies overseas". But, my Lords, our obligations overseas may be far more than limited emergencies. They include the Bagdad Pact, and they include S.E.A.T.O., in aid of which we can in no wise call upon our forces engaged in Western Europe. Limited emergencies are in addition to those obligations: they do not themselves define those obligations. We might be involved in warfare in the Far East, or in the not-so-far East, in conditions which would be far more than "limited emergencies overseas". I should like to know how we stand with regard to that. Are our forces swiftly-moving, self-sufficient and organised as battle groups? Can they get there in time, and will they be fully equipped and self-sufficient when they do get there? That applies whether they are in fulfilment of our obligations under, let us say, S.E.A.T.O. or the Bagdad Pact, or whether they are for the purpose of "limited emergencies overseas". I am not so certain that our experiences in transporting troops to Cyprus show that we are able to do so with that speed which circumstances might very easily require of us.
In that connection, perhaps the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, when he replies, will say whether he considers that the 125,000 men out of the 185.000 will suffice for our commitments outside Western Europe—which, merely for the purposes of this argument, I assume to be stabilised at 55,000. Will they he sufficient: and is the force so constituted and provided that it should be able to carry out its task (in the opening phase, at all events) with little or no reinforcement? Could we feel confidence that the strategic reserve is so based as between this country and overseas that it can swiftly be moved to any likely point of interest and importance and trouble? Have stockpiles of heavy equipment been made overseas, to reduce to a minimum the air transport load, to which my noble friend Lord Alexander of HILLSBOROUGH referred? We are told that Britannias, Britannics arid Argosies are coming in, and that there are to be some heavy freighters; but it

879
is of little use taking one's forces to some airfield unless there They will be able to find further transport to take them to the point of action and unless they will be able to find there heavy equipment for their use when they get to that point. I should like to know something about the stockpiles, and I should also like to know something about the bases. There are different points of view, but I should like to see the stockpiles increased. I should like to see the bases in Europe dispersed. On an earlier occasion I raised in your Lordships' House the position of the great base that had been established at Antwerp. I give that by way of example, and not by way of precise question. Have bases of that kind been suitably dispersed in order to meet the situation which may arise?
Now, my Lords, as I look at the White Paper I observe that it is called a "Progress Report." Some have called it an "Accountant's Report." Certainly, on the asset side there is little to put in save for development. There is little in the way of substantial assets that you can see and touch and use. It is largely, as my noble friend pointed out, in the realm of development. I am not inclined to complain about that. These things take a long time. What is important is to have assurances that these objects are being pursued with energy and clearmindedness, with a clear idea of what we are aiming at in each particular. I ask because I have made a study of the various projects on foot for the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force: between two dozen and two-and-a-half dozen of them. I ask the Government: are our finances sufficient; are our engineering and manufacturing resources sufficient to enable us to pursue these many projects at one and the same time with a view to completing them within any reasonable time?
I hope the answer may be in the affirmative. I fear it may not be. And if I am correct in that, will the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, when he replies, pray be good enough to tell us what are the priorities? The leading article in The Times said words to the effect that without knowing these priorities the policy set out in the White Paper has little relevance to the situation which we have to meet.
4.24 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, as there are many noble Lords who want to speak, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. This White Paper is, as noble Lords have said, a progress report, and I think that it demands some commendation for the Government. I think it demands some further information on matters on which we are not informed, and it needs also, I think, some further clarification on one or two matters on which we are informed.
First, as regards commendation, I should like to join with other noble Lords in rejoicing that the gloomy prophecies made by various noble Lords, including myself, have proved entirely wrong as regards the recruiting for the Forces.
LORD OGMORE: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but is it not a fact that some of the remarks he and others made have resulted in better recruiting, as better conditions resulted from the criticisms made?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Far be it from me to claim any credit for anything arising from any speech that I made. But if, collectively, noble Lords have urged the Executive to take suitable action before, they can derive some satisfaction from the results to-day.
The other commendation I should like to make, if I am allowed to, is on the degree of flexibility that is shown in this progress report. There was a charge, in another place, that the Government were inconsistent. I think it is easy to confuse inconsistency with flexibility, and the complexity and scale of development makes changes all the time necessary. But there is one statement made by the Leader of the House on which I would throw some doubt. He gave an unqualified declaration that in due course the strategic bomber will be succeeded by nuclear weapons. My Lords, that, with respect, is a very definite statement to make.
A NOBLE LORD: Ballistic missiles.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Ballistic missiles. It may be that a few years will show that the development of defence against fixed-based missiles and fixed-trajectory missiles is such that we may have to consider reverting to reliance upon mobile air delivery bases with

881
weapons despatched with controlled trajectory; and if that came about it would mean the continuance of the manned aircraft for delivery of these missiles.
THE EARL OF HOME: I meant to say that the expert advice at present is that missiles will succeed bombers. No doubt this will be argued by the noble Lord and others for some years.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I think the Leader of the House made an admission when he said experts "at present." It gives that degree of flexibility which I was hoping would be contained in this majority policy, in the same way as we have seen flexibility maintained in other directions.
On the second point of more information I begin to doubt. This is a bold statement to make, perhaps, and one which may not find agreement in many quarters of the House. But I am beginning to doubt the value of annual debates ranging over the whole of our defences unless there is some new change in policy, or unless Parliament can be given—and I do not know whether this is possible—more information than it is given at the present time. I feel that Members who take part in wide debates on defence matters should be well-informed; they should not have to rely on newspaper experts and statements of those who have served recently in the Services. I know that we cannot ask for top secret or secret information; but when, as recently, someone asked about iron bedsteads for the Services and that was classified as being a security matter, I think that is going a little far in restricting information to both Houses of Parliament. We debate matters upon which most of us could not pass an examination. Take nuclear weapons of various sorts. We have Thor, we are told, training, but may be operational; the Blue Streak, Fire Streak, Bloodhound (which your Lordships will be glad to hear has an air-breather engine), Thunderbird, Sea-slug, Seacat and Polaris, which is not to be fitted to the "Dreadnought" submarine. And we must not forget the Little Corporal—everyman's nuclear weapon: it has been given to two regiments and it is, I gather, quite a small job, about half the power of one Hiroshima bomb.
882
I have some sympathy for the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of HILLSBOROUGH, when he brings forward various instances of the expressions of order: "Expected soon"; "Delivery started"; "Percentage increases"—without the basis upon which the percentage is founded; the F.N. rifle, which half of our Forces in Germany have already, though we are not told when the other half will have it. I submit that we ought to have more information. But if it is not available, then let us review the question of annual debates unless there has been during the previous year a major change of Government policy.
My third point is a plea for some clarification on matters upon which we are to some extent informed. Perhaps I can best deal with that by saying that there are a few puzzles upon which I should like to be put right, and perhaps the First Lord of the Admiralty would be so good as to put me right when he comes to reply. My first puzzle is: When does a tactical nuclear weapon, which is, I gather, an acceptable thing, and not uncivilised, become a deterrent which is abhorrent to a large section of the populace? Why is a tactical nuclear weapon used with conventional forces acceptable, yet the same weapon—say the Corporal; half a Hiroshima—if used upon a civil target at once becomes the deterrent? Now we have the T.S.R.2 Army support aircraft.
LORD HARDING OF PETHERTON: We are going to have.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: We are going to have; I have not got information on that. That will carry a tactical nuclear weapon. But supposing the captain of the aircraft turns 90 degrees on his compass and goes forward and drops this tactical nuclear weapon upon some civilian target, is he immediately using the great deterrent? Perhaps the First Lord may be able to elucidate that.
Then we have the V-bomber force, which carries the great deterrent. If the V-bomber force was used in a tactical rôle, should we be considered as using the great deterrent or not? In the last war, as many noble Lords will remember, our strategic bomber force was used in a tactical rôle on many occasions. To give only two examples it was used in the Ardennes and in North

883
Africa in support of Field Marshal Montgomery's campaign, As I say, if we used our V-bomber force for tactical support, would that be within or outside the rules of the use or otherwise of the great deterrent?
I think this question of what is or is not the deterrent depends not on the type of weapon but on the usage of the weapon. If that be so, I am led to the conclusion, first, that there is no line except usage which determines what is or is not the deterrent, and that that line is now to be bridged at all times, even in a limited war. Secondly, I do not think any nation will accept total defeat in a European conflict, if it be a limited war, without resort, in the final event, to the use of the deterrent in any way that they think fit in order to save themselves from defeat. Thirdly, if that is accepted, we cannot visualise a limited liability war in Europe, and I am driven to the conclusion that we need the strategic deterrent and it is impossible to rest on possession only of the tactical weapon.
Finally, my Lords, I should like some clarification and classification of different lines of political thought on the issue of Britain's manufacture, testing and possession of the nuclear weapon. As I understand it, the first school of thought is that which says: total repudiation of nuclear weapons. I do not agree with that; it is a logical school of thought, but it is a fatal one. It is the school, I believe, of one-way suicide. Then we have the second school, which to me is quite unintelligible, as expressed by the Leader of the Liberal Party in another place, Mr. Grimond. He is for the cessation of manufacture and test and the surrender of possession, but in favour of some contribution, in terms of brains and money, towards research. It seems to me that that policy leads us to shelter behind the United States' bombs; and, just as important, it abrogates this country's ability to fulfil the foreign policy which the Government of the day may consider wisest and best for this country. Then we have a third school which advocates no great deterrent but allows a nuclear tactical weapon as being acceptable. I hope that I have shown that that is quite an illogical school of thought.
Then there is the school of thought to which some of the Labour Party belong,
884
which says: have the bomb but do not test it. I come supported by what Mr. Bevan said at Scarborough, not by what the Leader of the Opposition here has said to-day, with which I think we are all in agreement—except that, having said that he supported the possession by this country, he did not say whether he supported the manufacture and test.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER or HILLSBOROUGH: If the noble Lord is going to say what the view of the Labour Party is, I think he had better get it right. They wished more than a year ago to suspend the testing for a temporary period in order to get negotiations going. Otherwise, it is exactly as I said this afternoon.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: That is an interesting definition. because I have something here a little different: it is what Mr. Bevan—and he is one of the leaders of the Labour Party—said at Scarborough:
"On moral grounds alone they believed the tests should stop. They had pledged themselves in unequivocal language that, whatever the consequences might be, if Labour were returned to power the tests would stop."
That is not conditional, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said. My quotation goes on:
"They would not wait for any other nation to agree to stop, but would stop themselves and hope others would follow their example."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My sister went to a great meeting at Bristol a week ago—I do not know whether this will interest the noble Lord—and she read carefully the local newspaper afterwards and said how disastrously different it was from the speech actually made.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I can only take the quotation which I have here of Mr. Bevan's speech. I must say that I do think there is a great division in the Party opposite. I believe it can be said that on nuclear weapons the Labour Party have gone into orbit in the vacuum of their own confusion because none of us really knows where they stand.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me, in the temporary absence of my noble Leader, to comment on what he said about Mr. Grimond's remarks in another place a few days ago. Would the noble Lord

885
agree that there may be some difference between sheltering behind an Ally, as he put it, and co-operating with an Ally for the mutual benefit of both?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No, I would not. I think there is little difference between Mr. Grimond, who wishes to make a contribution, in terms of money and research, but does not wish us to possess, manufacture or test, and the school of total abolition, except that one has the honesty to say something logical and the other has the foolishness to say something that does not make sense.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Would the noble Lord agree that he may not have heard the expression about "cutting your coat according to the cloth"?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: What I do not want to do is to appear naked without a coat at all. Then there is the final school which says: make the tests; make the bomb; test the bomb; possess the bomb, so far as our resources in this country allow, and in partnership with the United States. But (says this school) realise that this is a thing to be done with regret and sadness, in the hope that, by peaceful counsel, we may achieve world disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons, though until that time we must defend ourselves. That seems to me the school of Her Majesty's Government, and it is one which I support and which I believe the majority of your Lordships in this House will support.
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY:My Lords, I have to confess that on entering the House I had the intention of trying to say everything unpleasant I could about this particular Motion, but I have been largely converted by the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and I am prepared to bless certain subjects which before I wished to damn. His explanation was so agreeable that perhaps I rather lost my sense of proportion. I was brought back to it by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opositioin, who voiced much better than I could many of the criticisms which I wished to make. I should like to thank both the noble Earl the Leader of the House arid the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for the pleasant remarks they made about the Royal
886
Navy, and I am sure the other naval members of this House appreciate it, too.
In this House a few days ago I was hauled over the coals or, perhaps I should say keel-hauled, by the First Lord of the Admiralty. He hinted that I was obsolete and had not adopted the policy of interdependence. I had not. I think it is a horrible policy, and the noble Earl to-day blew it into shreds when he said, justly and rightly, that we must be prepared to fulfil our own obligations and not to depend upon any other country. I think it would be quite awful if we depended upon the United States in naval matters that were entirely our concern. We should be reduced to the position of a poor relation and have to suffer all the humiliations and limitations which is common to those who occupy that state.
I do not wish to cast any slur upon any of our allies, the U.S.A. or any other, but we have certain responsibilities. All of us have our own responsibilities and our own aims, and each nation naturally considers its need to be paramount. The history of war provides countless examples of allies falling out. That has happened quite recently, and many of OUT Lordships have been connected with questions which led to great discord. They will go on, and they appear to be going on in the manufacturing world, one of the first systems of interdependence. We, as the centre of the Commonwealth, have wide interests overseas. Our Colonies look to us for protection. Where are the vessels? I make no bones about it. If we were to go to war next week the Navy would be absolutely unable to fulfil its responsibilities. Picture what would happen at sea. Our ships would be coming in from various ports all over the world, with submarines all over the ocean. There are plenty of Russian submarines to fill the Atlantic. We should have to form convoys, but we have not enough ships to convoy them. If your Lordships wish to know whether that is a fact, you have only to compare the convoys at sea and the escorts required in the last war as compared with what we should need to-day. You have that in the Naval History of the War.
The noble Earl who leads the House made the remark that our forces must always have the best of everything. But we have never yet entered a war with

887
everybody having the best of everything. Ships are now being scrapped and sold because, I suppose, theoretically the Navy must have the best of everything. But nobody would be more surprised than the Navy if you told them they must have the best of everything. They are proud of making do with what they have, and improvising if necessary. We are told that it is not economical to modernise certain ships. Well, do not modernise them. If a ship is efficient with everything working in her, why not keep her until you can replace her with something better? A ship arrived home the other day, and we were told that it was not economic to modernise her. She came in in a state of efficiency; Her Majesty's ships always are kept to a state of efficiency. Do you suppose that those ships would be quite useless in a war? All these modern ships which are going to be blown out of the water in years to come do not exist to-day, and a great many of the vessels they will have to fight will be conventional vessels. Might not some be taken on by our conventional vessels?
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, made a remark which I thought was worthy of attention, which was to the effect that our Navy, though we cannot hope to be the first or second in the world, can well be the make-weight between the first two, and should be kept at that level. That is what we should aim at—to have a Navy which is able to tip the balance one way or the other, which would probably be the greatest factor in the preservation of peace you can imagine. Two days ago, in spite of his great and magnificent efforts, the Prime Minister warned the country that the position was grave between the East and the West, and nobody who studies events can doubt that for a moment. Are we really prepared at the present moment for a sudden outbreak of war? Here is the Navy spending a lot of money getting bunks instead of hammocks for ordinary seamen. I think economies can be made in that respect. I do not believe a boy of the right spirit cares whether he has a hammock or a bed when he wants to coil up and go to sleep. My own recollection is that a hammock is a very pleasant place to do it
The Motion we are asked to support does not show any sign of urgency at all
888
It is not as if we might not be at war within forty-eight hours. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of HILLSBOROUGH, made criticisms upon that line so potently that I will not embark upon it. The Army got the increase in their numbers of men because they said they must be increased and it could not be argued against on the ground of economy. Under Government pressure, the Admiralty has been busy preparing for the vessels we shall require for a war in ten years' time. At the same time they have been very busy scrapping all the old vessels that we have. I suggest that they have been doing too little, too slowly, and have been moving a great deal too fast in the scrapping of our Navy as it was.
My Lords, I will draw my remarks to a close. I urge, in conclusion, that we should keep what we have got until we can replace it by something better, and if nothing better comes along we must make the best of what we have got. As for saying that it is uneconomical to modernise certain vessels, I would reply that they will pay dividends a thousand times in preventing some foreign ship from getting among our convoys and sinking half a dozen ships because there is nothing there to repel her.
4.50 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, in the first place I would respectfully say that the need, and the principal need, in the Army is for infantry, for men on their feet, men who can occupy and men who can garrison, and men who can do police duty. And yet infantry, which I think many people will agree is the arm most needed, is being abolished on all sides. There is a need for the regiments of Guards—I would say the finest infantry in the world—and yet that Brigade is being reduced. There are three battalions—sometimes there are only two—finding the duties in London which used to be found by five battalions. Consequently, the men are constantly on guard and get little time for the training which they ought to have. Recruiting for the Brigade is being discouraged; I say discouraged because barracks are lacking and barracks are bad. Wellington Barracks are very old; they were built in the reign of King William IV. Chelsea Barracks are early Victorian and bad. Both have been condemned for years, to my knowledge; and, to my knowledge, too,

