Sitting of 10 March 1960

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. EDWARD WAKEFIELD) reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I thank you most sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address on the occasion of the birth of My third child.
The assurance of your joy and your constant affectionate concern for our well being have deeply moved My husband and Me and have added to our happiness in the birth of our second son.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NYASALAND

    Emergency Regulations
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now take steps to secure the repeal of Regulation No. 35 of the Nyasaland emergency regulations.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): The repeal of emergency regulations is a matter for the Governor. I shall, of course, be discussing with him during my forthcoming visit the whole question of the continuation of emergency powers.
    Mrs. Castle: Would not the Colonial Secretary agree that at the time when the Monckton Commission is just starting its work on the whole future of Federation it is unfortunate that this Regulation, which makes anyone who undermines public confidence in the Government of the Federation liable to fourteen years" imprisonment or a fine of £1,000, or both, should be in operation? Does not this make nonsense of
    604
    the work of the Monckton Commission, and could not the right hon. Gentleman solve the whole thing by ending the so-called state of emergency which no longer exists?
    Mr. Macleod: It would certainly solve this particular problem if one felt able to end the emergency, because this would end with the ending of the emergency. I think it is more to that matter that the hon. Lady's Question is addressed than to the actual form of the Regulation, because most of it is common form as in other cases. I shall be discussing this matter with the Governor.

    Troops
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have recently been made for sending troops into Nyasaland; and for what purpose.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: This is a matter falling within the Federal Government's sphere of responsibility.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: But surely the Colonial Secretary is concerned as to which troops are drafted into Nyasaland? Were not troops drafted into Nyasaland during the emergency at the Governor's request? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware which troops have been drafted into Nyasaland and for what purpose, or does he wash his hands of the whole thing and say that it is entirely a matter for Sir Roy Welensky as to what he does with the troops in Nyasaland?
    Mr. Macleod: Not at all. Of course, I am aware which troops have moved into Nyasaland. The 1st Battalion of the Rhodesian African Rifles moved into Nyasaland. The Governor was, of course, fully informed on this matter. What I said in the Answer—and this is correct—is that this is a defence matter and not essentially one of internal security.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does the Colonial Secretary agree that in deciding which troops must be sent into Nyasaland it is extremely important to take into consideration the political situation in Nyasaland at present? Does he not agree that since these troops were used during the emergency, in the words of the Devlin Commission, "to

    605
    cow the population", it is most unsatisfactory that troops should be drafted there now, just at the time that the Monckton Commission is going there?
    Mr. Macleod: I certainly agree that these matters must be done, as they are done, in close consultation, but I do not accept the implications in relation to a movement such as this which are contained in the second part of the supplementary question.
    Mr. Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if an increase in the number of troops in Nyasaland is a necessary prerequisite to the ending of the emergency, that is something which some of us would very much welcome?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not a fact that before troops can be sent into Nyasaland, or indeed into Northern Rhodesia, the Governor of the territory concerned must make the request, as he is solely responsible for internal security? May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether such a request was made and whether he was consulted before it was made?
    Mr. Macleod: The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is, "Yes". But I have said that this is not a matter of internal security but a defence movement.
    Mrs. Castle: Against whom?

    Detainees
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will announce the results of the half-yearly review of detainees under the emergency regulations by the Governor of Nyasaland.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I have not yet received a report from the Governor, but the hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that detention orders are kept under continuous review and not limited to review once only every six months.
    Mr. Thomson: It is now more than two months since the right hon. Gentleman made his speech at Leeds in which he spoke about a rapid rundown in the number of detainees and an early end of the emergency. Is he aware that there is a general feeling in the country that it is a scandal that, more than a year from the beginning of the emergency,
    606
    with the Monckton Commission already in Central Africa and the Secretary of State about to visit Nyasaland, there has not been a general release of detainees, the release of Dr. Banda, and an end of the emergency?
    Mr. Macleod: If the hon. Gentleman will study the figures, he will see that there was a very large release of detainees in January and February amounting to about 50 per cent. of those who were held at the turn of the year. Therefore, my Leeds speech has been carried out to the full. A considerably increased rate of release is continuing. Quite frankly, I think it is possible, in referring to 3rd March, to attach too much importance to the half-yearly review. All these people were released under the continuous review, and that is by far the more important of the two.
    Mr. Wade: Does the review involve a consideration of whether any charges can be laid, and, where no charges can be laid, would not it be right to release the detainees?
    Mr. Macleod: The review is related to one subject and one subject alone, not to any question of charges, the presence of the Monckton Commission or the presence of anybody else in the Federation. It is related only to the Governor's judgment regarding law and order. There is no other consideration.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Lusaka Municipal Council (Circular)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has studied the notice circulated last November by the Director of African Affairs of the Lusaka Municipal Council, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Blackburn, warning employees that any active participation in the boycott or in political activities harmful to the council' s interests would result in their discharge for inefficiency: and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: As I have told the hon. Member, this, under the Municipal Corporation Ordinance, is a matter for the Municipal Council of Lusaka. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to comment.
    Mrs. Castle: Does not the Colonial Secretary agree that this circular which covers all employees of the municipality down to the very humblest is a gross form of political intimidation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the astonishing phrase that an employee who does not at all times act in the best interest of his employer is obviously inefficient, and will he take steps to amend the Municipal Corporation Ordinance in order to enable him to deal with these totalitarian edicts?
    Mr. Macleod: No. Frankly, I think it would be quite wrong if we in this House had authority to intervene in matters of this sort which concern the municipal council of Lusaka or the municipal council of any other municipality in any of the Colonial Territories. As the hon. Lady knows, this particular matter related to the beer hall boycott some time ago, and I would have thought that her fire ought to have been directed at the boycott rather than at the measures which the municipal council took about it.

    Public Security Ordinance
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has made to the general secretary of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions concerning its protest against the proposed ordinance on public security in Northern Rhodesia on the ground that it would gravely imperil personal liberties and freedom of association and endanger trade union rights.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The communication which I received from the I.C.F.T.U. alleged in particular that the provisions of this ordinance violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and endangered the rights of trade unionists. My reply has made it clear that I do not accept this allegation.
    Mr. Swingler: How does the Secretary of State explain the fact that this ordinance appears to perpetuate emergency powers in the hands of the Governor, such as the power arbitrarily to ban meetings, to detain persons and to censor the Press? Is he aware that the I.C.F.T.U. is concerned that these powers may well be used against African trade unions?
    Mr. Macleod: I understand the anxieties of the I.C.F.T.U., but I am sure that they are misplaced. The position is not that these powers are permanently retained in the Governor's hands, because he can use only such powers as are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. That must be proclaimed by public notice. From that point of view the position is exactly the same as if it were necessary to declare an emergency. I hope that there will be fewer emergencies as a result of having these powers in reserve.
    Mr. Brockway: Is it not the case that this ordinance maintains in the power of the Governor the exiling of a large number of trade union officials under the emergency of a few years ago? Is it desirable that this should be maintained in a permanent ordinance?
    Mr. Macleod: To bring this regulation into effect, as I have just explained, the Government would by public proclamation have to make a declaration, in effect, that the safety of the State was in peril. That is the same sort of situation as has always existed under Emergency Orders in Council.

    Constitution (Representations)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations have been received by the Governor of Northern Rhodesia from the United National Independence Party regarding constitutional changes; and what reply has been made.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Governor has forwarded to me a petition on constitutional matters which he received from the United National Independence Party on 22nd February. I am still considering the terms of my reply.
    Mr. Thomson: When the Colonial Secretary goes to Central Africa, will he give this matter very urgent consideration and, in particular, consider calling a constitutional conference, perhaps for the early summer, on a revised constitution for Northern Rhodesia so that a truly representative delegation attends the conference on the constitutional future of the Federation?
    Mr. Macleod: In relation to constitutional matters, as I explained in my announcement, I am more concerned on

    609
    this visit with Nyasaland than with Northern Rhodesia. The Northern Rhodesian Constitution was brought into effect in March, 1959, and I have no present plans for altering it.

    Riot Damages Ordinance
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Clause 8 (3) of the Riot Damages Ordinance in Northern Rhodesia has been deleted.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Section 8 (3) has been repealed because it was realised that the fact that a prosecution had been brought was irrelevant for the purposes of this legislation, which is to provide compensation for those who suffer damage in a riot.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Are we to understand from that reply that in the case of a riot, even when a prosecution has been pursued and certain people have been found guilty of the so-called riot, those found not guilty will have penalties imposed on them as well?
    Mr. Macleod: No, indeed. What the hon. Gentleman fails to understand is that when this legislation was first drafted, without experience of these things, in, I think, 1955, a wholly unnecessary provision was included which is now being repealed. There is nothing more mysterious in it than that.