889
there were estimates a good many years ago—more than twenty years ago—for rebuilding, and those estimates were turned down because it was thought that the cost of rebuilding would lessen.
The Government have selected for reduction one very old battalion, the 3rd Battalion of the Grenadiers, and one very new one, the 3rd Battalion of the Coldstream; presumably, because both are third battalions. The 3rd Battalion Grenadiers is the oldest battalion of the Crown—meaning the oldest in the service of the Crown with continuous service, and excluding battalions raised under revolutionary Governments and under foreign sovereigns. The 3rd Battalion Coldstream was raised in my service, and that is not so very long ago. I would emphasise that the country could do with both of them and that both ought to continue; they are both good battalions and they ought to be continued.
Then, my Lords, there is a shortage of officers, which is emphasised by the offer of scholarships at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. It ought not to be necessary to offer scholarships in order to induce the right type of young man to come in as a commissioned officer. It is not surprising when the conditions regarding officers' pensions and officers' widows' pensions are taken into consideration.
The Minister of Defence talks about introducing new weapons. Like the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, I wonder whether these new weapons are ready and whether they are able to be brought into action at short notice, or whether they are in the experimental stage only. When all is said and done, in spite of nuclear weapons, conventional armaments are necessary, if only for minor operations or for policing work. Take, for instance, Cyprus or Nyasaland. We do not want to annihilate the inhabitants but we do want to teach them a good lesson which will not be forgotten. So it is with conventional weapons that we must take them on. It is only with conventional weapons that we can take them on. It may be possible that, having regard to the terrible effects of nuclear weapons, they may not be used; I think it is a very poor chance that they will not be used, but they may not be used, like gas in the last war.
Then there is the Navy. I speak with bated breath before the noble and gallant
890
Earl who preceded me, but I think it is not too much to say that even in these modern times the people of this country feel complete confidence in the Navy and regard it as their first line of defence. I confess that I am moved by what the noble and gallant Earl said about the strength of the Navy and about the policy of scrapping ships which are perfectly sound to take to sea. I do not profess to know, but I have the dreadful feeling that we always start a war unprepared; we always have done in recent years and I am horribly afraid that we may go on doing so. I pray that the next war may not find us unprepared, especially at sea. We hear of the laying down of new ships. How soon will those ships. he ready for sea, I wonder. We hear of the expense of being prepared; but unpreparedness is terribly expensive—terribly expensive in life, which perhaps is the most important thing, terribly expensive in money and terribly expensive in material. I only hope that we shall not start the next war unprepared, as we have so frequently done in the past.
Lastly, there is the air. I have little or no knowledge of aircraft—I do not pretend to have—but I can only pray that in the most modern of our arms we may not be found unprepared, and whether it is on land or whether it is at sea, or whether it is in the air, our preparedness may be equal to the spirit of our people.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: My Lords, the opening remarks of my noble friend Lord Jeffreys certainly find a ready response in my heart, because I have the honour to be a member of his Regiment. When he spoke in this House on a former occasion on the subject of the abolition of the two 3rd Battalions in the Brigade of Guards, I had the honour to follow him, and I said I hoped that an improvement in recruiting might mean that this step would prove to be unnecessary in the event. We all welcome, on both sides of the House, the improved figures of Regular recruiting, and I should like now to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would not reconsider their decision to do away with these two extremely fine battalions, the usefulness of which, in peace and war, has already been proved.
My Lords, there is a long list of speakers and, short of taking my name off

891
the list altogether, I am sure it would be most convenient to the House if I did not detain your Lordships very long. I have referred to recruiting and, like my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I am quite willing to tell your Lordships that I was a doubter and that I am exceedingly glad to have been found wrong; and I offer my respectful congratulations to Her Majesty's Government and to the Minister of Defence. I think we ought also to congratulate the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no doubt that an easing of the conditions of service, made possible by further financial provisions, has enabled a great number of young men, officers and other ranks, to pursue the vocation which they wish to pursue; because to serve in Her Majesty's Forces is a vocation—there is no doubt about it. You cannot bribe people to come in, but you can deter them from coming in by adverse conditions, and particularly by uncomfortable family conditions. It is my hope that the anti-cyclone which is now over the Service ministries, as marked on the Treasury's weather map, will persist for many years to come. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that the interventions from both sides of the House on this matter have been most useful.
At the other end of the scale, on the obverse side of the coin, is resettlement. I have something to do with the Resettlement Service. While I think there is no room for complacency, there is ground for a moderate degree of satisfaction with the progress so far made. One has to be most careful what one says about it, Every officer and other rank whose career is terminated, whether prematurely or not, faces the future necessarily with some perturbation. It is a new world into which he goes, and to pretend that it is easy to find a job would be the greatest deception. But I believe that the setting up of the Resettlement Service, which was done little more than a year ago by the Minister of Labour was a right step. Speaking as the Chairman of the London and South East Regional Resettlement Committee, I should like to say two things: first, that businesses, large and small, have shown a most co-operative attitude; and secondly, that I have not found the kind of prejudice against Servicemen that I expected in business
892
circles. I think that that is possibly due to the fact that a great many business executives were themselves in the Services in the war and worked side by side in regiments and battalions or on the staffs with Regular soldiers, for whom they rightly conceived a high opinion.
Although it is not easy, it is not now a very difficult task for a young, or even a middle-aged man, coming out of the Services to find a job. The climate of opinion is better. But, of course, each man who comes out is a separate problem. I should like to say how much I commend all the officers and men who have come out for their persistence and courage in seeking jobs, because the first job-finder is the individual himself. Though the climate of opinion may be better for him, it is upon his personality and pertinacity and real desire to find employment that the ultimate success depends.
I can give only one set of figures which I think must encourage your Lordships. In the London and South East Region we have something like 40 per cent. of the officers, and very nearly the same figure of other ranks, who come out of the three Services, registered with the Ministry. Recently I went through the list of those who have been in search of employment for more than six months. There were no more than 70-odd names on that list. When we had been through the list with care, and had taken out those who, for some reason, were not fully available for employment or had some difficulty which prevented them from becoming fully employable, the list was brought down to six; and we actually interviewed only four, because two of the six had already received employment. So although it is not a matter for complacency, it is at least some ground for encouragement.
My Lords, we have discussed, as we are always discussing in these debates, such great matters as the nuclear deterrent. I do not wish to trench on the ground which has already been covered by my noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Balfour of Inchrye, but I should like to make two observations. The first is that I believe it is quite arbitrary, and false to fact, to think that we can divide the peaceful uses of nuclear energy from the war-like uses of that energy. We should not have achieved our leading place in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy unless we had put great resources. both

893
human and material, into research in this field. And this applies equally to other fields of advanced research, particularly the field of manned and unmanned flight. Unless we, as a nation, are prepared to put great resources into these fields we shall fall behind both in the peaceful and in the war-like uses of flight; and, what is more, a great many other aspects of industry which depend upon advanced research, especially in metallurgy and electronics and kindred services, will quickly suffer. Whether we like it or not—and I am speaking quite unpolitically—owing to the pace of international competition in this field, all the great nations have in fact socialised basic research. We should certainly fall far behind in a rich range of technology if we tried to cut down on either the peaceful or the war-like use of nuclear energy or the advanced research into flight.
Speaking of flight, I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said about manned aircraft. The noble Earl the Leader of the House said that expert opinion had advised Her Majesty's Government that missiles would replace the manned bomber. One must remember, however, that in general Her Majesty's Government, arid the Minister of Defence in particular, choose the experts who advise. You can always find the advice you wish to get. If you choose another set of advisers they would tell you something quite different. Of course, the missile cannot replace the aircraft. We have to have advanced research and manufacture of missiles, and we have certainly to go on in the field of manned aircraft. I regard it as a small act of grace that since last year we have been promised a new aircraft for the Royal Air Force—it is carefully called a tactical weapon so that consistency may be preserved. I should not be at all surprised if we see, coming over the horizon, another aircraft, even more advanced, which can be used both strategically and tactically.
My Lords, it is because we have men of such great ability in this scientific field that, with far narrower resources than either the United States or Russia, we have been able to make immense strides forward. Although we cannot cover the same wide fields as they do, and have to advance on a narrower front, we have advanced in step. I believe that our
894
economic as well as our political future depends on our continuing to give the resources and encouragement to our highly qualified scientists and engineers; and I believe that the future balance of our economy and of our foreign trade depends upon this. If I might make an aphorism: "Take care of the Penneys and the pound will take care of itself".
Finally—I promised to speak shortly—I hope that Her Majesty's Government will pursue with consistency the policy which they have already laid down for defence. It certainly must go hand in hand with a wise foreign policy. We must always be ready to negotiate, and certainly ready to listen to any proposals for getieral disarmament; but no partial disarmament, no limitation applied only to nuclear armaments, will bring peace to the world. In fact, that will encourage aggression on the part of nations who have a far more plentiful supply of manpower. There is no safety in trying to build up in Western Europe purely conventional forces. That is neither economically possible nor militarily viable, and therefore I ask Her Majesty's Government to maintain the policy which they have foreshadowed.
5.10 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, a White Paper issued by the present Minister of Defence always excites considerable anticipation. When I read his White Papers I often feel that we could do with a Sandys in each of the Service Departments. The White Paper of 1957 showed, I thought, great courage: it was precise, uncompromising and, consequently, extremely uncomfortable. But from 1957 the Minister began to get order out of chaos, and I have not yet noticed that anything in that 1957 White Paper has been proved wrong. But from this current White Paper that we are discussing to-day I get the impression that the Minister has to some extent given way on 1957. He is charged with over-emphasis on the deterrent and under-emphasis on conventional weapons. For what my opinion is worth, I feel sure that he was right in the views he put forward in 1957; and I was not at all encouraged by what the noble Earl the Leader of the House told us to-day about expenditure on nuclear armaments being only some 10 per cent, of our total expenditure on defence. I wish that the amount were not so small.

895
I should like to see it considerably more, especially as we know that our scientists and engineers are quite ready to do remarkable things if only they are encouraged—and have the funds—to do them.
I noted one other remark in the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. It is true, of course, that the Minister of Defence has not succeeded in reducing expenditure, but if I heard the noble Earl aright he told us that our expenditure on defence has reached a point where it cannot be increased. As there are those who feel that our present expenditure on defence has certainly failed to leave this country quite secure, it seemed to me very disturbing that the expenditure which has not rendered us secure is an expenditure which cannot possibly be increased.
I believe that the real purpose of a White Paper should be to give the public, who do the paying, an annual opportunity to look at the defence policy. This White Paper does nothing of the kind: it is really a shopping-list of things which, with a little bit of luck, we may have some day, though no dates are given as to when that may be; and it is also remarkable for its omissions. It says nothing of standardisation—a matter of the utmost importance, since we are relying upon a collective defence policy. It tells us nothing from the Minister of Defence of the Minister of Supply about the agreement we now have with the United States of America to exchange information on defence matters. N.A.T.O. is the basis of our defence policy, but the White Paper dismisses N.A.T.O. in three or four really anodyne lines; and there is no review of our global defence policy.
I feel that the main defect of the White Paper is that it deals far too much with matters which really fall within the province of the Estimates of the three Service Ministers. This had its effect in the debate which has recently taken place in another place. Practically every speaker there was dealing with matters which really fall within the province of the Service Estimates. The result was that the debate ended in what the Daily Express described as "desultory conversation" after discussion of matters quite irrelevant to a defence debate. The word which runs through the White Paper from
896
beginning to end is "when"—when we have this; when we have that. But no light is thrown upon when is "when". No date is given for this "when". What does emerge from the White Paper, without any ambiguity whatever, is that our forces are to-day not equipped in a manner that would enable them to fight either a conventional or a nuclear war. They are neither organised nor armed in a manner enabling them to do so; and I doubt whether they can be so organised and armed before the middle 1960s. In that respect the White Paper is, to my mind, profoundly disappointing.
I want to say a word, too, about a matter that is becoming of very great and serious importance in all defence and Service debates, that is the overstressing of secrecy. Secrecy has to be divided into two kinds. No man in his senses wants to have really secret information given in these debates, but the word "secrecy" is being increasingly extended to cover "information". Since the public pay for all our defence they are entitled to have some information about it. That information should be obtained for the public through Parliament, yet in these days so much information is denied on the grounds of secrecy. There is a phrase which crops up in every one of these debates: that "It would not be in the public interest to give the information requested" What that phrase really means, of course, is that it would not be in the interest of the Minister or of his Ministry to give the information, because so often it would make them appear in a very poor light. I believe that this question of legitimate information is of very much more importance than is usually recognised, because I believe that one of our most potent weapons of defence is our Parliamentary institutions. I have always thought that it was the country with the best Parliamentary institutions which has won two wars. That view is borne out by a book which a German historian wrote after World War I, when he said: "The German General Staff fought the English Parliament." That, I thought, was a most significant admission.
There are complaints that the public have lost a considerable amount of interest in the Services, particularly perhaps in the Navy, though I believe that what has been said about the Navy by previous speakers may have a very

897
heartening effect. But the same thing seems to me to be happening in Parliament. There are complaints about apathy in Parliament, about poor attendance in debates, and so on. I believe that, certainly so far as Service debates are concerned, that is largely due to the fact of this denial of information, which Parliament is quite legitimately entitled to have so that it may be passed on to the public.
I hope very much that the noble Earl the Leader of the House may perhaps hear of these views I am expressing and think about them, because I am firmly of the opinion that this mania about information is doing a great deal of harm to the Services and to Parliament. The present desire of the Service Minister seems to be to prevent any information whatever from coming out of his Department. He wants it kept in the archives of that Department where, if it does not do any good, at least it cannot do him any harm. The views I am expressing were given voice in the debate in another place. V ice-Admiral Hughes-Hallett made a very striking speech on the subject, and Mr. Shinwell, a former Minister of Defence and Secretary of State for War, and Sir Peter Macdonald both spoke on the same line. I think that speakers who ask for information should be treated as asking for what they are legitimately entitled to ask, and not treated, as they too often are, as if they were agents of a foreign Power.
There are so many things in the White Paper about which one would like to speak, but I realise how many speakers there are on the list and the only other matter about which I want to say a word or two is the Navy. The Minister of Defence has certainly not been discursive in the White Paper on the subject of the Navy. He said:
"We have given especial weight to its tasks in peace and in limited war. East of Suez, where the naval forces can play a very important part, we are planning to maintain a somewhat larger Fleet than at present."
I understand that that "somewhat larger Fleet" is going to be based upon one carrier and one cruiser, without any operational reserve, and I think that those are rather small forces with which to play "a very important part." I noticed what the noble Earl the Leader of the House said about the important role of the Navy in showing the Flag. There are
898
two sides to that. It certainly is very important and a very great thing to show the Flag—provided that we have something worth showing. I am afraid that what we show the Flag with so often to-day is something which will make the spectator say, "How are the mighty fallen! What has happened when that is all that that great maritime country can scrape up to show the Flag with?"
Again, Mr. Sandys said:
"The number of ships in the operational Fleet will not be greatly reduced and aircraft carriers and escort vessels will remain virtually unchanged."
I found those words rather alarming because, quite clearly, the Fleet is to be reduced, although we are supposed to take comfort from the fact that it is not to be greatly reduced.
It has been emphasised again to-day that the Navy's prime responsibility is anti-submarine operations. We know that our anti-submarine forces are seriously inadequate. Mr. Sandys said that we must, of course, provide our fair share of the naval forces required by N.A.T.O. But we are not doing so. We know that from our own Admiral, Admiral Eccles, and from the American Admiral, Admiral Wright, because both of them went on record after the last exercises as saying that we were not contributing our necessary share. I see that Admiral Wright recently addressed the Navy League in Washington, and he was asked whether he was satisfied with the British contribution to the anti-submarine forces. Admiral Wright is a very courteous man who does not want to hurt the feelings of his Ally, but I admired the adroitness of his reply, because he said that:
"The British have suffered a lapse in their economy which has led to a cut in their antisubmarine forces."
There we had it perfectly clearly that we are not able to make our proper contribution to N.A.T.O. in the anti-submarine forces. The White Paper promises no increases in those forces, only that the insufficient numbers will be virtually unchanged. There is to be virtually no change in what is admittedly insufficient. Whatever the reason may be—and I wish we could be told the reason—the fact is incontrovertible that the First Lord, the First Sea Lord and the Minister of Defence have, between them, pretty well paid off the Navy. I wonder whether one of these days we shall not find that the Admiralty Standard over the

899
Admiralty has been hauled down and replaced by a paying-off pennant.
My wife told me a few days ago that when she was a child her father took her out in his yacht to see the Fleet in Torbay—and I can tell your Lordships that it was some Fleet! One could not see the sea for ships. She said to her father, "Do all these ships belong to us?" In like circumstances to-day, I think she would have said, "Is this all we have got?" I have no doubt about it, we are cut very low indeed; and I am particularly interested in this matter as regards our policy in relation to the protection of the merchant fleet. I understand that the protection of our merchant ships now depends upon interdependence—that blessed word, which is like "Mesopotamia": whenever you are cornered you say, "Interdependence" This, of course, will be a matter for full debate when we debate the Navy Estimates. I can only say that "interdependence" as an answer on policy is meaningless, unless we are told whether it has been decided how many escorts the defence of our merchant fleet would involve.
In the debate on the last Motion brought forward by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, I believe that the figure of 800 was quoted as what was found to be necessary towards the end of the last war. Have we firm promises from our Allies that something like that number will be available when required? Have we a promise from each country which helps to make up this interdependence? Have we told them what quota we should require from them to make up the full total, and have we a firm promise from them that that quota will be forthcoming? Because unless we have figures and undertakings of that nature, this word "interdependence" is worse than meaningless. I say that with greater strength because we already know that the representatives of the two countries upon whom the main burden of this interdependence must fall—Great Britain and the United States of America—have said that at the present moment we are not able to make our proper contribution to the defence of the merchant fleet.
My Lords, I will leave it at that, because there are many other speakers on the list. I must say that I feel that the White Paper leaves unanswered a
900
great many questions which it might well have been expected to answer; that it reveals a very serious position in regard to the lack of the necessary weapons and of the necessary equipment; and that in regard to the Navy it reveals a profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
5.32 p.m.
LORD HARDING OF PETHERTON: My Lords, I do not propose to enter into the argument about the extent to which we as a nation should contribute to the Western nuclear deterrent; or into the more difficult question of the precise form which our contribution should take. I myself find it difficult—almost impossible—to conceive of a nuclear war in which our interests were not identical with those of our American allies, and I therefore would most strongly oppose the diversion of our limited resources to duplicating weapons which are already sufficiently provided for in the American programme. I believe that we must look upon this nuclear deterrent as a Western effort, and as an Anglo-American effort. There cannot be two deterrents, one British and one American: there must be a joint deterrent, and we must adjust our contribution accordingly.
Equally, I feel certain that the nuclear deterrent is something about which sufficient is enough: and for that reason I find myself very much in agreement with the argument, developed in another place quite recently, which led to a statement on the comparative merit of, say, a £5 million education scheme in Kenya and a couple of Blue Streaks, more or less, in our own armoury. Having seen for myself, and having had direct personal experience of the way in which the cold war is being conducted by our enemies in many parts of the world, I am certain that we have got to address ourselves more and more to the problems of the cold war—what has been referred to as the winning of the minds and the hearts of men to our own ideals and principles, and the putting over of our own way of life. I do not believe that we should ever allow over-sufficiency of the nuclear deterrent, or over-insurance in defence, to handicap us in our efforts in the cold war.
However, it is to some other matters connected with defence that I should like to address myself briefly this afternoon. I think your Lordships will agree that, no matter how good are the equipment and

901
armaments that are provided, no matter how perfect our defence organisation may be, and no matter how highly trained the men in the ranks are, all this will be of no avail unless the supply of officers of the right type for all three of the Armed Forces of the Crown is fully maintained in the future. At present, I doubt very much if that is the case: certainly it is not the case in the Army. There is a major deficiency of officers in the Army to-day, and the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst is not being filled. I doubt myself—and I say this with respect—whether the intake into the other two Services is, in all respects, as good in quality as it should be.
These matters as to the shortage of officers have been very fully gone into and discussed in the Report of the Grigg Committee, which was laid before Parliament last Autumn with the comments of Her Majesty's Government. and I will not take up your Lordships' time in discussing the subject in detail now; but I would express the hope very strongly indeed that the full study of the problem of short careers for officers, which was promised by Her Majesty's Government at the time that these papers were laid before Parliament, will be pressed on with, and that soon, very soon, it will result in action, for it seems to me, at any rate so far as the Army is concerned, that the situation will get worse before it can be put right, because of the shortage in the intake over the past years.
In that connection, I would refer to the unhappy situation of a large number of officers in the Army, in particular, who are in what is known as Category C. Officers in that category do not yet know what their future is: whether, as the Forces run down and move on to an all-Regular basis, they will become redundant, or whether they will be required or allowed to serve on. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able before very long to give these officers—and there are many of them—some definite information about their future. At present, the uncertainty in which they are placed is about the worst possible advertisement to a young, potential officer intending to make the Armed Forces his career.
My Lords, the transition, the changeover, of the Armed Forces (and particularly, again, the Army) from a National Service basis to an all-Regular basis is
902
a very big change—a very big change indeed. I am not opposed to the change: far from it. I look forward very much to the day when the Armed Forces of this country will be once again on an all-Regular basis. But I have pretty vivid recollections of the days before the war when the Armed Forces were starved, and when their requirements were disregarded in many respects. They laboured on and they struggled on. I believe that, to a very great extent, the country traded on the loyalty of the officers and men of the three Services in those hard and difficult days. In those days, too, the Armed Forces were in many respects a thing apart from the nation. Fortunately, the introduction of National Service, combined with other events—and particularly, of course, the service of practically the whole of our manhood in the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force during the war—in my opinion and in my experience brought about a complete change in the attitude of mind of the general public to the Armed Forces, perhaps not so much in the case of the Royal Navy, which is always looked upon as part and parcel of this nation's being, but certainly the Army and, I believe to some extent, the Royal Air Force.
I should be very sorry indeed to see the Armed Forces stripped back into the position of separation, as it were, from the rest of the nation, and I feel very strongly that if that is to be avoided, if, in fact, we are to have, as stated in the preamble to the White Paper, compact all-Regular forces of the highest quality equipped with the best arms on up-to-date lines, then there are certain things that must be done. In the first place, on the question of accommodation and equipment—I would put it equipment and accommodation, as there is no comparison between the importance of the two; equipment is most important—what I believe must happen, if the Armed Forces are to be of the kind the White Paper sets out to build up, is a streamlining of the system of supply, provision of armaments and construction and improvement of accommodation and living conditions.
I could give your Lordships a number of examples from very recent experience of the delays and frustrations which take place, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, pointed out, these matters are

903
better reserved for when the Service Estimates come up for debate. But, in principle, it is results that count. It is what the soldier and sailor and airman see happening around them—equipment arriving, new buildings being put up, improvements being made in living conditions all round. To-day, in spite of great efforts that I know have been made over the past years, there is still far too great a gap, a time lag between what is claimed and said here in Westminster and Whitehall and what happens on the ground in the eyes of the men in the Armed Forces.
That is one point: another is this. If we are to have the forces that we need, of the quality that we need, then the status of all Regular forces must be greatly enhanced from what it was before the war, especially so far as the Army is concerned. I think the general public must be convinced that good service in the Armed Forces is as big a contribution to the wellbeing of our nation as a whole as is good service in the factory or in commerce or in the social services. Unless that is done, I do not think we shall get the men and officers of the quality we need in all the three Services. But if that is to be done, then I think, and I submit to your Lordships, that the people who lead and influence public opinion must know more about the problems of defence, the intricate problems and the effect, for example, of modern scientific and engineering development on strategy and tactics.
I am well aware of the security risks involved. This subject has already been touched on by one of your Lordships in a previous speech, but I should like to emphasise it. I do not believe that the Armed Forces will get the support and interest of the general public, nor will the nation accept the immense cost of equipment and resources of all kinds, unless the people are generally satisfied that the pattern of the Forces is the best that can be provided and that it is really well-suited to our national needs.
Finally, if this objective is to be achieved I most firmly believe that continuity of policy within the framework of a long-term plan—and a good deal longer than the five years in this defence plan—is absolutely necessary. And that leads me on to make a plea, a very earnest plea, that further efforts should be made to put consideration of our problems of
904
national defence on to a wider and particularly on to a non-Party basis. These are the considerations which I believe must be given urgent and very careful and thorough attention if the great aim of the five-year defence plan of providing this country with a compact, Regular force of the highest quality is to be achieved.
5.46 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, with all respect, may I suggest that the most outstanding fact of this White Paper is not what is contained in it but what is left out? I feel it is absolutely essential that Her Majesty's Government should take Parliament and the country more into their confidence and give much more information about their plan for atomic warfare and the results that may be expected from it. Do we know what is the distinction and balance between tactical atomic and conventional war? No doubt this matter has been very thoroughly studied by the Government, but we in this House, through lack of information, are quite unable to assess it. I presume that the policy would be that limited aggression and limited conflict would be dealt with by conventional forces only. And therefore, of course, we should stretch ourselves to the utmost in providing resources for conventional war.
If we do that we have to threaten or use tactical atomic war only for more serious issues. But what are we to do about global war? And, what is of very great importance, what priority of Western resources should be directed towards this global war preparation? I think it is clear that Russia and the West now accept the stalemate of overall total war, and I suggest that we should now make it clear that we are no longer interested in the use of total war weapons but that we intend maintaining sufficient total war weapons so that the East will do their utmost to avoid war. The point I wish to make is that if this were our policy, the West would be able to transfer more resources from total war preparation to building up and strengthening our conventional forces, which are thought, in many parts of the House, to be very weak indeed.
May I now refer again to the problem of establishing a distinction between tactical atomic and total war? The solution of this problem is of the utmost importance, not only for the hot war but

905
also for the cold war, which is now always with us. Without a distinction between tactical atomic and total war, we are liable to be faced with the situation of either the defeat of our conventional forces or the suicide of total global war. I hope we may be told that this distinction is receiving very careful planning indeed. What about the cold war and this so-called distinction? I would go so far as to say that, without this distinction, we are unlikely to obtain a satisfactory settlement over the German question or the future of mankind. We are unlikely to gain the support of the uncommitted countries because at the moment they are really doubtful of our ability to defend them without incurring total war.
I have endeavoured shortly to indicate the results and gains of a policy of distinction between tactical atomic and total war, but perhaps for a few minutes we might look at the question of the practicability of this distinction. Let us suppose, for instance, that aggression has taken place against a small country outside the central or German front of Europe. The country attacked would no doubt do its best to resist the aggression, provided, of course, that the situation did not look like developing into total war in their particular territory. The West, in going to the assistance of the little country threatened, would be most insistent that the conflict should not spread to total war. I think it is clear that our military effort would have to strike a nice balance between severity and restraint. How is this going to be accomplished?
In the first place, I have little doubt that, owing to the potency of even the smaller tactical atomic weapons, it would be difficult with their use to prevent the spread of total war, unless perhaps we had a plan. If this reasoning is correct, then I suggest that what we must do in those circumstances is to limit our war aims, the targets we attack, the fall-out of the weapons used, and, what is particularly important, the geographical area in which we use them; and, of course, we must let the enemy know. In choosing the targets to be attacked we should have to eschew centres of population, otherwise the little country might well prefer Communist penetration and occupation. As to the tactical atomic weapon used,
906
we in this House are largely in the dark for lack of information, but I think I should be right in saying that it would have to be limited to those in the lower reaches of the kiloton range, the fall-out effected from the air blast being limited to a few miles down-wind.
I have painted the picture of limited aggression to remind your Lordships of the complexity and alternatives of tactical atomic warfare, but I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether detailed study and preparation, by both military and political staffs concerned, has been carried out on the aspect of the use of tactical atomic weapons in limited aggression. I am probably quite wrong, but some of us have the impression that neither N.A.T.O. nor British staffs have done much about this grave and pressing problem. I think it is a fact that in some quarters we have been at pains to indicate that any tactical atomic war would spread to global war, perhaps in the mistaken idea that such an attitude would virtually abolish all wars. I do not believe this view to be a correct one, or one that we should take. I am not suggesting that it is necessary for us to make public beforehand the details of the limitations and distinctions in the event of the use of a tactical atomic weapon; nor do I suggest that we should indicate the circumstances in which we might initiate a tactical atomic war. It should be left vague until the crisis actually arises.
I suggest that we should either make these studies, and decide to make these declarations about tactical atomic warfare, or give up such preparations and spend our money on stronger conventional forces. We cannot have it both ways. There is no doubt that we are becoming increasingly committed to tactical atomic warfare, and that far too little is said or clone about what would make it work. We must look to the use of tactical atomic weapons, because almost certain defeat would come upon us if we relied entirely on conventional weapons. But I suggest that it is of the utmost importance that we work out secretly the detailed limitation involved in tactical atomic war and also ventilate publicly the general philosophy involved in it. We must, at the same time, improve and strengthen all our conventional forces so that we have only to threaten the tactical atomic deterrent in

907
the more serious cases of limited aggression. I cannot help feeling that secrecy about tactical atomic weapons and their development is being overdone, and that It is essential that sufficient information should be given to Parliament and the people to enable them to assess the facts properly.
5.56 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Teynham will forgive me for not following him into this question of differentiation between strategic and tactical warfare, even though it fascinates me as much as it does him, and I sincerely hope that some sort of clarification will be possible when we come to the speech of my noble friend who is to reply. Few of your Lordships, I think, can have been more encouraged than I by the visit to Moscow of the Prime Minister, or more hopeful that it may have yielded some precious seeds of eventual understanding between ourselves and the Communist world. But no-one can say, I suggest, that Mr. Khrushchev in his subsequent speeches has gone out of his way to encourage or to confirm those tender hopes. The face of Communism is a little less enigmatic than it was a month ago, but only a little. The menacing enmity and suspicion are still apparent, and any slight softening of the features is not so much pregnant as experimental.
The cold war continues, and I see no purpose at this stage in pretending that we no longer have an enemy and a threat to our whole existence, lying to the East. Nor can I believe that Soviet skins are so thin that future negotiations will be imperilled by this reminder that we still see ourselves as needing powerful defence and defence debates. Let us look forward, by all means, to the day when defence debates, at least on this scale, are a thing of the past, because the scale today is terrifying indeed from all points of view, and not least through the tacit recognition that there is no such thing as defence. Prevention is the single hope of mankind, and prevention based on the most terrible weapons ever dreamed up. However ironic the proposition may be, it is only the existence and the possession of this terrible thing, and a resolute policy based on its possession, which may bring the world to ultimate sanity in the form of full-scale disarma-
908
meat. In saying this, I do not wish to conflict in any way with my noble friend Lord Harding of Petherton, who has mentioned propaganda weapons; I mention the bomb only as an essential weapon in the great and important armoury of propaganda. But I do believe it is utterly essential. do believe that we cannot discard this weapon; and that we do so at our peril.
I believe that to close with the present problem we have to reverse the maxim of Voltaire that "the best is the enemy of the good". I believe that unilateral or partial disarmament is the enemy of full-scale disarmament. There is tough bargaining ahead, if there is to be any bargaining at all. To persuade the Soviet Government to reduce substantially its military power some substantial reduction must be offered in return. To do that, there must be something to reduce, and the more there is the more persuasion we can bring to bear. There is nothing to gain by throwing away our collateral before we start bargaining, and I believe there may be everything to lose. This may sound like rocket-rattling, but it is rocket-rattling to ease the last warhead out of the last lethal rocket and out of the last bomb bay constructed by man. That is the object, I take it, of everyone here. It is certainly my ultimate object, so long as—and this, to my mind, is the important proviso—these lethal rockets and bombs are banned in the company of all other weapons of mass destruction, including conventional blockbusters, massed armoured divisions and the vast legions of primitive, terrorised infantry, which came so close to overwhelming us in Korea. It is as a comprehensive disarmer, a wholesale disarmer, that I speak to-day, and with no apology for my approach.
I can hardly hope that I shall carry all noble Lords with me all the way in this, but there is a majority agreement, I think, on the power of prevention, based on the bomb. There was a debate a month ago in your Lordships' House, in which this was denied by certain noble Lords, but to-day I am thankful that this nuclear mysophobia has been less in evidence. Noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have implied that, if called upon to govern, they would not discard the bomb or substantially weaken the master plan set out in recent White Papers. They would restrict themselves