    Inspectors of Police
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he is recruiting citizens of the Union of South Africa as European inspectors of police for service in Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: British subjects with suitable qualifications and experience are recruited as inspectors of police by the Government of Northern Rhodesia from the United Kingdom, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the Union of South Africa, to fill vacancies in the force.
    Mr. Stonehouse: When the Colonial Secretary goes to Northern Rhodesia, will he look at this matter, since it could provide quite a lot of unrest to have Afrikaans-speaking apartheid-minded European inspectors of police?
    Mr. Macleod: I think there is an immense amount of prejudice behind that
    610
    supplementary question. These people are recruited in very small numbers, and I have no doubt that those who are recruited are wholly suitable for the tasks they have to perform.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Research
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are now the functions of the Colonial Research Council.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Colonial Research Council was dissolved in August, 1959. Its functions as an advisory and co-ordinating body now fall to the Overseas Research Council which is responsible to my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Science, and operates in relation to overseas research generally.
    Mr. Tilney: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been channelled to great advantage to the Commonwealth through the old Colonial Research Council, and can he say what is happening about the subsidiary committee that did such a good job for that Council?
    Mr. Macleod: The Colonial Research Council certainly did a wonderful job and I am sure that its successor, the Overseas Research Council, will do an even better job in the future. I think I must ask my hon. Friend to put down another Question, if he would, on the details.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is it not rather disgraceful that an important step like the abolishing of this Council and the replacing of it by complicated new machinery should be taken without any sort of public announcement whatsoever? Can the right hon. Gentleman say to whom we should address Questions about colonial research now that it has been taken over by the Ministry for Science?
    Mr. Macleod: It would follow the distribution of political Questions laid down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I shall have to inquire into this point. The Council was dissolved in August, 1959. I think that it is right, in order to co-ordinate scientific effort throughout the Commonwealth countries,

    611
    that the advisory and co-ordinating body should be the Overseas Research Council rather than the inevitably narrower body, the Colonial Research Council.

  BRITISH CAMEROONS

    Frontiers (Protection)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to ensure the protection, after 1st October, 1960, of the frontiers of the British Cameroons.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: This is one of the many matters now being studied in connection with the arrangements for the British Cameroons after 1st October.
    Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the troubles in the now-independent Cameroons may go on for some time? In any plans which he is making, will he remember not only the difficulty of the terrain and heaviness of the rain but also the inadequacy of the roads and the lack of any barrack-room accommodation?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We are discussing this security problem with both Nigeria and the United Nations

  MALTA

    Tourist Board
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who are the members of the Malta Tourist Board at the present moment; how many times the Board met in 1959; and how often the Chairman was in the chair at such meetings.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: They are Mr. P. Barker Benfield, Chairman; Captain J. W. Attard; Colonel R. Strickland; Mr. L. Vella; Mr. G. Zarb; Mr. W. Zammit-Tabona; and Mr. J. C. Pollacco, Secretary.
    The Board met eleven times in 1959 and Mr. Barker Benfield was in the chair on each occasion.

    Constitution
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is now proposed to re-establish an elected legislature in Malta.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am not yet in a position to add to my replies to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) on 9th February.
    Mr. Brockway: As Malta has had its Parliament dissolved for nearly two years now and the islands are governed by the decree of the Governor, with an advisory council that is absolutely fatuous, is it not desirable that immediate steps should be take to restore democracy to these islands?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think that I quarrel with that at all. I have merely been trying to see how best that can be done.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Enactments
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress he has made in considering whether the main enactments of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia can be made available in the Library of the House of Commons on publication.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am anxious to be as helpful as possible to the House on this matter not only in relation to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland but generally. The Chairman of the Library Committee has recently approached me on the whole question and I have undertaken to ask Colonial Governments to send copies of their Gazettes and Gazette Supplements by air mail to the Library of the House. These include the documents to which the hon. and learned Member refers.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Thank you very much.

  CARIBBEAN

    Economy
    Mr. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration is being given by Her Majesty's Government to the possibility of a plan for the Caribbean area on the lines of the Colombo Plan.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: This question is at present being studied by a Working Group of the Caribbean Commission.
    Mr. Royle: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports of the United Nations Special Fund on the Caribbean in which British Guiana is mentioned for grants as well as the island territories but no mention is made of British Honduras? In view of the need for development in that Colony, will he use his influence with that Fund?
    Mr. Macleod: I have not studied that document, but, in the light of what the hon. Member said, I will do so.

  NORTH BORNEO, SARAWAK AND BRUNEI

    Night Flying Facilities
    Mr. Turnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies at which airports in the Crown Colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and in the State of Brunei night-flying facilities are available.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Goose-neck flares are available at Labuan Jesselton and Sandakan airfields in North Borneo, at Kuching, Sibu and Bintulu airfields in Sarawak on request and at Brunei Airport and Auduki in case of emergency.

    Labuan Airport
    Mr. Turnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to close Labuan Airport, North Borneo, for resurfacing; and what navigational aids and night-flying facilities it is proposed to install.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Labuan Airport will not be closed but operations are restricted to the use of 3,000 feet of runway length during the period of resurfacing which should be completed by November, 1960.
    Navigational aids are provided by the Royal Air Force; flare path lighting is also provided.
    Mr. Turner: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, in view of the strategic position of this airfield, in the event of an emergency in the Far East the navigational aids and the night-flying facilities are sufficient? Will he also bear in mind the necessity of providing additional facilities as soon as possible to encourage extra civil airlines to call at this airfield?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes. I will bear those points in mind, and I will send to my hon. Friend details of the navigational aids provided.

  HONG KONG

    Bribery and Corruption
    Mr. Thorntonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will appoint an independent commission to investigate bribery and corruption in the Colony of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. This subject is kept under frequent review by the Governor, with the assistance of a Standing Committee.
    Mr. Thornton: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention called to a leading article in the Hong Kong newspaper, the China Mail, of 22nd February, which suggests that Hong Kong needs the shock that a truly impartial investigation would give? Is he further aware that, in the opinion of the China Mail and of many knowledgeable people, this situation is deteriorating and all the ordinary courses of the law are quite incapable of dealing with it? In saying this, I am not unappreciative of the difficulties and the achievements of Hong Kong; but this is really a very serious matter to which I urge the Minister to give his closest possible attention.
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, I have studied that article in the China Mail, and I have discussed it by signal with the Governor, who does not attach as much importance to it as does the hon. Member. But I am sure that the right approach to the matter is that it should be kept under frequent review by the Governor, as I indicated in my Answer.

    Electricity Supply Industry
    Mr. Thorntonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a special Commission was set up by the Hong Kong Government to inquire into the Colony's electricity supply industry; if the Commission has yet submitted its findings; and what are the main recommendations.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Commission was set up to inquire to what extent Government control of the industry was

    615
    desirable. The Commission recommended compulsory purchase of the two private undertakings which at present provide the supply and their replacement by an independent public authority.
    I have placed a copy of the Commission's Report in the Library.

  CYPRUS

    Maronite Community
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the constant loyalty of the Maronite community in Cyprus, especially during the last few years, and in view of the fact that the Radcliffe Report recommended that they should have at least one seat in the suggested Parliament, if he will endeavour to obtain some security for them in the new constitution; and if he will grant them the small sum they have requested from the British Government.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Her Majesty's Government have made proposals for safeguarding the constitutional position of the smaller religious groups, including the Maronites. As regards the second part of the Question, I have received a request for a grant, which I am considering, but my view is that I can best serve the interests of the Maronites by providing adequate constitutional safeguards for them.
    Mr. Teeling: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said, but would he bear in mind that this is a very hard-up community—it consists of very poor people whose educational problems will be very difficult? All they are asking for is £80,000.
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, I understand that, but I think that it would be wiser for a smaller community to seek parity of treatment within one of the larger communities, because there is at least a danger that, if a small grant is made to one of the groups, such as that to which my hon. Friend refers, it may be taken as satisfying its needs, and it might not then share in what is possible for the rest of the island.
    Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I tabled a Question on the subject of Cyprus, and I heard from the Colonial Office that the Foreign Office is now replying to all Questions on Cyprus.
    616
    My Question was, therefore, transferred to the Foreign Office. As a result, there is no opportunity for me to ask it today. May I ask for clarification of this position between the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, I should like to look into what the hon. Gentleman says. Something may turn on the actual terms of the Question, which I have not seen. I will make some inquiries, and let the hon. Gentleman know.
    Mr. Brockway: Thank you, Sir.

  MAURITIUS

    Cyclone Damage
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that a second cyclone has hit Mauritius, what further sum he now proposes to give to the relief fund for the victims of both cyclones to meet their immediate and urgent needs.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the extent of the financial relief now to be given to Mauritius as a result of the two recent cyclones; what is the estimated damage done to the sugar plantations; and whether any of the relief will be available for their rehabilitation.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: As I have already made clear to the House, the amount of £2 million to be made available, subject to necessary Parliamentary approval, by loans and grants in respect of cyclone "Alix" will need to be increased as a result of cyclone "Carol." I have arranged for a full assessment to be made of the damage caused in Mauritius by the two cyclones, and of the cost of the relief and reconstruction measures required. The full amount of financial assistance to be given to the Mauritius Government by Her Majesty's Government, and the purposes for which it will be used will be determined when this assessment is complete. It is estimated that as much as 60 per cent. of this year's sugar crop may prove to have been lost.
    Mr. Rankin: I appreciate the long-term plans of the Government for redevelopment in Mauritius, but does the right hon. Gentleman realise that something has to be done now? Would he