909
to hampering its effect and efficacy. From this reservation, I must exclude the noble Lord, Lord Nathan—who, I am bound to say, made one of the most splendid Tory speeches it has been my pleasure to hear in this House—and also the noble Lord, Lord Winster, whose passages of jingoism went much further than anyone on this side of the House would dare to approach. I felt on the whole, as I sometimes do when listening to members of the Party opposite, that it might have been much worse.
I am not going to be so temerarious or so misguided as to question the sincerity of the undertaking that noble Lords opposite have given, so far as it goes, but I think one is bound to question, very suspiciously, their ability to carry it out, whatever their willingness, because the political spectacle provided for us today in this country is that of two Socialist: Parties, constantly jockeying and manœuvring for advantage against each other. In no instance is this more evidenced than in their policies on defence. There is the Labour Party and the "Victory for Socialism" Party. That watchful and intensely patriotic old warhorse, Mr. Emanuel Shinwell, has said that the difference between the official Labour Party policy on defence and that of the Government is less acute than the differences inside the Labour Party itself.
To one of those who was trained and exercised in what became known as "subversive warfare" in Europe and Asia, it has been of some interest to watch, at an academic distance now, the operations of this local Maquis inside the Socialist movement. It appears that about forty members of the Labour Party in another place have joined the underground—that is to say, between one-fifth and one-sixth of the whole voting strength of the Opposition in the last defence debate in another place. That is the situation in the present Parliament. But who can be sure that the. proportions will remain the same in another Parliament, which has to come soon? Who can feel confident—and I mean who among noble Lords opposite can be confident—that the Maquis recruiting figures will not be increased, as their organisers prophesy with great confidence? What would their powers be in this event? Because nobody, even to-day, would regard them as a quixotic band defending their banner with simple out-of-date weapons. They have been hacked by
910
the Daily Herald, the only significant national daily organ which the Labour movement possesses. They are backed by Tribune, quite the most spiteful, but also one of the most professional periodicals in this country. They may be, and indeed they are, as unrealistic as poor Don Quixote himself, but they are better mounted and far better armed.
With your Lordships' permission I will quote a passage from the Daily Herald and see how it compares with the policy put forward from the Front Bench opposite this afternoon. It says:
"We should begin with the H-bomb and we should reject half measures. We should refuse not only to test any more, we should announce to the world that we will cease to manufacture them. We should end at once the flights of loaded H-bombers over Britain. We should refuse to allow Britain to become an American rocket base. We alone can give a decisive lead, even if it means that the British Foreign Minister is, as the phrase goes, naked in the council chambers of the world."
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and his colleagues, may say with a stubbornness and even a self-assurance which we can only admire that this does not matter; that a Labour Foreign Secretary would not go naked into the council chamber. Perhaps they are right. Perhaps their right honourable friend, in those circumstances, would appear as appropriately clothed as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in Moscow. But something most unsettling would have happened to his braces! And however debonair his attitude might be, the world would be watching and waiting to witness that always popular and undignified spectacle, the collapse of stout panty.
The Party opposite believe officially in the deterrent, but I have always had the impression that they would rather not say so above a whisper, unless obliged to. In a previous debate I argued that it had to be more than merely symbolic; that we had to answer the question: when is a deterrent not a deterrent? I will excuse myself to your Lordships for saying again that a deterrent is not a deterrent if you make it quite clear that you will not use it, or will use it only when it is too late. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in winding up on that occasion, gave a different answer. He said it was not a deterrent if the other fellow had it as well. It says much, I think, for the firmness and depth of my regard for the noble Lord that this regard remained virtually unaffected by

911
that reply. If I were to do anything so entirely unnatural as to threaten the noble Lord with a razor, I can promise him that I would be immediately and effectively deterred if he produced another razor himself; and this despite the self-evident fact that my poor battered features, by their very nature, could suffer far less comparative harm than his.
I do not know how much damage we could do to Soviet Russia now or next year or in five, eight or ten years' time, in the event of a nuclear contest between our two countries—with America disengaged. That in itself is a horrid and at present chimerical prospect. But I do not think it can be wise to dismiss this chimera from all our thinking, because certain writers such as Mr. Henry Kissinger have described or predicted a possible future condition, called "nuclear sufficiency", a stalemate between the big two nuclear powers, in which they could both destroy each other, and might therefore be powerfully disinclined to exchange the annihilation of Moscow for the annihilation of New York in order to avenge or even protect London or Paris. I think it is a mistake to say that we shall never be on our own in any conceivable circumstances: that "inconceivable" is a synonym for "impossible" which it never has been.
Looking the inconceivable but not Impossible in the face, it seems fair and prudent to assume that whatever damage we could do to the Soviet Union, a much greater damage could be done to us. That is a sober fact. But it does not mean by itself that our threat would be negligible or held in contempt. It might be decisive. I think it is fair to pose the question: if, in the Autumn of 1957, Hungary had possessed the bomb and the means of delivery with the courage to deliver it, or the desperation to deliver it, and if in those circumstances the new Government had declared its readiness to destroy Moscow, Rostov, Kharkov, Khiev and Smolensk, would the Russian tanks have moved into Hungary? Would it have been, on balance, at that price, an economic proposition? That sort of question could concern us directly one day in the future.
A great deal of guesswork goes into these debates, at least from the Back Benches, because we can only guess what
912
is happening within the magic circle described by security regulations and the mystique of the scientists. But I should have thought that certain deductions could be lined up in a logical sequence, even by a Back-Bencher who never quite overcame his mistrust of the bunsen burner. May we suppose that in a sort of remorseless bartering in devastation, every industrial region of this country was destroyed in the course of ten minutes, and that in return one-third of Soviet Russia's industrial area within our reach was also destroyed, together with Moscow and Leningrad? As a piece of nuclear bookkeeping, we would appear to be the loser out of that fearful exchange. But in point of fact Russia would have suffered a greater loss than she could possibly afford, because she would have been crippled in comparison with her other great nuclear rival or rivals—I am not forgetting China. And the rulers of Russia are perfectly capable of making that calculation before the event; they are certainly clear-headed enough to refrain from the act if they are certain of the outcome.
My Lords, I hope I give no impression whatever of looking forward to this new Thermopylae with any gusto or any expectancy whatever. I have noticed that when this topic is introduced, certain noble Lords from East Anglia tend to remind us of the particular danger in which they stand by reason of their proximity to rocket sites. My time is spent almost entirely in London or the West Riding of Yorkshire, and believing, as I do, that the main target would be the industrial areas, I would not fancy my own chance unless I happened to be, at that moment, in the Yorkshire Pullman passing through a tunnel.
My Lords, I believe in nuclear deterrence and I will not concede for a moment that it spells nuclear suicide, as has been suggested. But I can place my trust only in a deterrent that will deter, and I believe it will only deter if we satisfy any possible enemy that we can and would deliver it rather than submit to conquest. "Cet animal est dangereux: quand on l'attaque, il se defend." Let us be recognised as such an animal. It will secure our survival, it will secure the survival of peace, while faintheartedness would only ensure that we join others in bondage. This is a grim creed and it looks just as grim to me as it does

913
to noble Lords who may disagree, but the only way to self-preservation in this century is to declare our preparedness for self-immolation if need be. That sort of recognition requires strong nerves and a strong stomach. As a nation we are possessed of those two biological assets.
I believe it was in Southampton, after one of the great air raids, that an American correspondent interviewed survivor in the ruins of his home and asked, "How much longer can you stand it?" He replied, "About ten minutes longer than they can." That was the undramatic and unwavering spirit which brought us through the hot war. It is the only spirit which can bring us, untouched, through the cold war. It must characterise not only the people, but their leaders, and it must be seen to do so. I have listened to-day to the speeches of noble Lords opposite, as I have read the speeches and pronouncements of their colleagues, official and unofficial. In all sincerity, I cannot detect that spirit inhabiting them or their Party to-day. I shall await the speech of my noble friend Lord Selkirk with the greatest interest and considerable optimism.
6.15 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow my noble arid robust friend Lord St. Oswald. In so doing I should like first of all to congratulate the Government on the White Paper. It is a sketch, albeit a loose and rather impressionistic one, recording a very great deal of real progress over the last year. I do not myself feel that the portrait is as distorted as the Opposition have sought to make out. To my mind it is reasonably realistic. One could call it an early, rather than a later, Picasso.
I also wish to congratulate the Government on something which, though it is true it does not appear directly in the White Paper, as has been pointed out, in fact underlies a great many of its paragraphs. That is, the increasingly wide and intimate military co-operation which we have achieved with the Americans. Above all, I was glad to note in the White Paper the decision to raise the recruiting figure for the Army to 180,000 and to go in for another manned bomber. I would concede that these changes may well indicate some shift in emphasis within the defence programme towards conventional weapons, or more conventional weapons, and away from the
914
full doctrine of 1957. If so, they are none the less welcome.
Perhaps, too, the decisions were a little bit late in the day. Possibly the delay in at least one case may have been rather wasteful. But the problems facing the Minister of Defence to-day, in 1959, are infinitely more complex than those facing his quasi-predecessor in 1939. Some shifts, some hesitations, indeed even some mistakes, are quite inevitable. And we are indeed in very good company if occasional mistakes are made: others do so on a far grander scale than we do. Did not the Americans sink 700 million dollars into the Navajo missile before scrapping it. And do we suppose that Marshal Malinovsky never occasionally makes a boob? Of course he does.
My Lords, I am glad—or I think am; and, after all, none of us really knows much about these things—that the Government have decided to "put their money" on Blue Streak. I am glad, since I believe, with I think the majority of noble Lords, that if we can afford it, we should continue to make an effective contribution to the Western deterrent. I am glad, too, since I understand that Blue Streak, as a liquid-propelled missile, may have a possible space potential. I do not believe that it was ordained that outer space should become either a Russian or an American colony. Space research—and I make no apology for this digression—has vital and purely scientific possibilities, as well as a possible crucial military potential. I personally should like to see the time when British, or indeed, Western European (and I shall revert to this), satellites were in orbit and when Britain was playing a full part in research and exploration in space. I hope, therefore, that the Government are giving very serious consideration to the possibility of according high priority to research, and perhaps later to development, in this field—higher priority than at present, to judge by the statement by the Minister of Supply in another place on November 3.
I have been impressed also by the words used by the American General Gavin in his recent book. I quote from them:
" Of one thing we can be sure. The nation that first achieves the control of outer space will control the destiny of the human race."

915
I myself do not think that this would be a particularly good thing, either for the human race or even for the controlling "top dog". I therefore trust that the Government will take an active and positive interest in the United Nations ad hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and will not reject, without very good reason, General Gavin's proposal that a space programme be developed under United Nations control, or, indeed, the Soviet proposal for developing a United Nations space agency. My Lords, all this may sound "Jules Verne-ish", but so would our debate to-day have sounded to someone attending a similar occasion twenty years ago.
This said, I am sure that the Government are right in directing the main weight of our defence programme towards limited warfare. In the past, of the three Services, the Army seems to have come off worst in this respect. Last year, for example, only about £50 million was provided by the War Office for production, compared with nearly three times as much for the Admiralty and nearly four times as much for the Air Force. But the Army will bear the main heat and burden of limited war, should it come, and its appetite for equipment is bound to increase since it now has a dual rôle. It has to be equipped to fight a tactical nuclear war in Europe and a more or less conventional war on the periphery. I am glad, therefore, that real progress is now being made with the Army's re-equipment.
I should like to say a few words and ask a few questions now about the mobility of our Armed Forces. I am delighted to note that by 1960 the airlift capacity of Transport Command will be thrice that of 1951. But the statistics which we have about these matters, my Lords, are very confusing to the layman. What he would like to know is, broadly speaking, how large a tactical and how large a strategic airlift the Government are aiming at. What size of force do we hope to be able to airlift within a given theatre of war? What size of force do we aim to transport over long strategic distances?
As for marine mobility, I am glad that the conversion of "Bulwark" to a commando carrier, with its own self-contained helicopter force, will be
916
finished by the end of the year. "Bulwark "seems to me to be precisely the type of ship we need in the sort of local situation in the Persian Gulf, perhaps, which, unless lanced very rapidly, can putrefy very quickly. My only doubt is whether the Government are going far enough here. If there is a case for one "Bulwark", there seems to be a case for two.
Finally, there is battlefield mobility. All recent experience, I think—in Korea, Indo-China, Suez, Cyprus, and, above all, Algeria—has demonstrated the unique capabilities of the troop-carrying helicopter. The wording of the White Paper seems intentionally, at least to me, a little colourless and discouraging here. We read in paragraph 13 about
"a limited number of Bristol 192 Helicopters."
We find no mention in the Air Estimates of helicopters. Can we be assured that the Army's requirements for vertical lift aircraft are being examined with real vigour and will be met?
My Lords, I am quite sure that the health of our Alliances. N.A.T.O. in particular, was never more essential to our survival than to-day. N.A.T.O. will not be healthy unless interdependence is practised as well as preached. This poor word has come in for some keel-hauling this evening, but, to me, the concept is perfectly simple. It can be explained, at least to my mind, by the old adage, "If we do not hang together, we shall hang separately". To me, N.A.T.O. interdependence means, above all, the interdependence of North America and Western Europe, including the United Kingdom. To an almost equal degree, it means the interdependence of the N.A.T.O. countries of Western Europe, one with another, and all with the United Kingdom.
Here the signs are admittedly disquieting. It looks as if the Six could become progressively more inward-looking. Militarily, too, the concept of interdependence seems to be rather shaky. The Minister of Defence was very frank about one aspect of this in another place the other day. He stated categorically that the results of our co-operation in joint arms production with Europe have been exceedingly disappointing. Fragmentation of effort is wasteful economically and very inefficient militarily. In the long run, it can undermine the cohesion of the N.A.T.O. Alliance. And this

917
tendency towards disintegration may well be accentuated as France and the other Western European countries develop their own nuclear deterrents. It is one thing to attempt a diagnosis. It is another to prescribe. My prescription, my Lords, is limited and tentative, and I advise the House to shake the bottle well.
There seem to me to be four ways, among many others, in which we can arrest this possible fragmentation of the Alliance. First, we can take, and announce, a firm decision that there will be no further reduction in our Armed Forces in Germany; rather, that their effectiveness will be progressively built up through re-equipment and by raising, where necessary, the strength of individual units. The reduction of the Cyprus garrison and the raising of the Army recruiting target should make this attainable. Secondly, despite the setbacks we have suffered hitherto, we should persevere with our attempts to secure more rational and co-operative arms production with the Western European countries.
Thirdly—and this will be very difficult—we should, over the coming years, in my view, work towards the concept, within and under N.A.T.O., of a controlled European nuclear deterrent. At the least, we should try to ensure that, as the Western European countries develop (if they insist upon so doing) their own nuclear arms systems, these will come under agreed N.A.T.O. controls. But this concept will not hold water unless we ourselves are prepared to place our own deterrent, or at least that part of it which is designed to deter aggression against Western Europe or these islands, under such controls. Fourthly, we should, in my view, seek to achieve a joint research and production programme for ballistic missiles with our Western European N.A.T.O. Allies. I know that we invited their co-operation over Blue Streak, but I do not know what that invitation implied. I hope that it was full-blooded and extended to the Commonwealth, or at least to Woomera. I hope also that this invitation might include a proposal for joint research and development in outer space.
My Lords, N.A.T.O., to my mind, is the sheet anchor of our whole defence system—indeed, of the defence system of the: whole West. I am not entirely
918
confident that, in the storms ahead, that anchor may not drag as the result of disintegration within the Alliance, and, more specifically, of a growing lack of cohesion among its European members, including ourselves. But the Alliance must not only not disintegrate: if it stagnates, it will eventually decay. In many ways, this country is in a unique position to help stop this incipient rot. I trust that the present Government will play their full part in discharging this very special responsibility.
6.30 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not intend to follow my noble friend Lord Jellicoe into the realms of outer space, but I would start by echoing his first words, that it is very easy to be critical of the Government's defence policy. In fact, I believe it would be easy to be critical of any defence policy of any British Government at this particular time in our history, because our political position at the moment presents us with defence problems of the utmost complexity. Were we merely a small island in the Atlantic we could no doubt adopt a policy of neutrality such as that of Switzerland or Austria. Were our overseas responsibilities restricted to our colonial interests we could no doubt put our faith in conventional forces alone, such as would be required for police action. But the fact is that we are more than an Atlantic island and we have overseas interests far beyond our Colonies. We have strong links with our friends in Europe; we have close ties with our English-speaking friends over the other side of the Atlantic, and we have indissoluble ties with a world-wide Commonwealth. We are, in fact, a world power, and our defence policy must be commensurate with our world-wide responsibilities. But our resources are insufficient to meet all the demands of those responsibilities as we should ideally wish to, and it becomes a question of allocating them in the most effective way.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government in their Defence White Paper of two years ago, by and large achieved a sensible allocation of our resources for defence, and think that the present White Paper shows that good progress has beet made towards implementing that policy. In view of our limited resources and our diminished strength, the first principle

919
of our defence policy must be the maintenance of our alliances. I fully agree with what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has just said, that N.A.T.O. must be the sheet anchor; I would only add our other alliances, such as S.E.A.T.O. and the Baghdad Pact. This is clearly confirmed in the second paragraph of the introduction to the White Paper. But I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in regretting that there is no further mention in the White Paper of how we are working in those alliances to strengthen our defence in co-operation with our allies. I should have thought that in any review of the defence policy there should be some statement of progress made in developing our alliances and in strengthening them against any potential aggressor.
So far as N.A.T.O. is concerned, it is most disappointing to learn from the Minister of Defence in another place that no progress has been made in cooperation with our European friends in joint arms development, but I hope that we shall continue to strive to achieve some progress in this field. It is clearly one which contributes greatly to our joint defensive strength as well as to efficiency and economy. On the other hand, it is encouraging, when reading the various memoranda attached to the Services Estimates, to note that progress is being made in practical co-operation between our forces and the forces of our Commonwealth friends. The Army is arranging the training and is seconding officers to them, and the Navy and the Air Force are holding annual joint exercises with various Commonwealth countries. I think this is a very healthy development. But, encouraging as it is, it would be nice to know that similar progress is being made with our other allies in N.A.T.O., S.E.A.T.O. and the Baghdad Pact.
When we come to consider our own forces, I think it is universally agreed that the Government policy to provide
"compact all-Regular forces of the highest quality armed and organised on the most up-to-date lines"
is the correct one. The only dispute arises on the extent to which this is being achieved in the various Services. With limited resources available, any Minister of Defence is certain to encounter criticism from protagonists of the various
920
Services, as he alone has to bear the responsibility for the allocation of resources between them. On the whole, from the White Paper it seems that all-round progress is being made, and it is particularly encouraging that in the Army, at any rate, the re-equipment programme seems to have got going. It reads as if the equipment is actually arriving in the hands of the troops rather than being merely mentioned on paper.
Finally, to complete the balance of our defensive forces we have a nuclear weapon capacity. I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the decision to develop the Blue Streak ballistic rocket. It seems to me that it is essential for us to play our part in the nuclear deterrent, and it would not be in keeping with the spirit of our alliance with our American friends, nor would it be an honourable policy on our part, not to do so. We have to face the fact that our present freedom and the present peace of the world depends on the possession of the deterrent, and that Europe owes its independence from Communist influence and infiltration, if not actual invasion. to the presence of our American ally on the Continent. Our engineers and scientists have given us the capability of manufacturing nuclear weapons and we have co-operated with the Americans in this sphere to our mutual benefit. There can be no doubt that the Americans value our contribution in this field, and the Minister of Defence in another place quoted the Commander of the United States Strategic Air Command, General Power, in evidence of this fact. Equally, we too have received great benefits from the American know-how, and have been able to develop our own nuclear programme much more economically than would otherwise have been the case. In my opinion, to cease production of nuclear weapons would not only be to shelter under the American umbrella, but would also be to bury our head in the sand—a most undignified posture.
There is one particular aspect of the deterrent to which I hope particular attention is being paid—namely, to ensure that it is in fact a deterrent. It is not a question of matching Russian ability to strike the first blow; it is a question of our ability to strike second. I think it most unlikely in present circumstances that the Russians would consider launching a nuclear war, but should a situation

921
arise in which there appeared the possibility 10 them of obliterating our nuclear retaliatory power in a sudden surprise attack, the situation might alter. We rely at present for our deterrent mainly on our strategic air forces, but bombers have certain disadvantages as against rockets when it comes to retaliation. In the first place, their bases have to be protected against rocket attack. In the Air Estimates we read that six minutes is now the standard time for these bombers to be airborne. But in the event of an all-out surprise attack by rocket, would we in fact have six minutes warning? Secondly, the bomber must penetrate enemy defences in the face of greatly improved ground-to-air and air-to-air anti-aircraft missiles. Rockets, if launched from underground, are free from these disadvantages, and I very much hope that when developing our own Blue Streak rocket great attention will be paid to its protection from a surprise enemy attack.
Most important of all, not mentioned in the White Paper but mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is the development of anti-missile missiles. Obviously this is a problem of the future and one of the greatest complexity, but should we one day be able to solve it, then once again defence would have the upper hand over attack. But for the present we must continue to rely for our defence on our power of retaliation, and I fully support the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the White Paper.
6.40 p.m.
Low SHACKLETON: My Lords, I find myself very much in agreement with both noble Lords who have just spoken, and I am particularly glad that the noble Lord who has just sat down has supported so strongly the case for interdependence, to which I shall hope to refer a little later. But first of all I feel that I ought to say something with regard to the extent of any difference of opinion that may be thought to exist between the Parties. I say this with the full knowledge that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, made an appeal that defence should not be a matter for Part politics. I hope that if there is disagreement between the Parties—and undoubtedly there are points of disagreement—it does not mean that that disagree-
922
ment is not based on a full sense of responsibility on either side.
In our present situation, although it is not possible to avoid criticising Her Majesty's Government in a number of respects, there is, I believe, a very large measure of general agreement between us; and because there is that measure of general agreement it makes it all the more desirable and necessary that we should underline those points over which collectively some noble Lords on these Benches and some on the other side may feel that they are in disagreement with Her Majesty's Government. It is not only a question of Government policy but a question of Government execution, of the successful carrying out of their declared policy, of which we have some criticisms.
I was a little bothered, as was another noble Lord, by the extent to which Her Majesty's Government seemed to be backing down—perhaps a little too far—on what they had declared to be their policy. I was rather startled that they should be so pleased that such a small proportion of the defence effort at the moment was going into the nuclear effort. The proportion mentioned was one-tenth. Is that because Her Majesty's Government now feel that the nuclear deterrent is such an unpleasant thing that they must apologise for it, or is it to conciliate those critics who wish to pursue a purely Service vested interest? This is a matter in which we cannot play at argument. It must be a matter of sticking firmly to whatever Her Majesty's Government believe to be the right policy.
Since there has been criticism of the policy of the Labour Party in the matter of the nuclear deterrent and the use of nuclear weapons, I should like to say what I believe it to be—at the same time fully acknowledging that this is a field in which such strong anxieties are felt that there is bound to be a continuous movement of thought and ideas, which is even to be found, surprisingly, in Her Majesty's Government. We have only to look at the opening words of last year's White Paper and compare them with those of this year's White Paper. Last year Her Majesty's Government started by saying:
"The world today is poised between the hope of total peace and the fear of total war."

923
This year they start by saying:
"Substantial headway has been made with modernising existing ships."
It seems to me that there is at least a slight change in emphasis there, and that this type of change is rather inclined to go on among all of us. But, as I understand it, we on this side accept that in the last resort the nuclear deterrent may have to be used, and used as a deterrent, if war is likely to break out and to take a form in which our defeat appears to be probable or likely.
It is very difficult to get the exact sense on this, but the best analogy seems to me to be the position of a man trying to defend a bridge. Having put mines under the bridge he says to the other man: "I shall have to stand on the bridge and even though it blows up both myself and you, I am prepared to blow it up". But there is no reason why he should not try, in the first instance, to knock the other man off the bridge, or to stop him getting on to it; and this seems to be wholly consistent with Government action, whatever declared Government policy may be, otherwise why do we have N.A.T.O.? Why do we have, in Europe, the shield which, in the first instance, is to prevent the overrunning of Europe by a Russian advance from the East?
An important part of this policy seems to me to be that we should be prepared to use atomic weapons tactically, in the first resort, without going, in the first stage, to the final and utter destruction of a thermo-nuclear war. This is an important refinement, and I should like to emphasise this point to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, who knows so much more than I do about this whole question of strategy. But it is a position on which the Labour Party have made their views clear, and it is right that the House should be aware that there are these quite reasonable and proper refinements in the administration or the nature of a policy of deterrence. I fully accept what was said by those noble Lords and particularly the spokesman for Her Majesty's Government, in reference to the balance of power. There is no doubt that this is a very important element in the situation. I do not want to go further than this. Quite clearly we can examine our fundamental attitudes
924
indefinitely, but I should like to proceed now to another criticism of certain of the executive actions of Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House made some reference to the fact that so much of what the House has looked forward to for so long is contained in the White Paper—I think I am interpreting him correctly. The trouble is that the House is going to have to go on looking forward to it quite a bit longer, for a number of matters referred to in the White Paper are not to come into effect before, perhaps, 1962; and if Government policy in the defence field is carried out a little more successfully than it has been over the last two or three years, undoubtedly we shall have a very well-equipped Regular Army. But it is really appalling that we are still in a position in which the F.N. rifle has not been generally introduced. It may well be that the Labour Party have some blame for that in the past, but certainly I remember discussion on the F.N. rifle in another place back in 1950–51. Surely nine years later we could have got it. The Government have had quite a good run in which to do so.
Then we know that today our airborne forces are not properly equipped for their rôle, as Her Majesty's Government have been quite frank in admitting. It is, of course, an easy way of saying we have not got what we ought to have, by using the phrase, "This is what we are going to have." In effect, the White Paper frankly admits a number of grievous deficiencies in our equipment. I only hope that there will be a speed-up in the introduction of an airborne tank, so that we do not find the kind of situation that existed in the Jordan operation, when, so far as I know, British troops were sent to Jordan equipped virtually with last-war rifles and without any real artillery or armoured vehicles, and having to rely on tents and water brought in by air. I admit that there is perhaps no way of completely improving on that, but it was not a very satisfactory state of affairs, and it was just as well that the British Army were not called upon to fight in those circumstances. Incidentally, while I am on the subject of the Middle East, may I ask one direct question: could we know what is going on in

925
Oman at the moment and what is happening in the matter of military operations there? There seems to be a most extraordinary security cover on these operations.
I should like next to turn to another aspect of the consequences of the Minister of Defence's conduct of his own Ministry. I have the greatest admiration for the determination with which he has set out to face the vested interests which naturally exist within the Services, but it has had some rather unfortunate consequences. It has, in fact, in some ways intensified, so I understand, the sort of bargaining that goes on between the different Services. One of the consequences has been a quite ridiculous proposal (which I was very glad to note the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, dismissed as a proposal which really was unworthy)—the proposal, on which I challenged the First Sea Lord on another occasion, that Coastal Command should be handed back to the Navy as a sort of consolation prize for them, because the Government and the Government spokesmen have not spoken as highly as they might have done about their rôle in the world war. I noticed that the noble Earl the Leader of the House tried to put that right to-day by saying kindly things—and he did have some success as a result of those remarks—about what is now proposed.
We know perfectly well that discussions are going on. When the Under-Secretary of State for Air was challenged in another place on this matter he made a most remarkable statement, which I hope I can find. He said, in fact, when challenged on it [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 601 (No. 71), col. 737]:
… we wish it well in all the tasks it does."
This is no reply to an inquiry about Coastal Command. It is rather like going to a man who is going to be hanged to-morrow and saying, "We wish you good luck in all your future tasks." Perhaps we could get from the First Lord, who must be very intimately concerned in this matter, and who knows exactly what is going on, a statement as to what is really happening in regard to Coastal Command.
This is not the way to deal with the sort of situation which we are now in with regard to the organisation and integration of the Services. I greatly
926
prefer the solution which the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, mentioned: that we should strengthen the co-ordinating Commands. There is no better co-ordinating Command at the moment than Coastal Command, where there is the closest integration with the Navy and the Air Force. If Coastal Command were handed over to the Navy the cost (the First Sea Lord will be aware of this) would be very considerable, and might put £20 million to £40 million on the national defence bill. I suppose that it would be a mistake to carry the attack into the enemy's camp and suggest that Naval aviation ought to be handed over to the Royal Air Force, because that is an ancient controversy and it may well be that some people would be disposed to raise it. I certainly should not like to do something so disturbing to good inter-Service relationship, but I should like to say something about the rôle of the Navy against the Government's own Defence White Paper.
I greatly hope that soft words of the kind used by the noble Earl the Leader of the House will not obscure the realities of our defence situation to-day. If bombers are out, because there is a more efficient way of defending this country, no amount of sentiment about the Royal Air Force and the crews who man those bombers should be sufficient reason to retain them—I repeat, if there is a more efficient way of providing for the defence of this country. The same thing must apply to the rôle of the Royal Navy in an atomic war.
There have been suggestions that we need a large Navy to defend our trade routes against a possible mass submarine attack from the Soviet Union. It is acknowledged on all sides that our trade routes and the protection of them have in the past been quite fundamental to the survival of this country. But I do not believe that a major submarine threat against our trade routes is one that can in the long run be met by conventional weapons; and this ties in with the remarks I made with regard to the use of tactical atomic weapons and, ultimately, the use of the deterrent.
In the last war the bombing of submarine ports was ineffective. In a future war bombing of submarine bases with even the smaller atomic, fission bomb would be totally effective. Therefore it would be as much a mistake for us to

927
build up the type of anti-submarine force that operated in those circumstances throughout the war as it would be to attempt to reconstruct the type of Air Force that we had during the last war. I hope that the Government will realise that the country is looking for firmness and leadership in this matter; and even if the Minister of Defence does greatly irritate his colleagues on occasion, and it leads to all sorts of unpleasant rows and a delay of new weapons, I hope that he will have the support of his colleagues in facing up to these particular realities.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, is it not likely that at the outbreak of war the 400 atomic submarines would not be at their bases but would be dispersed all over the world? Therefore, bombing their bases would not have much effect, because they could stay at sea for a matter of months.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there are not 400 atomic submarines and are not likely to be. Whether the Russians can do better than the British and get a single atomic submarine before 1965 I do not know. But certainly there is the danger of an immediate submarine threat. But I am visualising a situation in which we are either going to hold the war up and prevent it quickly or we shall find ourselves in an atomic war, and the rôle of the Navy in those circumstances is going to be much more of a rescue operation. Certainly they will need resources for that, but it will not be the main rôle which the Government foresee in such a war.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would repeat those remarks if he were before the crew of a merchant ship?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I. hope that the noble Earl, however strongly he may feel, will not question that what I am saying is said with absolute sincerity and in the best interests of this country. I detected a certain intensity of feeling, which is understandable, but it will not help us in facing an issue like this which we should face and which it is our job to face here. On a previous occasion I thought I detected some resentment to my remarks, and I hope that he will not carry that resentment further. It is an issue which I be-
928
lieve it is our duty to face fairly and squarely, and that is not done by our refusing to face the fact that we should do our best for our country. I can only state what I sincerely believe to be the right sort of considerations in such a matter.
I believe that the most important approach to this problem of inter-Service rivalry must be to concentrate on a further approach towards integration. I realise that "integration" is one of those magic words which, by itself, does not solve any problems. But it would be, I think, easier if we could gradually get to a stage—and I do not see why we should not get to a stage—not where we unify the different Services and destroy their traditions and callings, but where there is a much greater interchangeability and where officers, and it may be other ranks as well, are entitled to wear the uniform of another Service with which they are serving. This is the sort of development which will gradually break down these inter-Service rivalries and will stop the occasional proposals for a surgical amputation, as a result of which some missile unit or something of that sort is taken bodily out of one Service and put into another, possibly leaving essential officers and other ranks behind because they refuse to change their uniform. I hope, therefore, that the Government will press on with integration so far as they can.
I should like now to refer very briefly to N.A.T.O. and interdependence. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that N.A.T.O. is of very great importance, and I am sorry that the noble Earl the Leader of the House did not say more about it in his opening speech, though I realise that he was trying to save the time of the House. The British part in N.A.T.O. is of extreme importance, and it ties in with this question of interdependence. I should like to conclude my speech by putting again the arguments for interdependence. I think that probably the most immediate argument has been the very great gain in our own defence efficiency which has come from the sharing of knowledge because we ourselves have got into a state of interdependence with the Americans. We are in a very privileged position as compared with the other countries; and so are the Americans, I might say, with regard to us. The result is that there has been an

929
advance in technical matters which is of the greatest importance to this country.
The second argument—and this moves more into the field of foreign affairs—is that if the Prime Minister is to exercise successfully the initiative which he is trying to exercise at the moment, he can do it only if the Americans recognise that, interdependently with them, we are playing our part in the policies of the West. I believe that interdependence is absolutely essential for the successful conduct of a British foreign policy; and, indeed, for a degree of independence in our foreign policy which does, curiously enough, spring from this interdependence. The final argument is that interdependence does strengthen our own independent effort. I hope we shall never see a situation in which the Americans will withdraw (at least while the threat exists) from the Western Alliance or, indeed, will withdraw troops from Western Europe: but if ever they should, and if ever we should find ourselves in the position of having to "go it alone", we can at least in the meanwhile strengthen our defences from the advantages which can be obtained to-day from the interdependent relationship which we have created.
7.3 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, when I came into your Lordships' House this afternoon I was under the clear impression that the object of this debate was to discuss the progress of the Government's five-year defence plan as set out in this White Paper. I have read the Paper most carefully, and I have made a number of notes on it which I hope to put forward for the Government's consideration and, possibly, answer later. I did not think that the object of this debate was necessarily to discuss the advisability of some of the methods of defence which are envisaged or mentioned in this Paper. Out of forty-seven paragraphs in the Paper, the speeches on paragraphs 14 and 15 have outweighed the remainder to the point at which the debate has really become so top-heavy or lopsided,(whichever way you like to put it) that it seems to have become, to my mind at any rate, a discussion all over again on the rightness or wrongness of nuclear weapons or nuclear warfare.
Therefore, before I go on to raise my few rather pedestrian points, I should like
930
to say once again that, broadly, the view of those who sit on these Benches has already been expounded. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, mentioned earlier in the debate that he was quite unable to understand Mr. Grimond's view, expounded in another place the other day; but it really is not as difficult as all that, and I think the noble Lord really knows that that view, though he may not agree with it, has a certain amount of common sense to recommend it. That view was also reiterated by my noble Leader in your Lordships' House recently in the debate on the Motion of Lord Simon of Wythenshawe: and although at the time he said that they were his own personal views, there was little in what he said with which the great majority of Liberals would not agree. However, we did not this afternoon expect such valuable support as we received from the distinguished Field-Marshal, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, who held the view, as your Lordships heard, that to test and to stockpile atomic weapons is merely to duplicate the effort of the United States. He said that, and I agree with it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, may I say that although it is not my place to interpret my noble and gallant friend's remarks, I do not think he said that. He said, as I understand it, that we must avoid duplicating them, but he did not say that we would inevitably duplicate them by carrying forward a nuclear programme.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is a little unfortunate that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal has only just returned to his seat, and I am afraid, therefore, that the matter must be left there until we read Hansard to-morrow. If I am wrong I shall, of course, apologise and withdraw my remarks, but I do not think I am.
We have also heard that to follow the line that we can afford research and that we can afford bases for this form of warfare, and then to confine ourselves to conventional weapons, is to lose our standing and our prestige as well. That has been said again and again. My Lords, the things that are done nowadays in the name of prestige cart turn out to