    617
    make clear exactly what monetary aid the Government are giving at present? There are many expenditures which must be made immediately on such things as temporary house dwellings, and the money is needed. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that a grant of, say, £100,000 is now being given to the relief fund?
    Mr. Macleod: I am, of course, much more concerned at the moment with the short-term than with the long-term. We have tried in every way that we can— and I am making a detailed statement today in response to a Written Question by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson)—to anticipate all the needs, with, so the Governor tells me, some considerable success. But nothing is being held up for lack of money, and I do not think that it would be proper, in view of the very severe disaster, when we know that our help will have to be in terms of millions of £s, to make a second token payment which, against the need, would at this stage be derisory.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Is the insurance fund which was created a few years ago proving adequate to cover the damage done to the sugar crop? If it appears to be inadequate, would the Colonial Secretary consider whether there should be some extension or revision of the existing insurance scheme, or whether some larger and wider scheme should be made to incorporate a whole number of territories that are subject to this kind of calamity?
    Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is a cyclone insurance fund, and that will certainly be adequate to meet the damage to the sugar crop. The Mauritius Government have reinsured a considerable amount of the sum, which runs into some millions of £s, and I am assured that there will be no difficulty in meeting the planters' claims.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: In order to make the matter clear, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us—since there was this second tragic cyclone—the total sum given to meet the important and urgent emergency needs? Would he consider publishing, perhaps, a White Paper on the long-term aspects, so that we might study such very difficult problems as more permanent housing?
    Mr. Macleod: As the hon. Gentleman will see, I have given a very full reply today to what now appears as a Written Question by him. In agreement with the Governor, what we have been trying to do is to provide for the ordinary needs of people—which are always the same when tragedies like this happen—for food, shelter, warmth, clothing, blankets, medical supplies and trained personnel—
    Mr. Rankin: And money.
    Mr. Macleod:—yes, but I have said that none of these things is being held up for lack of money. They are all flowing as quickly as they can to Mauritius, and my housing adviser is going to Mauritius in order to carry out a survey in relation to long-term rehabilitation of destroyed housing.

  UGANDA

    Constitution
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) why the majority recommendation of the Wild Committee, that the Executive in Uganda should have responsible powers and be presided over by a Chief Minister, has been rejected;
    (2) why it has not been found possible to accept the recommendation of the Wild Committee that there should be full adult franchise in Uganda.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Governor stated in the Legislative Council on 22nd February that there would be a further extension of the franchise. The extent to which it will be widened has not yet been decided. Her Majesty's Government are of the view that, while the balance of the Executive should be altered to afford greater opportunities for the exercise of responsibility by non-official Ministers, it should continue to be presided over by, and advisory to, the Governor, and that the appointment of a Chief Minister would be premature.
    Mrs. White: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there was considerable disappointment in Uganda at the Government's attitude towards the Wild Committee's recommendation? With regard to the franchise, have the Government been unduly influenced by the possibility of difficulties in Kenya,

    619
    which is something which ought not to affect the situation in Uganda, which is really quite different? As regards the possibility of having a Chief Minister and an executive council, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would have a very important stabilising effect on the political parties in Uganda if they could have some real responsibilities? Is not this most desirable?
    Mr. Macleod: To take the last point first, that is certainly most desirable, but this represents a very large step forward indeed by which there would be an elected majority in a Legislative Council and a majority of non-official Ministers in the Council of Ministers mainly drawn from the majority party in the Legislature. I do not think that anybody who knows the present state of politics in Uganda would believe that it is ripe for a Chief Minister regime at the present time. As regards the franchise, I have indicated that a final decision has not been taken. We have said that we are sympathetic to an extension of what is already a very wide franchise.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Treatment of Offenders (Advisory Council)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the urgency of coming to a decision on the question of the reintroduction of corporal punishment, he will now state whether the Report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders will be available to hon. Members this Session.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The chairman is aware that I am anxious to have the Report quickly, but the Council must, of course, be given time to make a proper study of the problem.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that it would be very helpful to have it before July? The Cadogan Report is now twenty-two years old, and it really dealt only with the birching of boys of 12 to 14 and does not answer the question which constituents are asking, namely, whether summary birching should be introduced for boys who commit violent crimes at, say, between the ages of 17 and 19?
    Mr. Butler: I hope that those responsible for the inquiry will pay attention to my hon. Friend's observations. It will be very difficult to have the report in a great hurry, but the Council is aware that I want it as soon as it possibly can produce it.

    Approved School, Redhill (Metal Work Centre)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why machinery in the metal work centre of the approved school for boys, the Royal Philanthropic Society's School, Redhill, is not equipped with guards similar to those provided in factories; why a first-aid cabinet is not prominently displayed; and what provision is made for the ready availability of a person proficient in first-aid.
    The Joint Under-Seeretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Some obsolete machines, from which the guards had been removed, were kept until recently in the maintenance shop; they were not used for training boys, and have now been disposed of. In the maintenance, electrical and woodwork shops, housed in the same building, there are three first-aid cabinets. The school has arrangements under which three doctors are on call, there is a school surgery and hospital with two resident nurses, and several members of staff have had first-aid training.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am well satisfied that the Question has had a very good effect?

    Save the Children Fund (Borstal Contributions)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the address of the Borstal Institution where the boys of their own accord contributed to the Save the Children Fund.
    Mr. Vosper: The cultivation of a desire to help others is an important part of Borstal training, and the response of inmates takes many forms. In six Borstals, the addresses of which have been sent to the hon. Member, it has included voluntary contributions to the Save the Children Fund.
    Mr. Dodds: I am grateful for that information. I knew of only one and felt it was so important that it should be mentioned in the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that some method should be devised to inform the boys that their splendid efforts are appreciated, particularly when appreciation of this sort will help them at a critical period and may be much more valuable than birching or flogging?
    Mr. Vosper: I think that the hon. Gentleman's Question has served a very useful purpose. I have not named the six Borstals concerned because most Borstals save and contribute towards some voluntary organisation. It is a very worth-while habit.

    Ukrainians (Registration)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consideration of the possibility of allowing Ukrainians in this country to register as Ukrainians instead of as Russians or as Polish or as of uncertain origin.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): In replying to the debate on 16th February, I undertook to consider this matter in relation to the review of registration of aliens generally. In the meantime, the police are being advised to suspend action to amend the existing registrations of Ukrainians.
    Mr. de Freitas: Does that mean that the wretched people who do not regard themselves either as Russians or as Poles may now register as Ukrainians?
    Mr. Renton: No; it means that those who are already registered as Ukrainians will not be advised to change the registration to "uncertain nationality" with "U" in brackets. The future registration of Ukrainians, of which there is not likely to be a very large number, will, of course, be in compliance with the present law which requires the nationality to be stated, or, alternatively, in the case of Ukrainians, the classification which I have described.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: This decision, although only an interim measure, will be extremely welcome to the Ukrainians in this country, who will
    622
    agree that my hon. and learned Friend's promise on 16th February, when he offered them a ray of hope, was in no sense an understatement. Will my hon. and learned Friend now consider allowing to revert to their former registration as Ukrainians those Ukrainians who were re-registered as Russian or Polish or as of uncertain nationality as a result of Home Office Circular 119 of 10th September?
    Mr. Renton: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for what he said about this decision. Quite candidly, I doubt that it would be wise to insist upon further amendment of the registration because quite enough confusion was caused by the last attempt. Nevertheless, I think that my hon. and gallant Friend can rest assured that, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has completed his review of aliens registration, the result will be satisfactory.

    Summer Time
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, after considering the views of the organisations he consulted and of the general public, he has now reached a decision on the suggested extension of summer time by a fortnight in October.
    Mr. Vosper: Not all the replies have yet been received.
    Sir A. Hurd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is taking a very long time to collect the voices? Does he also agree that many thousands of people would welcome a decision to extend summer time by at least a fortnight in October, especially in view of the fact that the farming community has now said that it has no objection?
    Mr. Vosper: I think the reason for taking a long time is that most organisations have had to consult their constituent members, and there are several replies still outstanding. I do not want to prejudge the decision that will be taken.

    Crimes of Violence
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of crimes of violence against the person known to the police during the

    623
    calendar year 1949, and the number of similar crimes during the calendar year 1959.
    Mr. Vosper: The number of indictable crimes of violence against the person known to the police in 1949 was 5,235; the provisional figure for 1959 is 13,875.
    Sir T. Moore: Do not these figures convince both my right hon. Friends that the time has come for some more adequate punishment to be given to these people who attack innocent people?
    Mr. Vosper: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that that is a case for the reintroduction of corporal punishment—
    Sir T. Moore: I am.
    Mr. Vosper: —but he will appreciate that not since 1861 have all crimes of violence been subject to the penalty of corporal punishment. These figures will be available to the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders.
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many attacks on prison warders by prisoners have been recorded in the year ended 31st December, 1959; and how many attacks on women and children by civilians have been committed, according to police records, during the same period.
    Mr. Vosper: There were 213 offences of assault by male prisoners against prison officers, of which 30 amounted to gross personal violence. I regret that the statistics of crimes of violence against the person known to the police do not distinguish the victims by age or sex.
    Sir T. Moore: Does it not seem quite illogical that attacks against lusty, male warders should be punished by flogging and that similar crimes or attacks on innocent women and children should not be rewarded by corporal punishment?
    Mr. Vosper: I think my hon. Friend knows that the Cadogan Committee quite clearly differentiated between attacks in prisons and those outside. In fact, sentences of corporal punishment for offences in prisons were confirmed in only two cases in 1959.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that what is perplexing the Chief Constables of Ayrshire and Ayr is the number of cases of people tried for driving motor cars while under the influence of drink? Has he received any representations from anyone that they should have corporal punishment?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These shouts of sadistic enthusiasm do not assist progress.