931
be quite catastrophic. Apart from anything else—
LORD HARDING OF PETHERTON: My Lords, I regret that I was not here when reference was made to my speech, but I should like to make it quite clear that I am not opposed to our contributing to the nuclear deterrent, to our making our own nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons. What I am opposed to is our duplicating the production of weapons in regard to which the American programme is already sufficient for our common need.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I thank the noble and gallant Lord, and I think the difference between us is negligible. My Lords, to continue my remarks, if I may, I want to leave this matter which has taken up all the afternoon. Important though it is, it has distracted us, I think, from the points in the White Paper which I imagine it was the intention of the Government should be discussed—otherwise, the Motion would not have been put down. In paragraph 7 of the White Paper we find the words:
"… the smaller, but more highly trained, all-Regular force. …"
The question of training is one with which I was very much involved at one time in my life. Are the Government happy with the number and extent of the training areas which they have? In that connection, I mention most especially such matters as field firing ranges—more and more important as the type of weapons which are being issued develop.
In paragraph 9 of the White Paper, there is mention of other new weapons. Obviously, the Paper cannot list all these weapons, but I wonder whether the noble Earl will be so kind as to ask the War Office whether, among these new weapons, they have considered experimenting with remote-controlled flame-throwers for purposes of defence. Your Lordships will remember the introduction in 1940 of the flame thrower, a new weapon of strong and terrifying propensities. Later, in the Pacific, against the Japanese the Americans used it extensively in attack. But it is in defence, in one particular part of the world, that that springs to my mind, and no doubt to the minds of other noble Lords as well. I imagine that as a means of defence it is extremely valuable. As things stand at
932
the moment infantry, which by themselves can hardly defend themselves for any length of time, have to depend on artillery and minefields. Air support is often hampered by weather at the crucial moment. Artillery support is subject to counter battery firing, varying in intensity and effect. Minefields are all very well, but with an enemy disposing almost unlimited manpower—which is the case of two potential opponents—they can always sacrifice the first wave to touch off the mines and there is nothing left to stop the second wave. But remote-controlled flame-throwers can be kept in action almost indefinitely and at very little cost. Those manning them can be dug in, miles away if necessary. I do not expect the noble Earl to mention the point in his reply, but perhaps this matter can be included in some later reply from the War Office.
I have one other point, which I have raised before in your Lordships' House. It is not a dramatic one at all but it is important because everything else hinges on it. In paragraphs 23 and 24 of the White Paper there is mention of unified inter-Service command having been tried out with success recently in Aden. This I have difficulty in understanding, because surely the Governors respectively of Malta and Gibraltar are Governors and Commanders-in-Chief. Unified command already exists, therefore, and I do not quite understand the reference to Aden unless it means that there will be an inter-Service staff under the Commander-in-Chief. Perhaps it means that. If it does, then I am very much in agreement with the last speaker who hoped that one day the Services would integrate to a greater extent than now and avoid the throat-cutting and jealousies which inevitably exist.
Arising out of that, I may say that during the late war I was in Malta for quite a long time. Eventually the Army, Navy and Air Force Staffs found themselves in a hole in the ground, just as people did in London. We found ourselves together and the thing worked very well. We walked into each other's offices, shared communications and worked well together. One saw at once the enormous economy in men, clerks, telephones—anything you like. Even then I, as senior member of the Army Staff, had anxious moments trying to keep peace between

933
Army and Navy. It was sometimes difficult to concentrate on the Germans because there were points on which the two Services did not see eye to eye.
Now, with the Joint Services Staff College in existence, it seems that we are moving towards the Staff course—a thing I advocated twenty years ago in a paper. I doubt whether that paper still exists: if it does it must be a long way down the file. Cannot the Staff College at Camberley be enlarged to include the Naval Staff College and the two R.A.F. Colleges? At the moment it is not big enough for that, but it is putting out more Staff officers than the Army needs—140 a year. It put out only 200 in war time when the Army was bigger. The Navy have a comparatively small output from their Staff College; the R.A.F. is bigger but not as big as the Army. I believe it would be possible, on a long term, to put all three under one roof and, by doing so, the process of integration between Staffs, and their training, would start sooner than now. The earliest time it can start now is at the Joint Services Staff College. And only the cream go there. A system in which they all went to one Staff college to start with I believe would produce an integrated view sooner; and that not only would be advantageous from the efficiency point of view but would also be a considerable saving in money. I am quite aware that this view would not initially meet with favour anywhere, but it might be worth keeping in mind.
I believe, as I have said before in your Lordships' House, that Staffs generally—and I can speak only for the Army—are too big. There are too many Staff officers now. I could mention one Staff which is four or five times bigger than before the war. It is close to here, but I have friends involved, so it would perhaps be injudicious to do so. In my view, if Staff officers are to be efficient they must take responsibility at every level. If a young officer on a Staff signs for the commander he should take the responsibility of signing for his commander, whatever rank he is. But Staffs are so big generally that a junior rank can always find somebody a little more senior; and so he passes it on and produces not a very good type of Staff officer. Fewer, with more responsibility, will produce economy and a better officer.
934
If reductions are to be made, as I hope they will, they must be made sensibly and not arbitrarily, as at the end of the war. I remember a senior officer coming out from the War Office to the Middle East with instructions to cut Staffs arbitrarily by 10 per cent. Can you imagine a more stupid instruction? Some branches could take a 50 per cent. cut at that time. Operations Air Staff and General Staff could have taken 50 per cent., whereas the Adjutant-General's branch, dealing with such matters as prisoners of war—of which we had nearly 2 million in the Middle East—could have done with an increase, leave alone a cut. But it had to take the cut like everybody else. The Quartermaster's branch had the same cut, though it was responsible for feeding, clothing and moving them around. In fact, they were busier than at any stage of the war. That was a stupid way of setting about it.
I hope the noble Earl will not feel that I have wasted the time of the House. Staff work in all three Services is vital. The best commander in the world cannot work without an efficient Staff. I know the noble and gallant Field Marshal—and not long ago we had the honour of having two Field-Marshals on the Cross Bench—would agree. A Staff will not be efficient if it is too big and clogged up; it must be small and it must be efficient. I hope the noble Earl will be able to spare some thought on this subject.
7.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. I hope that the noble Lord who has just sat down will not expect me to follow him in the arguments he has produced, but he made one remark, if I understood him correctly, on which I must take him up. He said that he hoped there would be a Staff Corps. I dislike immensely the idea of a Staff Corps. I feel that that is going back to what happened in the First World War when there were a great many Staff officers who had no idea of what regimental duty meant. I am certain that no one cart make a really good Staff officer unless he has served for a comparatively long time as a regimental soldier.
LORD WINDLESHAM: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I did not suggest that anybody in any of the three

935
Services should go on the Staff until he had had adequate service with his unit. I am absolutely opposed to the idea of a professional Staff officer.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I must have misunderstood the noble Lord, and I apologise. I was glad that my noble friends sitting behind me, Lord Jellicoe and Lord Aberdare, said that they wished to congratulate the Government, because I feel that the Government have had rather a thin time this afternoon, and they do not deserve it. This is called a Progress Report, and it is in fact a report of progress of what is going on. In this Report we see that the equipment for all the Services is coming along; but—and it is a big but; and this is a point where I think one could criticise slightly—it is taking too long to materialise. I would ask the Government to put down the accelerator on the supply of what they intend to give the troops.
The noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, mentioned this point, as did several other noble Lords. I know only too well, as do other noble Lords who were in the Services before the war, that nothing is more soul-destroying than to have the wrong equipment, or, possibly, no equipment at all, or mock-up equipment. How well we remember before the war, when card-board tanks were being pushed rather slowly around Salisbury Plain for the infantry to co-operate with, and what a soul-destroying thing that was! It is bad for the morale of troops if, after they have been told that they are going to get various pieces of equipment, it takes a long time to come. I hope that these new weapons and the new equipment will come along quickly.
I was pleased to note in paragraph 43 (I do not think this point has yet been mentioned) an improvement in the Service allowances in relation to the question of moving, which, as everyone who has been in the Forces knows, involves great expense. The other thing that has been done is to give free passage to children at home when visiting their parents once a year. I am sure that will do a lot of good for the morale of those who are serving abroad.
There is one question I want to ask of the noble Earl who is to reply. I
936
should like to know what extra powers the Chief of the Defence Staff has apropos the powers which the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee had when Marshal of the Air Force Sir William Dickson held that post. I have read the White Paper on this matter, but I am not absolutely certain what exactly are the new powers that the Chief of the Defence Staff has at the moment.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which is celebrating its tenth birthday this year. I believe, as many other noble Lords do, in the great importance of N.A.T.O. I have been fortunate enough to go to Parliamentary Conferences at N.A.T.O. for several years, and I have never failed to be impressed by what goes on there. It is one of the most important things to this nation, and we must keep it so. But I believe there are few people in this country to-day who realise that at this very minute there are Englishmen, and men from all other N.A.T.O. countries, sitting and watching carefully as they are doing all the time. They are doing a good job of work, and I think that here we should always give the leaders, the commanders and all the forces in N.A.T.O. our support.
7.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, apart from a tendency to stray into the rather detailed field, which would be more proper in a debate on the individual Service Estimates, I think it will be agreed that a number of matters of first importance have been brought up and dealt with this afternoon. One, in particular, that I should like to mention is the question of inter-Service relations. I think it is encouraging that at least four or five noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon have welcomed the suggestion in the White Paper that some progress is being made towards Service integration.
The statement in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the White Paper is, however, rather thin. After all, it is common knowledge that in war-time, or when operations are going on, members of the different Services always co-operate; and when they have a job to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, the junior officers always co-operate. However, when we get to the highest ranks, then individual members of the Service feel that they

937
bear responsibility for seeing that their Service does not suffer in the competition among the three Services for resources, money, prestige or anything else. So long as the position of the three Services is co-equal, as it is now, with a rather sketchy control from above by the Minister of Defence, we shall have competition more or less unrestrained between the Services. It is under those conditions that we find the acute cases of competition and, as one noble Lord said, the rather undesirable forms of bargaining and negotiating.
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said that one day there would be complete integration of the Services into one big Service. But before any approach can be made to that it seems to me that two things are necessary. One is that a much more positive control over the Services must be vested in the Minister of Defence, so that he can, if necessary, knock people's heads together if they refuse to co-operate with each other. The other step that must be taken is at the other end of the scale, when young men go into the Services. At the moment, the whole attitude of a young man who enters a Service is one of intense pride of his Service, but that pride is acquired at the expense of the other Services or, very often, of other arms or corps of the same Service. Unless a young man is taught actively and positively by his senior officers that they all form part of one Service, and that all three Services have equal responsibility in the service of the country, that young man will grow up believing that he must stick up for his own Service at all costs. In the Army, the situation is worse, because of the regimental system which is responsible for a good deal of narrow parochialism and the intense competition for reserves, stores and the rest.
The trouble with a system like this is that it is self-perpetuating, because the officers who are recommended for promotion are probably those who are most keen on upholding their own regiment or Service and, therefore, automatically are least disposed to co-operate and to show good will towards the other Services and the other branches of the same Service. It seems to me that a drastic change in the atmosphere in the Services is the first thing that must come before there can be any serious advance in the close co-operation of the Services.
938
One other matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, was the question of secrecy or security. Both noble Lords thought that a good deal of harm is being done by excessive secrecy or, as we should probably call it in modern jargon, "security consciousness." Any Staff officer in a Service will tell you that a given subject must be classified secret because it might come to the ears of a foreign Power and damage our war effort. Many noble Lords will remember that mobilisation schemes, or any document connected with mobilisation, was secret because it was said, and to a certain extent truly, that a foreign agent, if he knew the number of boots in the store of a unit or district, would then have the number of men who could be mobilised in case of war, and that that was military information which must be kept from the enemy or from foreign Powers. Numerous cases of equally ridiculous prohibitions will come to anybody's mind, even on much more important matters.
During the war, there were frequently cases where it was said that information could not be given about some action because the enemy must not know how much we knew about him. I remember that this mania for secrecy on the part of the Service authorities was written about during the war from time to time. It seems to me that it should be the function of a Minister, or some Department of Government, to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the disclosure of certain information. It may be that public morale would be so much improved by knowing a little more about some of the actions which took place during the war that it would be well worth giving some small piece of information to the enemy. It is on matters of this sort on which the Service Departments themselves cannot be trusted to keep a sense of proportion, and it is for the political heads of the Services, and for the Government, to have machinery to keep matters like that constantly under review. In peace time certainly the same considerations apply, and the individual members of the Services will be far more encouraged, and their enthusiasm for their Service will be helped, if they know a little more about the equipment and so on that they are given to use.

939
One question I should like to underline, at the risk of repetition, was that put by my noble friend Lord Nathan. He expressed a doubt whether we had the resources to carry out the enormous programme of research and development which, according to the White Paper, is in hand. I hope that we shall keep a sense of proportion and realise that we have not the resources that our fathers bad before the 1914 war. Our resources have dwindled, and we must resist the temptation, for prestige purposes, to try to equip ourselves on the same lavish scale as the Americans or the Russians. We must exercise some discrimination. That, of course, brings one to the question of interdependence. If there is any advantage to be obtained from an Alliance such as N.A.T.O., surely it is that the countries composing it do not each try to make everything in the whale armoury, but agree among themselves that each country concentrates on the manufacture, research or development of those articles in which it is best placed to make progress.
That naturally brings us to the biggest question of all, the nuclear weapons. I will wait until Hansard appears tomorrow before I commit myself as to what I believe the noble and gallant Field Marshal said about it. But whatever he did say, I think there has been material published recently which has a bearing on the question of the continuance by this country of maintaining the nuclear deterrent. The argument put not long ago in articles in The Times was that a new situation has arisen since it became apparent that the Russians had the power to deal a crippling blow at America with nuclear weapons; that since the Russians now have the weapon and the means of delivery, America can no longer count on immunity from complete devastation if a nuclear war breaks out; and therefore, that it is open to doubt whether the American nation would use nuclear weapons in defence of Europe or of other countries in Western Europe. It seems to be now no longer true that we cannot conceive any circumstances in which we should think it worth fighting and the Americans would not. I do not know whether the Government are prepared to say anything on that subject, but that argument has not, so far as I know, been demolished.
940
The other question which the noble and gallant Field Marshal mentioned was the question of what is enough in the nuclear weapon field. He hoped, I think—and there we shall all agree with him—that this country would not go on making nuclear weapons unnecessarily. I believe that there is a controversy going on in the United States now as to what should be considered enough of the nuclear weapons for national defence. One school says that it is sufficient if you have enough bombs to devastate the enemy's cities and destroy their populations. The other, which I gather is supported by the American Services, is the view that that is not enough; that it is necessary to have enough weapons to neutralise or destroy every means in the enemy's hands of delivering the weapons at the United States—in other words, enormously greater quantities of weapons are required for the second case if you intend to prevent your enemy hitting back at you.
My Lords, those are matters in the realm of very high policy which have not been touched on in this debate, but I suggest that they are relevant, and I should like to come back once again to the point that we in this country have limited resources of scientists, engineers, capacity and material of every sort, and it is the Government's duty to shape their policy in accordance with that limited supply of material.
7.43 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should not like to follow the noble Earl who has just spoken on this question of higher policy, but I would make a few points on this question that has been raised to-day. The noble Earl the Leader of the House stressed the part played by our foreign policy in the promotion of our defence policy. Our obligations have been made adundantly clear. Much has been said on the basis of our policy: collective defence, integrated forces, contribution to the deterrent; and the need for flexibility has also been stressed with regard to the pursuance of this policy.
Before commenting on ways and means outlined in the Progress Report as to the implementation of the policy laid out in the Defence White Paper of 1957, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a recently published book, entitled Soviet Strategy in the Nuclear Age, written by Raymond L. Garthoff,

941
member of the United States Department of Defence and recognised in the United States as an authority on Soviet military doctrine—in fact in 1954 he published a book entitled Soviet Military Doctrine. In a Press review in the United States it was stated that every officer from a second lieutenant to a five-star General and every member of Congress should read Soviet Strategy in the Nuclear Age. In it the author stresses that Soviet policy is mainly based on a calculation of power tinged with a strong offensive aim; that is, the weakening, annihilation and replacement of the enemy—and by "enemy" I mean anyone who is not under Soviet control.
No doubt that is part of the Communist ideology, but, my Lords, in the era of thermo-nuclear missiles and deliverability by aircraft it may well be that we have reached a state of parity whereby it would be no longer necessary for the Soviet to employ such a capability to achieve that end. But then forceful political measures might be employed, and that would bring to the fore, I think, the question of limited warfare. What does stand out in my mind, in a study of this previously mentioned publication, is that the main objective of Soviet strategy appears to be the creation of favourable conditions for their land forces with the concept that nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons need not necessarily be used.
To come now to our concept of deterring and resisting aggression, I welcome the decision of the Minister of Defence, stated in another place last month, to the effect that a decision has been reached that Her Majesty's Government propose to proceed with the development of our own ballistic missile—in other words, Blue Streak. And I am particularly glad that we should be doing so in view of the statement which he made with regard to the payload of equipment of this missile with a view to evading or confusing anti-missile missiles. Assuming the validity of the Russian trend of thought, that intermediate-range ballistic missiles and inter-continental ballistic missiles are invulnerable to interception, and assuming also that it is right that their trend of thought follows the line that the ballistic missile is the logical and best weapon for the purpose of deterrence, should we
942
not assume that possibly they are ahead of us in ballistic missiles?
With regard to our second form of deterrent, the manned bomber with its stand-off bomb, I should like to ask the noble Earl, the First Lord, whether he will give the House, when he comes to reply, any further information and particulars about the stand-off bomb. Certain American-powered bombs have varying ranges. The Rascal GAM 63 has a range of 100 miles. The GAM 77 has a range of 500 miles. A slightly different and larger type of weapon system, the SM 62, has a range of 5,000 miles. Exactly where does our powered bomb fit in? Is it between the 100-mile and 500-mile mark, or between the 500-mile and 5,000-mile mark? Very little information is available to the public in general about what this type of powered bomb can do.
Before leaving the question of our manned bomber force, I should like to say that I particularly welcome the statement that this force will continue to be increased by the introduction of Vulcans and Victors. I have particularly in mind the B.2 Victor, fitted with the Conway engines, which have a much higher thrust than the engines of the Mark I. I believe (this point was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye) that the manned bomber has many years in front of it as a deterrent that is, when it is loaded with a nuclear weapon—on account of its flexibility, the inter-changeability of bases, the possible rotation of aircraft, and on account also of the constant progress which is being achieved by the crews in reducing take-off time. Lastly, to touch on another form of nuclear deterrent, I wish to refer to our prototype nuclear submarine "Dreadnought". In this respect, I particularly welcome the statement made by the Government spokesman in another place, to the effect that the keel will be laid this summer.
I want now to say a word about our contribution to the N.A.T.O. shield. On February 26 last, in another place, the Minister of Defence quoted a recent N.A.T.O. Council resolution about
"the manifest will to use nuclear retaliatory forces to repeal aggression".
I must say that the Minister did add [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 600 (No. 66), col. 1416]:
"in the event of a large-scale major attack".