    Metropolitan Police (Allegations)
    Mr. Bairdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiry is currently being conducted into the working of the vice squad of the Metropolitan Police in the West End.
    Mr. Renton: Allegations of corruption against officers of the Metropolitan Police in connection with the sale of pornographic literature were fully investigated towards the end of last year and found to be baseless. During the course of the investigation, it came to light that one officer, not engaged in this particular work, might have been guilty of neglect of duty, not involving corruption. This case is now the subject of formal disciplinary procedure.
    Mr. Baird: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, even since the beginning of this year, people have been called to Scotland Yard to give evidence? Is he also aware that the police have been much too lenient with these shops that sell pornographic pictures? Is he also aware that London is now the centre for the production of these pictures, that buyers come from all over the country, and indeed, all over Europe, to so-called auction sales at which they buy these pictures in bulk, and that the amount of money involved in this sale of filth runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds per year?
    Mr. Renton: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, of course people are called to Scotland Yard very frequently in order to see whether they are able to assist the police. In answer to the second part, the question of sentences is a matter for the courts. In answer to the third part, if the hon. Gentleman cares to let us have

    625
    any information which is in his possession, we shall study it with care and interest.

    Home Safety Committees
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have set up Home Safety Committees; and what further steps will be taken to bring to the attention of authorities which have not done so the desirability of so doing.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I understand that 166 local Home Safety Committees affiliated to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents had been set up by 23rd February, 1960. In February, 1958, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health issued a circular urging local health authorities to sponsor or support such local committees.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: As my right hon. Friend has disclosed only this week that there are 3 million of these highly dangerous oil stoves in houses up and down the country, ought there not to be a fresh drive among the local authorities concerned to set up more Home Safety Committees? Would my right hon. Friend send out a further circular on that matter?
    Mr. Butler: I will certainly discuss this urgently with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health. Of course, the Committees in question are voluntary Committees which enjoy the support of the local authority.
    Miss Bacon: While it is up to people individually in the home to take very great care, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that many accidents could be avoided if there were much more information and publicity on the effect of certain appliances?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. This is a matter which is being discussed today with the representatives of the firms principally concerned.

    Oil Heaters
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the communication addressed to his Department by the Chief Fire Officer, West Ham Borough Council, on 14th December, 1956, reporting tests carried out by a
    626
    local firm of oil heater manufacturers and pressing for an investigation of oil heaters with a view to the introduction of safety measures; and what reply was sent.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir. The letter was discussed with the Chief Fire Officer concerned in January, 1957, and he was informed that the question of the safe use of oil heaters was already being investigated by the Departments concerned. These investigations in fact led to advice being given in a bulletin prepared with the collaboration of Government Departments by the Fire Protection Association, and issued in February, 1957, to the effect that portable oil burning heaters ought not to be placed in draughts.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, of course, that was three years ago and that consequently there is dissatisfaction amongst responsible manufacturers and others that the matter appeared to be shelved for so long? Will he press on with this matter of oil heaters as a Government responsibility, by legislation if necessary, in which those of us who have studied the matter in the Parliamentary Home Safety Committee will be glad to give him our help and support?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I have already seen my hon. Friend and have offered to meet him and his hon. Friends, and, indeed, any other hon. Members interested in this matter of safety in the home. As regards his reference to legislation, I prefer to await the result of the consultations which are taking place today with the manufacturers. As regards progress made, he will note that a warning of a very authoritative character was issued as early as February, 1957, since when a good deal of work has been done. As I indicated in my statement on these heaters, it was only when this special wind appliance was recently produced that the most up-to-date information was available to authoritative sources. I have various of my colleagues involved in this in their Departments, and I undertake that we shall pursue the mattter with the utmost thoroughness.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: If, as we think he should, the right hon. Gentleman seeks legislative power to control the sale of these dangerous heaters, may I

    627
    assure him that we for our part on this side of the House will certainly facilitate the passage of such legislation?
    Mr. Butler: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that shows the spirit in which we should all tackle this matter.
    Mrs. McLaughlin: On a point of order. In view of the fact that it has been impossible to raise the very many issues in regard to this very urgent situation concerning home safety, particularly in regard to oil heaters, may I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Speaker: I would repeat my request that hon. Members should adhere to the traditional formula in these matters.

    Parkhurst Prison (Mr. J. Skehan)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the circumstances of the case of Mr. J. Skehan, now in Parkhurst Prison, if he will refer this case to the Court of Criminal Appeal under Section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No material has been placed before me which would justify me in referring this case to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
    Mr. Thomas: Since the Minister is aware that I have had a very long correspondence with him about this case, and since Mr. Skehan has mentioned that there are very serious discrepancies in the depositions of the case, would the right hon. Gentleman now give further consideration to an examination of the depositions to see whether or not justice would be done by allowing this man to have the right of appeal?
    Mr. Butler: It lies within my power to take the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that, examining the material before me, I have not been able to reach the conclusion which he desires. Mr. Skehan is at present an appellant, and has recently applied for an extension of time in which to give notice of appeal against a previous conviction in 1947. While the hon. Member can certainly send me any material he desires, I would rather make no further comment.

    Children's Department (Report)
    Miss Baconasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the latest Report from the Children's Department was in 1955; and when a further report can be expected.
    Mr. Vosper: The intention is that these Reports should be published every four or five years. The next one is in preparation and I hope it will appear later this year.
    Miss Bacon: As there are 70,000 children in the care of the Home Office Children's Department, is it not reasonable to expect an annual Report? While it is true that many of the children are under the care of children's committees of local authorities, are not some of them —for example, those in the Carlton House Approved School—in the care of managers who form only an ad hoc committee responsible solely to the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Vosper: Previous Reports were published in 1938, 1951 and 1955. It had been hoped to publish a Report in 1959, but it was delayed to this year by pressure of work. I will note what the hon. Lady says, but, having studied these Reports, I do not think that an annual Report would be a practical proposition.

    Simonds Committee (Report)
    Mr. Ginsburgasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the Simonds Committee.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am not yet in a position to say.
    Mr. Ginsburg: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that the House will be able to consider the Simonds Committee's Report before proceeding with the Committee stage of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill, as he assured the House on 16th December last year?
    Mr. Butler: There is obviously a difficulty in the Bill having to wait for the report if it is to go through this Session, but I know that Lord Simonds is aware of the advisability and desirability of an early report so that we can, if possible, proceed in the normal way.

    Handicapped Refugees
    Mr. Randallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet received from the United Kingdom Committee of the World Refugee Year the information concerning specially handicapped refugees who wish to come to this country; and whether he will consider reducing the standards which have hitherto operated.
    Mr. Renton: Lists of applicants from among handicapped refugees of long standing will now be prepared abroad on the basis of revised criteria, settled in consultation with the United Kingdom Committee of the World Refugee Year, of which I am circulating a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT. When these lists are available, consideration will be given, in the light of the offers of sponsorship received by the voluntary bodies concerned, to the numbers who can be admitted.
    Mr. Randall: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for their very sympathetic action and understanding in this problem. Is the figure in mind about 500, in addition to the 210 handicapped refugees who have been allowed to enter this country? May we take it that Her Majesty's Government have in mind the entry into this country of approximately 1,000 handicapped refugees? If so, that is a very excellent contribution to the wonderful compaign on behalf of World Refugee Year.
    Mr. Renton: It would be rash and, indeed, impossible for me to commit the Government to a definite figure, bearing in mind that we have yet to find out how many refugees there are in Europe who fit in to the enlarged new category. Also, the number received must depend upon the number of sponsorships we have received by the time that we have to make the decision.
    Following is the information:

    WORLD REFUGEE YEAR
    Admission to the United Kingdom of seriously handicapped refugees of long standing
    After Easter a British team will visit Germany and, if there are qualified refugees to interview, Austria and Italy as well, to interview refugees and their families who wish to be considered for admission to the United Kingdom.
    630
    2. The team will concentrate on the selection of families or persons who have hitherto proved difficult to resettle in those countries. Regard will be paid to the probabilities of the family being able to become self-supporting in the United Kingdom within a reasonable period, but families containing an incurable or permanently handicapped member will not be ruled out; a limited number of families which include a sick breadwinner will also be accepted.
    3. To qualify to appear before the British selection team a person must:

    (a) have been a refugee before 1st January, 1955 (see Note 1);

    (b) be living in a refugee camp recognised as such by the United Nations High Commissioner, or, if not living in such a camp, be able to demonstrate;

    (i) that he is not settled or in regular employment; and

    (ii) that he has some substantial reason for wishing to come to the United Kingdom; and

    (c) satisfy one of the considerations set out in paragraph 4 below.

    4. For purposes of paragraph 3 above a refugee must have been difficult to resettle and either:

    (i) be a physically handicapped person as defined below; or

    (ii) be a member of a family which includes such a person; or

    (iii) be a socially handicapped person or belong to a socially handicapped family; or

    (iv) be an elderly person, but not bedridden.

    For purposes of (i) and (ii) above, "physically handicapped" means:

    (a) a person who is suffering or has suffered from curable tuberculosis or other curable illness which has hitherto debarred him from emigration; or

    (b) a person suffering from other physical defect which has hitherto debarred him from immigration, e.g. loss of a limb, deafness, partial loss of sight, but who is capable of becoming self-supporting; or

    (c) a person suffering from some incurable disability who can be cared for by other members of the family and is not in need of hospital care.

    5. In making selection from among families qualified under paragraphs 3 and 4, consideration will be given to cases for which sponsorships in the Unted Kingdom are available, but otherwise priority will be given to:

    (i) families with not more than three children;

    (ii) families with more than three children provided there is more than one additional able-bodied adult in the family, i.e. a grown up son or daughter;

    (iii) unaccompanied mothers with not more than two dependent children (Note 2).

    631
    6. Refugees and their families who are found eligible under paragraphs 3-5 above will also have to satisfy the selection team in due course that they are personally acceptable.
    Note 1: This condition may be waived in a strictly limited number of cases where there are other strong compassionate grounds for treating the application exceptionally.
    Note 2: A family qualifying under 5 (iii) need not include a physically handicapped member.

    COAL INDUSTRY
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether, in order fully to inform himself of the anxiety currently prevailing in the mining industry, he will make a tour of the major coalfields to obtain the views of the people most intimately affected.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The Government are well informed about the problems and prospects of those employed in the coal industry. I fear I could not undertake such a tour at the present time. However, six out of the nine divisions of the National Coal Board have been visited either by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power or by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary during the last four months.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is tremendous anxiety among miners and their families, and that, with the best will in the world, he cannot appreciate the problems unless he visits the areas? If he can find time to visit Africa, surely he can find time to visit the centres of this great industry and at least give the people in it some assurances about their future.
    The Prime Minister: That is why I said that I could not do this at present. We have quite a lot of things ahead of us, both here and overseas. I have great confidence in the knowledge and sympathy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. One satisfactory aspect of the matter is that, broadly speaking, the reduction in the size of the industry and the men employed has been carried out so far largely by normal wastage and by non-recruitment, and, to a large extent, those thrown out have been found alternative occupations.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who come from mining constituencies think that there is a very sharp contrast between how this matter has been handled under nationalisation and how it was handled by private enterprise in the 'thirties?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that point. What we are trying to do is to ensure that, if this is an industry that has to shrink for technical reasons, we are able by all these various Measures, the latest of which is the Measure just passed by this House, to find alternative occupations.

    NYASALAND TRADE UNION CONGRESS (MEMORANDUM)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister if he has considered the memorandum submitted to him in Nyasaland by the Nyasaland Trade Union Congress, with the support of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, concerning African political and trade union rights and the need to abolish racial discrimination; and what reply he proposes to make.
    The Prime Minister: The representations made by the Nyasaland Trade Union Congress are being considered in consultation with the Nyasaland Government.
    Mr. Swingler: May I ask the Prime Minister, to whom this memorandum was submitted, whether he agrees with the principal aims which were set forth in it, namely, constitutional advance for Africans, bold economic measures to develop Nyasaland, and the ending of race discrimination by law? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will issue instructions for action to be taken to carry out these aims?
    The Prime Minister: I received a memorandum in which there were nineteen main points. I acknowledged it at the time and said that I would do my best to answer it. When I have had consultation with my right hon. Friend and the Nyasaland Government, I will send an answer.

    SUMMIT CONFERENCE
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the deterioration in the Middle East situation, he will discuss this problem with President Eisenhower, Mr. Khrushchev, and General de Gaulle at the forthcoming Summit Conference.
    The Prime Minister: It has been agreed that there will be no formal agenda for the Summit Conference. I cannot therefore state in advance whether any subject, however important, will or will not be discussed.
    Mr. Henderson: Is it not essential to stabilisation of Middle East conditions that there should be understanding and co-operation between the Soviet Union and the three Western Governments? May I ask whether we can take it that there is a common policy between the three Western Governments about these problems of the Middle East?
    The Prime Minister: In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, I would say that that is certainly a consideration to be borne in mind. In answer to his second point, we have, I think, a very high degree of common agreement as to our policy.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Prime Minister say whether the three Powers concerned —the United States, France and ourselves—are agreed on the precise interpretation of the Tripartite Declaration?
    The Prime Minister: I think that I should prefer to produce an answer to a question of that kind if it were put on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Healey: As this country is committed to trying to maintain a balance of arms among Middle Eastern countries and as this is impossible without Soviet co-operation, will the right hon. Gentleman at least seek to discuss this matter at the Summit Conference?
    The Prime Minister: That is one of the considerations to be borne in mind.

    BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION
    Mr. Cooperasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the future financial and administrative organisation of the British Transport Commission.
    The Prime Minister: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement I shall be making at the end of Questions.

    PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT DE GAULLE
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will take the opportunity of his visit to President de Gaulle to propose the issue of a joint statement proposing that German unification shall take place within Germany's existing frontiers.
    The Prime Minister: My visit is a private one and no statement or communiqué will be issued.
    Mr. Zilliacus: As President de Gaulle has twice declared that Germany's unification should take place within existing frontiers and as the Soviet Government take the same view, will not the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to reach agreement at least on this point before holding a Summit Conference?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add on this specific point to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in reply to the hon. Member on 11th November.

    DR. ADENAUER (CONVERSATIONS)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent during his recent conversations with Dr. Adenauer he discussed the possibility of providing bases for the German Army and facilities for training the Luftwaffe in Great Britain.
    The Prime Minister: I have had no conversations with Dr. Adenauer since November last year. On the subject matter of those talks I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 24th November.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister tell us the Government's policy about allowing German soldiers and the German Luftwaffe to have bases in this country? Is he aware that there is a considerable lack of enthusiasm for this? In his conversations with General de Gaulle, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Germans should have their bases in France?
    The Prime Minister: There are two Questions on this point on the Order Paper addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. Perhaps I may say, however, that the question of certain storage and other facilities has been raised. No specific proposals have been put forward. As the House knows, we provide training of one sort or another to a small number of German officers and other ranks. We have offered to all N.A.T.O. countries, including Germany, use of the Hebridean range for missile firing practice.
    Mr. Woodburn: If the decision is taken that Germany shall come into the Highlands with the Luftwaffe, will the Prime Minister arrange as a corollary the introduction of industry into the Highlands alongside the Air Ministry, in order to provide the industry which the Government so far have not been able to provide?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 14TH MARCH—Supply [8th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Consideration of Civil Supplementary Estimates relating to Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies; Board of Trade (Assistance to Industry and Trading Services); National Health Service, England, Wales and Scotland.
Second Reading of the Road Traffic Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
Consideration of the Instruction relating to the Public Bodies (Admission of Press to Meetings) Bill and of the Civil Defence (Disease) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 15TH MARCH—Supply [9th Allotted Day]: Report.
Consideration of Civil Supplementary Estimates relating to Commonwealth Services; Colonial Services; Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.).
At 9.30 p.m. on Monday and on Tuesday, the Question will be put from the
636
Chair under Standing Order No. 16, in Committee and on Report, respectively, on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes required before the end of the financial year.
Committee and remaining stages of the Road Traffic Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
WEDNESDAY, 16TH MARCH—At the request of the Opposition, it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill formally.
Afterwards, a debate will take place on an Opposition Motion relating to Retirement Pensions and other National Insurance Benefits.
THURSDAY, 17TH MARCH—At the request of the Opposition, it is proposed to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill formally.
Afterwards, a debate will take place on an Opposition Motion on Housing.
FRIDAY, 18TH MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
On MONDAY, 21ST MARCH, the Government propose to afford an opportunity for a debate on the Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England)—that is, the Crowther Report.
Mr. G. Thomas: Do I understand that the Government are giving only one day for discussion of the Crowther Report? In view of the widespread interest, on both sides of the House, in this subject, it is quite clear that unless further time is available many hon. Members will be unable to get into the debate.
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The Government have deliberately managed to fit in a day this side of Easter for the purpose of considering the Crowther Report. We do not have an opportunity for finding an extra day and we have not so far been able to elicit or produce a day from Her Majesty's Opposition.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Has it not been the practice in the past that the first of the two days on the Consolidated Fund Bill—the Second Reading day— might be taken formally followed by a debate, but that on the second day, when the Committee and remaining stages are taken, a general debate has been allowed