943
In view of this statement, may I take the opportunity of asking the noble Earl, the First Lord, whether any joint political directives have been issued which cover all contingencies in respect of the utilisation of nuclear weapons? That these directives should not be made public may well be, but do they exist?
As I see it, the principles, doctrines, concepts—call it what one may—underlying the possible use of nuclear weapons, as well as the extent to which tactical and strategical weapons will be brought into use, must be made very clear. In the winter issue of the European-Atlantic Review, General Norstad states—I quote his exact words:
"If the shield is both strong enough and flexible enough to cope with a limited penetration, the dilemma of whether or not to invoke general war passes to the aggressor. He must then weigh the power not only of the forces directly in front of him but also the supporting actions of the elements of the deterrent".
I hope that very serious consideration is being given by Her Majesty's Government to this question of "coping with a limited penetration", for we cannot afford the possibility of such a conflict developing, by accident or by an error of judgment, into a major conflict.
7.58 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships' House for my absence during much of the debate because of my duties in the City. I shall make my remarks as brief as possible. I want to say a few words about Christmas Island, which, to my knowledge, has not been touched on to any degree in the debate. In the current number of that excellent magazine Soldier, there is an elaborately-written article about this vitally important strategic post where most of the experiments in nuclear testing are, I believe, being carried on. According to this article, there are about 4,000 troops of the Navy, Army and Air Force, in addition to the "boffins" themselves, on the island. I should like the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, to say a few words, if he will, about the future of this base, so far as he can give the information. How many troops are we likely to maintain there during the course of, let us say, the next five years, and what is the cost of maintaining them?
944
The Government are to be congratulated on the tremendous strides they have made in this vital base. Bearing in mind that the base was started only in 1956, one of the paragraphs of the article in Soldier states:
"Most of us sleep in tents, although 800 are now accommodated in hutted barrack rooms … These were built by a troop of Fijian sappers who volunteered to serve on Christmas Island. By the middle of 1959 everyone should be sleeping in huts connected to a permanent sewerage system and equipped with wash basins, showers, toilets and hot and cold baths."
Of course, accommodation is a vital aspect of this subject. The recruiting figures for the Services have been excellent, and, hand in hand with recruiting, goes accommodation; and certainly in Christmas Island a very good example has been set. But elsewhere the picture is not so rosy. In one Sunday paper which is a Government supporter a very different picture was painted by a unit returning from Cyprus which went to Albany barracks in Newport, Isle of Wight. I quote from what a drum-major reports on these particular barracks:
"We have been given three quarters, one on top of the other. There are three kitchens, three stoves, three water boilers, on which the taps don't work, three baths, none of which I can get into, and there's no hot water."
This state of affairs is disturbing. There are some examples of accommodation which by no means come up to standard. It is important to remember that the Regular soldier, or a soldier on a long-term engagement, regards his accommodation as his home. I feel that Her Majesty's Government must pay more attention to this subject of accommodation, and particularly for married families. I believe that barracks for a single man are being improved very greatly, but much remains to be done for married family accommodation; and although in another place the Secretary of State for War said, I think, that barrack accommodation at home and abroad for 5,000 soldiers and 1,100 married quarters were already under construction, I am not at all satisfied that that is enough.
Finally, I have here a report of the position of some of the senior officers. Officers of G.O.C. status often have to entertain equivalent ranks from other countries—the N.A.T.O. countries and others. It should be remembered that comparable people in civilian life have

945
an expense account which in many cases is justifiable. I am not by any means advocating that the expense account should be "the sky's the limit," but I do not think that adequate facilities, either for accommodation or improved allowances, are given to this personnel of high rank to discharge their duty as it should be discharged, when civilian counterparts in the capacity of directors and managers frequently receive, sometimes at the taxpayer's expense, high out-of-pocket grants. I feel that Her Majesty's Government should give some thought to that matter.
The White Paper itself, bearing in mind that it is on a five-year scale, is, I think, a commendable document. A good deal of progress has been made in accommodation and in weapons and equipment. I can remember just ten years ago how my own Territorial unit was shamefully starved of equipment. Well, the position now has improved considerably, and I can only hope that by the time the next White Paper comes round more improvements will have been made.
8.7 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I must say that I find it difficult to wind up for this side in this debate for one reason: namely, that there has not been any broad clash of opinion, or even any one line of thought running through it. I am glad to say that the speeches have been refreshingly short, and the stay of most of the speakers after they have spoken has also been short. They have fired off a number of questions to the Government and suggestions to the Minister who is to reply, but they have neither waited for those who are to speak after them nor have they in some cases waited for the reply of the Minister to the various points that they have made. I am glad to see that we are getting a few noble Lords back; perhaps I have spoken a little too early with regard to some of the speakers.
The difficulty that I find, and which I have no doubt the Minister will find when winding up, is, as I have said, that there is no broad theme on which there has been a clash of opinion. As the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said, largely it arose from the nature of the White Paper itself, which is concerned with matters of detail. The White Paper is
946
not a document which discusses the wider problems of defence; it is really a progress report, and it deals with the supply of important conventional weapons to the Armed Forces. I regret that even in this sphere it does not give the necessary information as to the actual extent to which interdependence is achieving uniformity of weapons and equipment and a saving in costs, as there must be. In my view, reinforced by what we were told at the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Conference in November last in Paris, this question of uniformity of weapons and equipment leaves much to be desired. The importance of N.A.T.O. was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and by my noble friend Lord Shackleton.
I must say that I found much of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Home, rather puzzling. He referred but slightly to the White Paper. His speech, as always, was full of charm and he had the ease of manner which we generally associate with him. But it seemed to me that his speech could have been made equally well in 1929 or, indeed, in 1899—it seemed to bear little relation to the policy of the Government, or to the details, such as they are, in the White Paper. He referred, for instance, to the balance of power. He referred to the fact that we must. if necessary, stand alone; we must not transfer a section of our defence to another country, and we must be able to meet any threat from any enemy of this country.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I
suppose the noble Lord heard my speech. When he says that I spoke of the balance of power I would remind him that I did go on to a discussion of the two elements in the modern balance of power—nuclear and conventional. That could not have been so in 1899. On the second example, if the noble Lord reads my speech to-morrow he will find it more up to date than perhaps he is willing to give me credit for.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl can talk of the deterrent and the conventional weapons, but that has nothing to do with the balance of power. As I understand it, the balance of power, in the old days, was a case of switching over to a former enemy from a present friend when the present friend became too powerful. This practice, which has always been defended, no doubt on moral

947
and practical grounds, by British Governments, naturally has not always commended itself to our present friends when they find we have switched over from them; no doubt it has resulted in the expression "perfidious Albion" being applied to us.
The noble Earl did mention the balance of power, however, and if that is the classic exposition of the balance of power it is a little difficult to relate it to the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which, as I understand it, is set out at the top of the White Paper—interdependence and collective security. I shall naturally look at the speech of the noble Earl with great interest; but, after all, one has not the text; one has to listen to the oration, as and when the orator is speaking, and I find it rather difficult to relate that oracular pronouncement to the policy as indicated in the White Paper.
The noble Earl made no mention at all of the two recent and most significant developments—namely, first, the historic cruise of the nuclear-powered submarine "Nautilus" under the North Pole, and secondly, the successful launching of the satellite by the Soviet Union. But it is within that concept of those two extraordinary developments that our defence policy must take its place, and I would suggest that, in spite of what the noble Earl has said, there are two essential factors which were brought out in the speech of the noble and gallant Field Marshal Lord Harding of Petherton. The first is that we must at all costs hold fast to our alliances and to collective security and must play our part within that sphere. The second is that we must help in every way we can to develop under-developed countries, especially those in the Commonwealth. We certainly should not quarrel with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, on that point.
I must say that I too was rather confused, and I do not wonder that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was confused; because I understood the noble and gallant Lord to say that in cases where the United States was making materials of war there was no need for us to duplicate them. The hydrogen bomb and the atomic bomb might well fall within those categories. The noble and gallant Lord later explained that he did not intend
948
to include, at all events, the hydrogen bomb within that category which he had indicated as being one in which we should not duplicate the efforts of the United States. We were grateful for that correction but in logic I do not myself see any difference between a warhead which is to be used in a rocket and a hydrogen bomb which is to be dropped from an aircraft. Surely in principle and logic they are exactly the same.
The policy of Her Majesty's Government which I have indicated, and which was set out again by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, assumes that we never again embark on, or sustain, a major war on our own, outside our Allied and collective security engagements; secondly—and I take it that this was agreed by Her Majesty's Government—that we can never engage in a minor war outside our collective security engagements. The danger of engaging in a minor war outside our collective security engagements was illustrated by the Suez adventure where, for the first time in history, a force proceeded to attack an enemy down its own and allied lines of communication with most devastating results, so far as those communications were concerned. If Her Majesty's Government adopt a policy such as is indicated in the White Paper I assume that they also accept the two corollaries that I have mentioned—
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me, from which paragraphs of the White Paper does he draw that conclusion, because it is not a conclusion which I myself have drawn?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the White Paper says on page 1:
"The aim of British policy is to promote peace and security through the settlement of international differences and comprehensive disarmament.
"At the same time, Britain, in co-operation with other members of the Commonwealth and with her allies in N.A.T.O., S.E.A.T.O. and the Baghdad Pact, must continue to play her part in the collective defence of the free world. She must also continue to provide protection for her colonies and other overseas territories, towards which she has special obligations."
I say that once it is postulated as a policy that we must act in co-operation with our Allies and the other members of these various Pacts, that prevents us from acting on our own: and one of the disastrous consequences of acting on our own, in opposition to what our Allies wanted,

949
came out in the Suez operation which, as we know, had to be stopped pretty quickly. I do not propose to detain your Lordships at any length at this late hour, but there are just two questions that I should like to ask.
In the first place, I should like to ask a question on training. Training is now organised in this country, broadly, in "penny packets". Each of the Services trains pretty well on its own; and, in this country, at all events, the training grounds, which even before the war were far too small for any realistic training, are now so hampered by new towns, national parks and the rest that training has become quite unrealistic. The suggestion has been made that it might be possible to take, in Canada or Australia, a really large-scale training area where our forces from all parts of the Commonwealth could go for training purposes. They could be taken by Commonwealth Navies and Commonwealth aircraft who would co-operate with them in the exercises, the whole undertaking being under an Inter-Service Command. The training grounds would be available to the Territorial Forces and the cadets as well as to Regular forces. By this means we should have, for the first time in British and Commonwealth history, an opportunity of training our Regular forces on a large scale in peace time in conjunction with Commonwealth Forces and the Territorial Army. It would also give our commanders an opportunity they rarely have in peace time of exercising themselves and their staffs in large-scale command.
The second question I wish to ask is about intelligence. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, and my noble friend Lord Lucan spoke on the secrecy which, as we know, is so often exercised to prevent the public or Parliament from obtaining any information whatsoever about various aspects of the Services in which they are interested. As they said, we do not insist on, or expect, the divulgence of any important secrets, but very often these matters are not of any great importance; and too often, as we know, it is not so much a case of hiding information from the foreigners as of hiding it from our own side, which is a sort of "gamesmanship" that the Service Departments have always indulged in, both in war and in peace.
950
There is another aspect which I should like to take up, and that concerns military intelligence about other people. Are the Government satisfied that their military intelligence system is adequate for its purpose? We have seen that political intelligence is most inadequate. In Iraq, in Cuba, in France, to give only a few examples, it was quite obvious that we knew little of what was going on, and that, when information did come through, quite often it was incorrectly analysed both overseas and at home. If it is possible to have this lack of political intelligence and incorrect analysis of the intelligence that we have got, I would ask: what is the position with military intelligence, which is of course much more difficult to obtain in the first place and also possibly much more difficult to analyse?
Just lately the Soviet appointed General Serov as, it is believed, head of the Soviet Military Intelligence, the reason being, we are told, that the Russians accept the necessity of having specialised military intelligence in these days without leaving it to other people to provide it for them. The Services need this specialised military intelligence. If it is true that General Serov has been, appointed to this post it means that the Soviet recognise the great importance of military intelligence; and although I hardly think we are likely to get much of an answer on this matter, because no intelligence organisation would ever admit that it is less than perfect, I would ask the Government to look at that question in the light of the very distinct failures of political intelligence that the Government have had to suffer in the last few months.
At this late hour I do not intend to detain your Lordships any further. The whole question of defence, so far as the White Paper is concerned, will come up on the debates on the Memoranda accompanying the Estimates. Some of the speeches made to-day would, I think, have been more conveniently made on the Memoranda on the Estimates than in a defence debate. But that is incidental because, as I have said, the Defence White Paper, except for the introductory piece which, at the instance of the noble Lord. Lord St. Oswald. I read out, really contains no broad statement of principle on defence. That is, in the White Paper itself. So, with those few words,

951
and reserving much of our ammunition for the later debates on the Memoranda on the Estimates, I think I can quite safely conclude the debate on behalf of the Opposition this evening.
8.24 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, after twenty-five speakers it is not easy to promise the House to be brief, but I will do what I can in that respect. This has been really a very satisfactory debate on defence, because we have expressed from the first a broad measure of agreement on the broad principles on which our defence policy is proceeding. I think I could say to my noble friend Lord De L'Isle that it is proceeding with strength, and to the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, that it is proceeding with continuity. I think that that is the more important because, as my noble friend Lord St. Oswald said in the quotations he made, there are many who are primed to foster entirely different views; and at this present time I doubt very much whether there is any sphere—or certainly there are few—in which change is taking place more rapidly than it is in the Service Departments. That is not only because of the changing strategic position in the world, but also because of the constant developments in technology which are taking place, certainly year by year and even month by month.
I think we can with very real truth say, in the time-honoured words of the Red Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass, that "It takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place"; or, if I may translate that into a rather blunter Americanism, I would say, "If it works, it is obsolete." That is very much the world in which we are working, and to produce a continuous, consistent progress report speaks well for the farsightedness with which the Government policy has been conceived.
There is one general complaint that has been made and that is that we do not give enough information. Frankly, anyone who reads carefully through the documents produced will find a good deal of information there. But I must make it clear that I think that in some ways we give too much information. I should like to explain what I mean by that. I have been asked, for instance, by the noble
952
Lord, Lord Nathan, and others, about anti-missile missiles. I think it is really absurd for me to talk on that subject—on a matter which is in such an embryonic stage at the present time. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, asked for details of the stand-off bomb. Surely he does not seriously expect me to give this information in public. I think we give quite enough information; and that we indulge too much in crystal gazing.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, was complaining that he had heard of the N.A.39 some years ago. Of course he had; and his particular example is of an aeroplane which over three years has developed absolutely up to schedule and flew the month in which it was forecast it would fly three years earlier. Of course we told the House. If the House does not want to be given early information, it will not be able to talk about developments long before they take place.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much more concerned to know whether it is actually delivered and working after that period.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is certainly working, but it has not been delivered. But if we are to talk about something in the defence field, it is better to do that when it is produced than when it is in a working condition.
I should like to re-state the position which we have been developing since 1957. At that time, in the nature of things, a big change was taking place in our strategy. The development of nuclear weapons and the pace of weapons had fundamentally altered military planning. A major war appeared to involve almost irreparable damage, and we have therefore sought to concentrate our efforts within the framework of our alliances, and with our many friends, on deterring and preventing a major war—that, to my mind, is the essence of our task—and also at the same time on fulfilling our special responsibilities to areas overseas where we have a relationship of a particular character.
There is one thing that flows from that. If we are going to do that, to prevent war, we must be able to keep it up. We must, therefore, be able to do it within our economy. When now