637
so that private Members, on both sides, may examine the Government on various aspects of public expenditure?
If the Government have surrendered to the Opposition's desire to have these two days taken formally so that they can have their own debate subsequently, does that not admit of the possibility that the Consolidated Fund Bill may be amended by a reasoned Amendment for rejection to enable some of the proposals of my hon. Friends and myself to be put forward so as to restore the regularity with which the House has examined these matters in the past?
Mr. Butler: There is no question whatever of the Government surrendering to the Opposition. A convention has been established for fifty years or more under which, on Supply, in which is included these proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill, Her Majesty's Opposition have the right, by an understanding, to choose the business. We are following the normal procedure which we ourselves followed when we were in opposition.
I do not think that there is anything in the point raised by my noble Friend, which has been widely canvassed both inside and outside the House, but in pursuing this practice we are doing nothing irregular. I do not think that the procedure suggested by my noble Friend would necessarily be the best for airing the difficulties which he has in mind.
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Leader of the House also confirm that the noble Lord is in error in supposing that there is anything unusual in taking the Report stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill formally? The noble Lord is probably thinking of the Appropriation Bill, which comes on in July, and not the Consolidated Fund Bill, which comes on in March.
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; that is generally correct. In the course of my membership of the House, which is a long one, I have known occasions when hon. Members have made speeches on the Consolidated Fund Bill, with the approval of the Chair; and, of course, it is absolutely in order for such speeches to be made on general topics. It is equally understood that if the Opposition designate a special debate the Government of the day accept that request.
Mr. Peyton: Can my right hon. Friend say when it is likely that we will have a debate on the railways and Transport Commission finances? Would this not be particularly suitable for discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill and very much more suitable than either of the subjects chosen by the Opposition?
Mr. Butler: That is a matter of opinion. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is just about to make a statement, we had better await that.
Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed the inclusion on the Order Paper of a Private Member's Bill called the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955 (Amendment) Bill. He will be aware that last Friday one of his hon. Friends blocked the Bill under a procedure which allows one Member to prevent the Bill from going to Committee. As the powers contained in this Bill are urgently required by 50 or 60 local authorities throughout the country, and as it is a matter of considerable importance to many hundreds of thousands of blind, retired and disabled people, will the right hon. Gentleman please ask the Government Whips to "lay off" next Friday and to let the Bill at least go to Committee?
Mr. Butler: I could not acknowledge that there was any association between my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, the Government Whips and the action taken by an individual Member.
Mr. D. Price: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Motion on the Order Paper dealing with the subject of lengthy speeches in the House? Does he suggest that any action can be taken to put the matter right?
[That this House, concerned with the large number of honourable Members who are unable to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in major debates, considers that in major debates speeches in this House should be restricted to thirty minutes from the front benches and fifteen minutes from back benches, including Members of Her Majesty's Privy Council.]
Mr. Butler: We discussed this during our debates on procedure. I think that it can more easily be put right by understanding than by any distinct rule.
Mr. Mulley: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider again the allocation

639
of only one day for the debate on the Crowther Report, particularly in the light of his own former interest in our education system? If it is not possible to make it a two-day debate, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of extending the debate by an hour, because many hon. Members will wish to take part?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; I would certainly consider that in the light of expressions of opinion which may be received. I sympathise with the wish for two days for debate. If we had two days, there might be a definite danger that I might speak myself.
Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Works assured us recently that something would be done about accommodation in this House before the first half of the twenty-first century, and that if the right hon. Gentleman continues to delay our debate on this matter much longer he will be running it pretty close? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that some of us are beginning to feel that our chances of getting anything done are now wellnigh hopeless?
Mr. Butler: The hon. Lady must be patient, because she herself never gets older. There is likely to be a debate quite soon.
Dr. King: May I press the Leader of the House further concerning the Crowther Report? He knows, I am sure, that it raises profound issues which are of importance to education for the next quarter of a century and involve the fate of his own valuable Education Act. Will he give serious consideration to the provision of a two-day debate on this important Report?
Mr. Butler: It has been difficult at this time, with Supply and the period immediately preceding the Budget, to find a day. I think it is certain that we can at least see that the subject is to be considerably discussed, although it may well be necessary to consider it again.

PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS TO MEETINGS) BILL (INSTRUCTION)
Mr. Reynolds: On a point of order. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I was unable to give adequate notice of this, but we have just been told by the Leader of the House that on Monday the Government propose to find time for a Motion in the name of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give an Instruction to the Standing Committee on the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill. The Motion appears on today's Order Paper.
[That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill for requiring members of the public other than representatives of the press to be admitted to meetings of bodies exercising public functions, and for matters arising out of their admission.]
As I understand, this Instruction is procedural advice to cover gross ineptitude in the original drafting of the Bill and would allow the Committee to extend its deliberations to saying whether or not it considered it fit to admit the public to meetings covered by the terms of the Bill.
I have given notice, on page 2372 of today's Order Paper, of my intention to ask the Leader of the House, under what is commonly referred to as the Ten Minutes Rule, to seek leave to introduce a Public Bodies (Admission of the Public to Meetings) Bill
"to provide for the admission of the public to the meetings of certain bodies exercising public functions."
I believe—and this can be easily ascertained—that my notice of Motion was in before the notice in the name of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
I should like to ask, therefore, whether the Motion in the name of the Minister of Housing and Local Government is in order, in view of what is contained in pages 403 and 404 of the sixteenth edition of Erskine May which, after describing the position, goes on to say:
"Thus a motion (other than a motion for leave to bring in a bill) is out of order if it anticipates a notice of motion for leave to bring in a bill (g) that includes the subject proposed to be dealt with by the motion."

641
I would respectfully submit that as my notice of Motion to bring in a Bill covers the matters which are dealt with in the Instruction in the Motion which it is intended to move on Monday, the Instruction itself is out of order in view of the fact, as. I believe, that my notice of Motion was handed in to the Clerks at the Table before that of the Minister. I am not certain of that, but I am sure that it can be easily ascertained.
Mr. Speaker: On the last point of fact the hon. Member is quite right. His notice beat the other by 40 minutes. On the face of this problem, I think it is necessary to bear in mind, with regard to the rule about anticipation, that a Motion must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective proceeding but, in the terms of one of the pages of Erskine May to which the hon. Member was referring,
"… it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form."
At first glance at this matter, it looks as though in this case a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill would seem to be as effective as a Motion for leave to introduce the Bill, but I confess to the House and to the hon. Member that not the least uninterrupted time for study is Question Time. I will undertake to look further into this and rule on the matter on Monday before the first Motion comes up.
Mr. C. Pannell: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the debate which took place on Second Reading of the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill on Friday, 5th February, and the fact that I, among others, raised this point of the orderliness of the Bill in so far as its seconder, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), indicated that he wished to interpolate into the Long Title the question of the admission of the public. You gave a Ruling in which you threw the responsibility completely on the Chairman of the Committee. I merely raise this matter for further information, but it is rather mystifying to us when that Ruling seems to have been upset or negatived by this Motion.
When you inform the House on Monday about your researches into this matter, we should like the position clarified in case this is raised again, because you will know, Mr. Speaker, that I, with
642
some of my hon. Friends, argued this very point and we tended to be overruled during the course of the debate when the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) moved the Second Reading of her Bill on 5th February.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I remember quite well what the hon. Member is referring to and, of course, I will look at it in this connection, but I do not think that it is complicated really. The circumstances then were that there was a question whether some suggested Amendment fell within the scope of the Bill or not. That, clearly, would be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee and since, should he be deemed or alleged to be wrong thereafter, there would be, in effect, an appeal to me, it was extremely important that I should not rule on the matter at that stage. I think that that was all that arose then.
Mr. Reynolds: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. When you are considering this matter, would you read the Ruling made by Mr. Speaker Denison on 23rd June, 1871, when a similar point was raised?
Mr. Speaker: Certainly.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement about the position of the British Transport Commission.
This has to be considered in all its aspects, commercial, financial and social. From the commercial point of view, the expansion of the economy has not led to the recovery in railway earnings which might reasonably have been expected some years ago. The carriage of minerals, including coal, an important traffic for the railways, has gone down. At the same time, there has been an increasing use of road transport in all its forms.
The British Transport Commission's total deficit has increased very rapidly over the last five years and now amounts to some £350 million. For the calendar year 1960 the deficit is estimated at £80 million, which includes interest on

643
British Transport stock. This reflects an operating loss on the railways which, on present performance, is estimated at £45 million, and includes allowance for the 5 per cent. interim addition to wages. In addition to the £80 million, there is the interest on the advances to meet accumulated deficits. This is now running at about £15 million.
The report of the Guillebaud Committee on railwaymen's pay, set up jointly by the Commission and the trades unions, has now been presented to them. The Government have been informed by the Commission that they have proposed that the Report should be studied in the normal negotiating committee of the industry. It is a subject of considerable complexity, for it deals not only with the level of wages but also with the grading of jobs and differential wage rates. The implications on the finances of the British Transport Commission will have to be taken into account by the Government in considering what action to take as regards the present difficulties of the industry.
The Government accept the objective underlying the report of the Guillebaud Committee—that fair and reasonable wages should be paid to those engaged in the industry. At the same time, they feel that others, also, must accept corresponding obligations.
First, the industry must be of a size and pattern suited to modern conditions and prospects. In particular, the railway system must be remodelled to meet current needs, and the modernisation plan must be adapted to this new shape. Those working in the industry must accept this. This is the only way of bringing about conditions in which a fair reward, not only in terms of money, but of satisfaction with their job. can be secured.
Secondly, the public must accept the need for changes in the size and pattern of the industry. This will involve certain sacrifices of convenience, for example, in the reduction of uneconomic services. Some increases will also have to be made in fares and charges, and the Commission intends to take action in this respect as soon as possible. It will also be necessary to examine urgently the question of relieving the industry of restrictions and obligations which limit the Commission's
644
earnings and prevent it from making the best use of its resources.
Thirdly, the Commission must accept a radical alteration of its structure, so as to secure a more effective distribution of functions and a better use of all its assets. Measures of reorganisation should include decentralisation of management so that individual undertakings, including the regions of the British Railways, should as far as practicable, be made fully self-accounting and responsible for the management of their own affairs. The detailed application of these principles to all the Commission's undertakings is a matter of urgency and will be worked out by a special planning board. Legislation, as well as administrative action, will certainly be required. This planning board will be appointed by the Government and will report both to the Government and to the Commission. Meanwhile, the Commission is securing expert advice on the question of regional accounting for the railways.
Finally, there is the problem of finance. Here, there is both a short-term and a long-term problem. In the short-term the problem is to devise interim financial arrangements to enable the railway system to be carried on until the necessary reorganisation can be made effective. The Government are now considering what form these should take. In the long-term the financial arrangements must depend on the size and structure of the undertaking, and must, indeed, form an essential part of the general reorganisation. The life and trade of the nation require a railway system, but it must not be allowed to become an intolerable burden on the national economy.
The Commission, the trade unions, the public and the Government will all have to co-operate in this new approach. I feel sure that they are in the mood to do so.
Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not clear that the Cabinet is still sharply divided on this issue and that that is the reason why, despite the fact that it has all the information necessary to come to a decision, there is so little that is firm that is being put forward today?
Will the right hon. Gentleman take from us at any rate a welcome for the fact that he has resisted pressure from behind him to hive off for private enterprise the more profitable parts of the