953
techniques are developing very rapidly, and almost every one is more complex and expensive than the one before, it is not an easy task. It flows, I think, quite naturally from that that we must have all-Regular forces of the highest quality, trained and equipped and organised on the most up-to-date lines. And it follows quite naturally from that that we shall be able, as we have now said we will, to get rid of conscription. I believe that everyone has agreed that that is desirable.
Another question that has been posed is whether we are producing all-Regular Forces equipped on up-to-date lines. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said there were very few assets, and that most items carne under the heading of development. If I take a minute or two to speak of some of the things that exist, or are about to come along, I do not apologise to the House, because I think the position is showing quite a material change. In the first place, to deal shortly with the Royal Navy, a great number of new ships are coming into service; and a large proportion of the ships at sea at the present time are of new construction, or are completely modernised or converted. Our new air defence radar is, indeed, the finest in service at sea.
One noble Lord spoke about "Dreadnought," the conclusion of the contract for which was announced only yesterday. This is for propulsion plant similar to that of the latest American nuclear submarine, the "Skipjack." It will be purchased with the rights to use all the details of its manufacture for, in particular, the prototype machinery which we are building at Dounreay. I know that there are some people who think that we should not here buy American. If I may remind the House, our first submarine, in the year 1901, was what was called the "Holland No. 1" submarine, and that was built by Vickers and Maxim to United States design. This is not uninteresting—and that was at a time when Britannia really did rule the waves. I do not think we were wrong then to buy in the best market, and I certainly do not think we are wrong to do it today. I personally am grateful for the assistance which we have had from the United States Government and the United States Navy in bringing this contract to a conclusion. If I may say so, this is an example of what has flawed from the
954
meeting of the Prime Minister and the President some eighteen months ago, and is a form of interdependence about which we can be extremely happy.
I should like to turn for a moment to the Army, and to remind the House that the re-equipment of the Army, by its nature, runs in phases. If you re-equip an army, it is a very big thing. A large number of units of a similar type want to be similarly equipped. You cannot do this steadily: you necessarily do it all at one time, or you tend to do so. Now when the Army is re-equipped, as it was at the end of the last war, it probably had too much equipment—and that again happened to some extent, of course, at the end of the Korean war. It would be absurd to scrap all these stocks straight away. It is much better to wait until new developments have taken their shape in the proper way, and have proved themselves, and then to re-equip properly. That, indeed, is what we are doing now: we are just going through one of those phases of requipment.
With regard to equipment, may I remind the House of one or two matters? The Grigg Report reported adversely on lorries. By the end of the year, all units in B.A.O.R. will have new, modern lorries. In regard to wireless sets, on which comments have also been made, we are now in the process of re-equipment. It is substantially a movement from H.F. to V.H.F.; and that will be completed within three years. There has been a lot of talk about the F.N. rifle. By the end of the year, all "teeth-arm" units of the Regular Army will have this rifle: and the Sterling sub-machine gun is already in very wide use. The Ferret Scout car and the Salad in armoured car are already in service with some units, and all Armoured Corps armoured units will have them in the next twelve months.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS
BOROUGH: Do I understand that in Germany, for example, where some of the Allied regiments have already been equipped with these things, all the British forces will be equipped with them this year?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: They will all be equipped this year, I am given to understand. So far as the Armoured Corps units are concerned, they will be equipped with Ferret Scout cars and

955
Saladin armoured cars within twelve months.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And F.N. rifles?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes. All "teeth-arm" units of the Regular Army (the noble Viscount will be more familiar with this than I am) will, in fact, be equipped with the F.N. rifle by the end of the year. The Thunderbird is coming into service this year; a new air-portable field gun is now being tried out; and there are two regiments equipped with Corporal.
My Lords, that struck me as a fairly formidable list of new equipment which is actually here. I do not feel inclined to apologise at all on that account. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, asked about tanks. The Centurion is with B.A.O.R., and the Conqueror. The Centurion is an exceptionally successful tank which has been sold all over the world, and I think it is something of which the country can be justly and properly very proud.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS
BOROUGH: If the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting, may I say that a number of the things which he has very kindly given us in his speech might have been in the Paper, and then we need not have asked the questions?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Paper was modest, perhaps: perhaps we do not try to push our Papers unduly. But, as I say, this information is available to those who care to ask for it. I would only add this: that B.A.O.R. will be completely equipped with the Mobat anti-tank gun by the middle of this year.
I do not think I need say much about the equipment of the R.A.F., because it is generally regarded as being of a high order. There is the question of Bloodhound. More Bloodhound squadrons are now becoming operational, and developments will take place in due course. What I should like to emphasise is the expansion of Transport Command which is taking place. I said last year that the position was, very roughly, that since 1951 the capacity had doubled, and with the introduction of the Britannias, which are coming in now, it will be trebled since 1951, which is really a different way of saying the same as my noble friend the Earl of Home said. The
956
Shackleton Mark III, with which Coastal Command is now equipped, is as good as any maritime aircraft now in service, as well as being invaluable as a supplement to the transport force if required. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked whether I had any proposal to make about Coastal Command. We have just published our White Paper, and I have no further proposal to make. Of course, there are consultations going on, and there always will be, because it is most essential that there should be a most intimate connection between the two Services. I do not think that, in this matter, officers and men of either Service are particularly keen to be involved in controversy.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Earl? Would he himself pay a visit to Coastal Command and get the opinions of the officers there as to what is going on at the moment?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I was up at Londonderry, which is half coastal and half naval, about a fortnight ago, and I talked to the officers there. I am only too glad to go and visit any of the officers, but I see no reason for developing this point.
My Lords, the T.S.R. 2 has, of course, been ordered. This is going to be a very remarkable aeroplane, from all we have heard about it; but I am quite certain that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will ask us in two years' time why it is not flying. The answer is that we should not have told him about it in the first place. These things inevitably take time to develop.
I should now like to move to the V-bomber force. I may be wrong, but here there seems to be one question of emphasis which is wrong. To-day our V-bombers, the Vulcan and the Victor, stand in comparison with any bombers in service anywhere in the world. One should remember that those bombers will be supplemented by the Mark II, a new version which has not yet come into service. I want to say, further, that these will be equipped in due course with the powered bomb, which takes them on yet another stage. So I think it is fair to say that these aircraft will have a good life ahead as our main deterrent weapon. Quite frankly, I could not follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in his point about mobile air delivering

957
bases—I do not follow the noble Lord in what he had in mind there. We are concerned, of course, with what will be their eventual replacement—and in the present state of our knowledge Blue Streak, on which a considerable amount of work has been done, appears to be best suited to our needs. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, has gone, so I will not deal with the next point he made.
May I now turn for one moment to recruiting? We all know that we have had a good recruiting year in the last twelve months and have now been able to announce that young men born in the fourth quarter of 1939 will not be called up. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said that improved recruiting was due to unemployment. It is very curious that there is no evidence to show that there is any connection at all. The Grigg Report went into this matter and came to the conclusion that there could be no direct connection.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS
BOROUGH: I direct the noble Earl's attention to the Hansard Report of another place where an Answer was given showing centres from which recruits were coming; and many are in particularly had pockets of unemployment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thought, from what I saw, that it was a picture painted with a very broad brush, from which no accurate statistician such as the noble Viscount would draw any very precise conclusions. It may be I am wrong, but that was the general impression left with me.
I have felt in my mind that less than normal attention has been given to the positive action the Government has taken to encourage recruiting. Above all, we have certainly sought to raise the status of the serving man, and to make recognised the real importance of this service to the country. Nothing is more important than that. Not only is there a bulge in the number of young men coming of age, but we also believe, as the Grigg Committee believed, that the abolition of conscription itself will help the volunteer movement.
So we look forward to recruiting prospects with considerable confidence. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, and the noble and gallant
958
Lord, Lord Jeffreys, referred to the question of officer recruitment—and I agree that this is one of the most important subjects. Officers who will have to deal with complex modern weapons, with the modern type of other rank or rating, will require to be of the highest calibre. It is of great importance to get people of capacity, ability and leadership. All Services are looking for those qualities. I should like here to read one passage from the Grigg Report, where the Committee stated:
"We suggest that the Services should take as their objective, to be attained at the earliest practicable date, the adoption as the minimum academic standard for entry to the cadet colleges the possession of two passes at the advanced level in the General Certificate of Education, together with the appropriate pattern of passes at the ordinary level."
It is important that the Grigg Report emphasises that we should seek to get a higher category of academic training. We in the Navy have had a look at that, and came to the same conclusion. We are going to adopt substantially the same recommendations that the Grigg Report made.
It was announced yesterday that, after giving the young men an intensive course, they would all be sent to sea as midshipmen in the second year after going to Dartmouth. I know that this is a move that will be widely welcomed among people in the Navy. I have constantly brought to my attention the advantage of personal experience gained as midshipmen—something which is more difficult to get once a man is commissioned. The electrical and engineering branches will do a two-years' course, after leaving Dartmouth, leading to a university degree. Seamen and Supply and Secretariat specialists will do a year's academic and a year's professional training. I am confident that this will produce officers of ability, able to undertake earlier the full responsibility of their rank.
The Army is to improve the standard of entry by introducing a scheme of forty scholarships a year for boys aged sixteen. In the Air Force, there is the problem of air crew. This problem arises, at least in part, from dubiety about the future of manned aircraft and the need for pilots. I make only two points. The aeroplanes we are ordering to-day will be delivered only four to five years hence. This is a fact to be borne in mind. Secondly, the

959
Secretary of State himself has said that for so far ahead as he can see pilots will be required for flying duties in the R.A.F. I hope that those with the rather specialised qualifications, both physical and mental, for a pilot, will not hesitate to offer themselves for this supremely rewarding and magnificent service.
I will not deal with points in the Grigg Report about improved rates of pay. I merely remind your Lordships that other ranks' pensions rise on April 1 next. A question was asked by Lord Auckland on married quarters and other accommodation. I think that the question of accommodation had better be dealt with on the individual Service Estimates. We should like to have improved conditions, and we are taking certain steps. I say only that I know my right honourable friend would like to take them more quickly.
The noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, raised the question of resettlement. I should like to pay my tribute to the work of Sir Frederic Hooper. During 1958 there were 7,200 Regular officers who left the three Services. Of these, about 6,000 had already found jobs by the end of last year. Of the remainder, some are not seeking work and others are at present engaged in finding work. I do not think that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I admit that some, less gifted, may find it more difficult. Lord Windlesham raised the question of Aden and Malta. I must emphasise that he should look at it as a theatre matter. It does not affect the Governors of Aden and Malta at all. These are theatre commands, which are separate. He emphasised Staff work and I assure him that in none of the Services is the importance of this work underestimated.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen raised the question of the Chief of the Defence Staff. This has all been dealt with in a special White Paper, and I have nothing to add to that. The present position is that held by Sir William Dickson, and it is not proposed to make any alteration in that. The only thing I can say is that the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff has now become Chief of Defence Staff and military adviser to the Minister. I cannot add anything to what is said in the Paper, which I thought put the position fairly clearly.
960
We have sought to create a balanced Force—and, I may say, a balanced Force not only between our contribution to N.A.T.O. and our other Alliances (and it is worth remembering that we alone are a member of N.A.T.O., the Bagdad Pact and S.E.A.T.O.) but also between our ability to discharge our own special responsibility in certain territories as against our contribution to our Allies.
As to the balance between conventional forces and strategic forces, a certain amount of advice has been given to-night. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery wanted more ships; Lord Jeffreys wanted more infantry; Lord Winster wanted to spend less money, more on the nuclear deterrent and to have a good many more ships—
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I did not ask for more ships; I asked that the ships we had should be made use of until we had something better to replace them.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The effect of that would mean spending more money on ships. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, produced a curious view. He seemed to think that anyone who advocated conventional forces had a Service vested interest. As I say, I think that that is a most peculiar view to take, and I can see no reason to suppose that that is the case. There are many people who realise the importance of conventional forces who have not a Service vested interest. The fact is that over 80 per cent. of our effort is outside the deterrent. If we cut the deterrent by very much, our contribution to this aspect of Western defence would be greatly reduced.
With regard to our territories and other national interests, we have a special responsibility for maintaining peace and stability. This is one of the most important roles of our conventional forces, and our task is to be able to act quickly to prevent the possibility of any serious situation developing into a major emergency. It is this high degree of mobility, and our continuing ability to deal promptly with matters threatening our interests, which is of the greatest importance. While I know that noble Lords have different views, I think we have a general balance of our forces which is pretty soundly conceived, and

961
we should be able to meet, either by ourselves or along with our allies, such force as is employed anywhere by an aggressor.
I will not go over all the points which I have here, but there was one matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on tactical and strategic weapons. I agree with his definition that a weapon is defined substantially according to its use. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is correct in saying that we should keep an absolutely free hand in saying how we should use the weapons. I think it is the greatest mistake—though I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said—to define areas where we use one weapon or another. Our objective is not to have a nice little tactical nuclear war; our objective is to stop war. We must keep our minds absolutely clear on that. To start dividing things up into small sections and saying that we would do this and that is, I am sure, quite wrong.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS
BOROUGH: My Lords, what does the Minister of Defence mean, then, by his definition in the other place between tactical and strategic bombing; that it depends on what is the target and not the size of the weapon you use?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is what I have said.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBAROUGH: Have you?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is precisely what I have said. Whether it is tactical or strategic depends on how it is used. I will quote what the Minister said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 600 (No. 66), col. 1421]:
"… our aim would be to use as much force as was necessary to repel aggression, no more and no less."
I do not think anyone would disagree with that. That, to my mind, is the correct way in which this difficult problem should be approached.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS
BOROUGH: My Lords, is it not a question of saying that it is the difference between attacking, say, cities and attacking some military position of the enemy, not taking any account of the fact that the tactical weapon will go up to at least half a kiloton or a kiloton, and therefore
962
kill thousands, and immediately invite a major attack by nuclear weapons?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can see that the noble Viscount is terribly anxious to involve me in this controversy, about which one could go on talking until the cows come home. It is a difficult matter, but I think it is clearly laid out. I do not want to read large passages at this time of night, but in paragraphs 14 and 21—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: You cannot ride off in that way.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is all laid down; there is no doubt about this.
Perhaps I might make this point, because I think it is worth making. It is suggested that there is something immoral in using nuclear weapons at all. We dislike the thought of using them—everybody dislikes the thought of using them—but to my mind any instrument which in fact continues the peace of the world, if it is successful in doing that, under no definition can be regarded as immoral. That is one case, I suggest, where it might be said that the end may justify the means.
There is a further point in regard to our own independent contribution to the Western nuclear deterrent. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, that it is in effect one deterrent, though we make an independent contribution. I think it is important to remember our geographical position, the quality of our weapons, and that we are quite satisfied with the categorical assurance given by the United States that any attack on any N.A.T.O. country will be regarded by the United States as an attack upon herself. That is the answer to my noble friend Lord St. Oswald who raised this matter. But there is this further point. It is not only a question of what we think, but we have to bring conviction to Russia so that in fact the Soviet Union will not be tempted to invade Western Europe at some future time in the misguided belief that the United States will not take part. I wholly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in saying that interdependence is worse than useless. I think those are dangerous and quite wrong words to use. It is of the utmost importance to our whole position that in our alliances and

963
in our Commonwealth association we should be strong.
I will sum up quite shortly what I have tried to say to your Lordships. I do not pretend to have answered all the questions that have been asked, but perhaps noble Lords may like to ask them specially on another occasion. The criticism of the plan of two years ago has very much died down. We are now reasonably assured that compulsory service can go. The re-equipment of all Services is gathering momentum. We have major developments on a long-term basis under way. Defence expenditure has been held at a fairly steady level; if that had not been the case, it seems virtually certain that our defence budget would have been higher by at
964
least 50 per cent. to-day. We have concentrated on the essential tasks, including that of bringing our forces to a higher degree of mobility. Through the increased mobility of our Army we are able to switch our forces readily from one task to another. Finally, we have, I believe, struck, a satisfactory balance between the conventional and the nuclear forces. So long as the West retains confidence in itself and we work closely together there is, I believe, every reason to hope that we shall continue both to maintain the peace of the world and to protect the interests of this country.
On Question, Resolution agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before nine o'clock.