645
Commission's activities? I take it that the Prime Minister will be arranging for a full debate on these questions in which the House can take part, but may I ask him two immediate questions?
First, when the right hon. Gentleman refers to decentralisation of management, does he mean administrative decentralisation carried out by the Commission or are the Government flirting with the quite unworkable proposal that we have read about, involving separate, public boards to operate each of the transport regions?
Secondly, would the Prime Minister give us an assurance with regard to the Guillebaud Report—and we welcome what he said on this so far as it goes— that there will be no Government interference with the working of the conciliation machinery in the industry which would prevent the full and early implementation of the Report? Will he also recognise that that can only be done if the Government are proposing a really radical solution and radical reconstruction of the Commission's finances?
The Prime Minister: I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions and pay little regard to the He should not judge the divisions of the Conservative Cabinet by the state of his own party.
These things must be done in order. The first problem, which I believe the House as a whole will accept, is that there should be an amicable settlement of the wages question and all that goes with it. I do not want to say or do anything that would prevent that taking place. After all, this was a Report not to the Government—it was published only last Friday—but to the Commission, and to the unions, arranged for by themselves. I think that by far the best thing is to let that procedure go on, and then we shall have to see what is involved in the short-term finance, which the Government obviously must make available since it does not exist in the resources of the Commission. I think that the main thing is to get that over in an amicable way with the hope held out before all the people, the trade unions more than all, that we may be able to make of this industry something much more satisfactory to all those employed in it.
On the question of the form of the reorganisation, I say quite frankly that I think—and I have studied it a little—
646
that the whole structure does require complete review, without it taking away responsibility from where it ought to be, with those who are in the direct management of these various concerns. Secondly, it tends to become a top-heavy structure which, however good those at the top are, are not really the people to control it effectively.
On the question of finances, I feel that it is right first to consider the problem of short-term finance, that is to say, what is to be done in the next few months or years, and then as part of the reconstruction, and probably as part of the Bill, to consider any long-term reconstruction of capital or change of the whole capital structure.
Lastly—I think that this answers the right hon. Gentleman's point—there are, I believe, assets available which could be handled and used by those most expert in this task. That means, perhaps, that some of the land assets, some of the development assets, should be handed over to a special body acquainted with this, and not left as one of the enormous functions of the Transport Commission today. Beyond that I would not go.
Sir R. Nugent: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement that he accepts the general objective of the Guillebaud Report will be well-received in all quarters? Is he also aware that the statement of his intention to reconstruct the manangement and introduce a system of regional accounting—the practical step of placing the responsibility on expert shoulders, where it could best rest—will also be well received in all quarters. Will my right hon. Friend, in his consideration of the remodelling of the railway system, to which he referred, bear in mind the very heavy cost of modernisation plus the financing of deficits now resting on the taxpayers' shoulders and accelerate the cutting out of redundant services and installations as rapidly as possible as a matter of urgent priority?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I think that we must try to think of this as something to which we must all contribute. I have said that we believe that there should be fair and reasonable wages for this industry, but I want to leave the details to be discussed in the proper way. If that is so, the men in

647
the industry, from top to bottom, must accept that the Government have a right, since they are now producing the only source of revenue, the tapayer's money, on which the industry can run, to take a much more direct part in the reorganisation of the industry than if it were a prosperous industry. There is that obligation.
The public has to accept that it cannot ask the industry to take on some of the old functions such as fell upon a common carrier, and some of the old restrictions which were quite reasonable when the railways were a monopoly, of which there are signs still, and it must also accept the inconvenience of certain lines being closed and other means of transport being made available.
The Commission must accept that it will help us and all concerned in trying to solve this matter not on theoretical or doctrinaire lines, but in the way that we think can be made the best for everybody concerned.
Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has in mind that the valuable assets of the Commission, for example, the sites it now owns in large cities, should be developed by the Commission itself in the interests of the finances of the Commission or a successor public body, or whether he has in mind hiving them off for private industry?
The Prime Minister: I think that all this has to be studied. I am bound to say that some of these ought to be sold. After all, the Treasury is owed £350 million. I have no doubt—it may be exaggerated; I think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself referred to it—that there are certain parts of land and other things which are not now necessary, or where cheaper land could be made available, and some of these profitable assets could be sold. How it is to be done is a matter for study. I would say that the people likely to be employed to do this are those most expert in these matters.
Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be greeted with much satisfaction throughout the country? May I ask him two questions? First, is the proposed legislation to come forward during the present Session, or
648
when? Secondly, will he make it clear that the Guillebaud Report refers to the railways only and is not a general signal for an all-round increase of wages?
The Prime Minister: The whole House, and all the trade union world, have accepted that the railways have been in a rather exceptional position, to which the Report refers, and none of us, after all that we have gained in the stability of prices, wants to set off something that will lead to a great wage price spiral again. Of course, it is very difficult. We want to work quickly. I want to get a certain number of men charged with this job. Some of it can be done administratively, but I am convinced that it will be necessary to have legislation, and in my view it would not be possible to hope to get that legislation introduced until the autumn.
Mr. Collick: Does the Prime Minister realise the consternation which will be felt among railwaymen about some parts of his statement, particularly those parts in which the right hon. Gentleman once again envisages the reorganisation of British Railways? Is he not aware that we have already had three schemes for the reorganisation of railways from the Government since they have been in office, and that all the time the railway-men have been left high and dry? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the need for speed to get the Guillebaud recommendations accepted? Unless these recommendations are operated quickly, the one certain thing is that we shall lose more and more highly skilled operating railwaymen whom we can ill afford to lose, and that, therefore, speed is the essence of this matter.
May I say one other word on the point or reorganisation? [HON. MEMBERS:" Speech."] I am asking the Prime Minister a question. I do not accept the need for it, but if there is to be any result from reorganisation, the one—perhaps the only—case there is for it is to put the railways under the direction of experienced railwaymen. If that is done, there may be some hope, but for the rest there is very little indeed.
The Prime Minister: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said and I hope that he will find that we are really in agreement. Obviously, the first thing is to get the wage question

649
agreed. That we hope to get done quickly. I say again, however, that if the Government are to advance very large additional sums of money, which they must do whatever the agreement is, then there is an obligation upon everybody—I will not put it higher than this —to approach the other problems with a fair and open mind.
Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman did the same for private industry.
The Prime Minister: That is all I ask. I believe that that will appeal to the men in the railway industry. I know a little about it; I was in it for many years myself. I believe that we want to make people feel not only that they have a fair wage, but that all concerned, right from the higher management down to the men, are in an industry of which there is a fair chance of making a good show. It breaks one's heart to see an industry piling up deficits year after year. Men want to be in an industry which has a chance of really making a show.
Mr. Peyton: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is in a position to say what is the extent of the commitment of public funds involved, particularly long-term finance?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with the short-term finance when he has to make specific proposals and we know what they are and what we have to carry. Long-term finance and any question of capital reorganisation, about which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has spoken, would be more appropriate in the general reorganisation and would almost certainly require legislation.
Mr. Proctor: Does the Prime Minister realise that his statement that the Government contemplate reorganising the Transport Commission will be accepted with mixed feelings by the railwaymen and many others? Does he realise that the policy of Her Majesty's Government so far has been to sell the prosperous and keep the bankrupt as regards this industry? As the right hon. Gentleman has informed the House that he proposes to set up a body to advise the Commission and the Government on the future of the railways, could he give a guarantee that the body in question will be impartial as far as possible?
The Prime Minister: The body will be impartial, and it will advise the Government. The chairman and the Commission have told me that they will do everything they can to help it. It will consult the trade unions. When it comes to the proposals, we shall have to take the full responsibility, but I say again, and I say it sincerely with real affection for the railways, that we must try to get the highest agreement that is possible. We must agree that if fair and reasonable wages are to be paid, which I think is right, in an industry which is losing as much money as this, everybody is under an obligation, in return, to play their part in any form of reorganisation which may help it to do better.
Mr. K. Lewis: Since the Prime Minister has said that he hopes to regionalise the railways and reduce them to smaller units, is he aware that this will be received with great acclamation and hope in the county of Rutland, in the expectation that he may be able to persuade other of his colleagues in the Government to pursue the same policy in the future?
Mr. Steele: Is the Prime Minister aware that the railways are probably the most reorganised organisation in this country and that this has been going on since 1920, when I first joined the ser-vice? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that I cannot understand why he tries to bring a complicated solution to a simple problem? The simple problem is that the railways will never pay and that the railwaymen want more money. Though the problem is large in size, that is what we have to face. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is in the mind of the Government in respect of trying to ascertain the profitability of each area? This can only be done by the re-introduction of the old railway clearing house system, which was a failure before. That would be not only unwise, but would be expensive and would require a great deal more sacrifice to carry out.
The Prime Minister: I remember that system very well. That is why an expert committee is already at work discussing the possibilities of separate accounting. It may be found to be impossible, I hope not, but it has great advantages, because it is the way in which many great industries are run. It gives to the management and to all others concerned

651
in their particular jobs a sense of reality. It gives them an opportunity of seeing the effect and it makes it much more easy to do uneconomic things, should it be decided that these should be done for good social purposes.
Also, it makes it much easier for Parliament to say, "All right, we agree to that. We cannot blame the management because there is a loss since the management has told us that certain lines cannot be run at a profit". If we want something done, then at least we cannot put upon the management the obloquy of having operated at a loss. There are great advantages, if it can be achieved, in a sense of pride in the various organisations.
As for the hon. Gentleman's statement that this is a simple problem, I wish that he was right. To say that the railways must always be run at a loss, and that the men must be paid more money, would be, I should have thought, a very defeatist view for those who believe in general nationalisation.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House imposes on the Chair a very difficult duty. We have another statement to come and there must come a time—
Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the fact that very many hon. Members have not been able to ask questions and raise issues, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government will find time for an early debate?
The Prime Minister: I would like to consult the Leader of the House. In the ordinary way, my right hon. Friend will consult with the Leader of the Opposition, because that is not my affair. I do not want to shirk a debate, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the question of a debate in the light of the developments of the next few days which may arise out of the hope of a good solution of the immediate wage problem? I would like that to be in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, because it sometimes happens that it is more convenient if we can succeed in the first stages before we enter into the wider affairs. I am sure that he will bear that in mind, as he always has done, in situations of this kind.
Mr. Gaitskell: I would certainly bear that in mind. I do not think it necessary that we should, in the course of debate, get involved in wage negotiations, but many other issues apart from that could usefully be discussed.

AGRICULTURE (GUARANTEES)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement about the guarantees to agriculture for the coming year, which the Government have now determined in the light of the Annual Review.
Good weather last year helped our farmers. The net output of the industry increased substantially and for 1959–60 is forecast at 68 per cent. above pre-war, the highest it has ever been. Actual net income for the year is forecast at £356½ million—£41 million up on the previous year. If we adjust the figures to normal weather conditions, the forecast for the year is £355½ million compared with £362 million for the previous year.
Farming costs, particularly labour costs, continue to increase, and on Review commodities are up by nearly £13 million in the year. On the other hand, the industry is continuing to increase its efficiency.
The cost of Exchequer support has gone up from £241 million to £259 million. This is a continuing heavy burden on the taxpayer. It also affects trade relations especially with the Commonwealth. Moreover, the cost of support may increase still further if production continues to expand more rapidly than demand. We have had to consider how the industry can reduce its dependence on the Exchequer while maintaining its position in our market and increasing profitability.
Taking all these factors into account, we have decided to make a net reduction of about £9 million in the total value of the guarantees. The maximum reduction we could have made was about £19 million. This means some reductions in the prices for the main cereals, and for sugar beet, eggs, sheep and wool; and also for milk—though in consideration of the dairy industry's success in

653
increasing sales for liquid consumption, we have increased the standard quantities by 19½ million gallons.
We are also making a small reduction in subsidy rates for fertilisers from next July. There will be no change for fat cattle. There will be an increase for potatoes. For pigs, we have increased the standard price by 3d. We have also removed the cost of the quality premiums from the guarantees—an arrangement which, in effect, adds another 6d., making, in all, an increase of 9d. in the standard price—and we have adjusted the stabilising limits so as to reduce fluctuations in returns to pig producers and to facilitate long-term contracts.
These changes should give the industry confidence to bring about that moderate increase in pig numbers which I have often said I would like to see. The full details are given in a White Paper which will be available in the Vote Office when I sit down.
These determinations meet the requirements of national policy regarding the production of the guaranteed commodities. We consider that they provide a fair and balanced answer to the twofold problem of, on the one hand, enabling agriculture to maintain its prosperity and, on the other, protecting the taxpayer from an increasing burden.
Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman has made a somewhat general statement. A more detailed and, no doubt, accurate statement appeared in the Daily Express yesterday. I am the last person to suspect collusion between the right hon. Gentleman and the Beaverbrook Press, but will he make inquiries, as this might seriously prejudice these negotiations in future?
The right hon. Gentleman has not acknowledged his debt to the National Farmers' Union in these negotiations. Do we assume from that that this is not an agreed settlement? If that is so, is it not regrettable that on the last three occasions we have had an imposed settlement, when we know that the farmers' unions, for very good reasons, are most anxious to seek an agreed settlement?
Of course, we agree that the farmers have had a good year. The Minister is too modest to claim credit for the weather, but, in view of the fact that, notwithstanding the exceptional circumstances of last year, the net annual
654
income of farmers was less than it was two years ago, is it not surprising that a reduction of £9 million in the value of guarantees is a very serious blow to the farming community?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to subsidies. Will he consider publishing the details of the subsidies and, also, as the taxpayer is a consumer as well, publishing the corresponding and comparative figures in retail prices? It is most unsatisfactory that we have a position about sheep, for instance, where the taxpayer is providing half the market price, yet is getting very little advantage in the retail prices of lamb and mutton. We have not an opportunity to deal with the review commodities—we have to look to the White Paper for that.
In dealing with pigs, we appreciate the steps that he has taken, but it does not seem to us that they will be adequate, in view of the very real depression which is now facing the industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider very seriously taking some steps, at any rate in the fairly near future, to seek to improve pig marketing.
Mr. Hare: Inquiries are being made to ascertain whether there is any evidence of unauthorised disclosure from Government sources, and I understand that the farmers' unions are also making inquiries to see whether there is any reason to suspect premature disclosure on their side.
We have not achieved agreement with the unions, but we have had, as usual, full, frank and very friendly discussions with them. They have not, however, been able to accept our determinations. The hon. Gentleman will see that in the White Paper I have anticipated his desires and have included this year details of the subsidies, commodity by commodity.
Mr. Willey: What about retail prices?
Mr. Hare: Naturally, I will consider what the hon. Member has said on that. He referred to pigs. Do not let him become a prophet of woe. I believe that these measures will do very well.
Sir C. Thornlon-Kemsley: Has my right hon. Friend been able to estimate the effect of the determinations upon the farmers' incomes?
Mr. Hare: On the figures as we see them, the industry's net income should, we believe, be more than maintained. We estimate that there will be an increase of about £25 million, on account of increased efficiency, and a reduction of £22 million made up of the reduction of £9 million in the guarantees, plus £13 million increased costs, which leaves a net increase for the industry of about £3 million. It is very difficult, looking into the future, to pontificate about this. These are the figures as we see them at the moment.
Mr. Diamond: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain shortly why it is right that about £25 million of taxpayers' money should be spent on this industry without turning a hair, while it is unthinkable that a very much smaller figure should be spent on providing a similar service, namely, cheap transport and, before that, cheap food?
Mr. Hare: I will answer in a few short sentences. Part of the great contribution that this system of guaranteed prices and the direct Exchequer contribution makes to the people is that they are enabled to enjoy food at world prices. That is why we eat in this country probably cheaper, with a far wider range of food, than almost any other country. The farming community makes a very great contribution to the national welfare, and, certainly, all the ancillary industries of the farming industry are part and parcel of our national life.
Major Legge-Bourke: While welcoming the news that there is to be some increase in the guaranteed price for potatoes, may I ask my right hon. Friend about another commodity which is of great concern to my constituency— namely, sugar beet. Will he say whether the reduction in the sugar beet guarantee has been made because the Ministry has come to the conclusion that too much sugar beet is being grown, or because it has reached the conclusion that too big a profit is being made on what is grown?
Mr. Hare: As my hon. Friend knows, coming from the same part of the country as myself, sugar beet is a very profitable crop. I think we can see that by the fact that yields are going up, as are the acreage figures. This fairly modest cut which we have proposed is, I think.
656
reasonable. The hon. Member will see that it is a cut of 2s. 6d. per ton.
Mr. Mackie: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about potatoes? As he knows, during the last four months a considerable quantity of potatoes moved on to the market has not reached anything like the guaranteed price. In view of the fact that it has not reached the guaranteed price, and of the proposal to add 5s. 6d. per ton to that price— assuming that the article in the Daily Express is right—how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to implement the guarantee to the potato grower? Secondly, the reduction of 2s. a score almost destroyed the bacon industry. How, therefore, does he think that an increase of 3d. will solve the industry's problems?
Mr. Hare: The hon. Member has not been quite fair. First, there is an increase of 3d. in the standard price for pigs, but the effect of taking the premiums out of the guarantees is to produce another 6d., making a total increase of 9d. in the standard price. We are also lowering the stabilising limits, which will enable people to make long-term contracts knowing that they can sell quality pigs —pigs which attract the quality premium —and no more on average than Is. below the guaranteed price. I think that this will give considerable security to the pig industry.
The hon. Member also asked me about potatoes. We tried out the new system this year. I told the Board that if it ran into difficulties I would do the best I could, as representing the Government, to help it out during this period of trial. We have still some time to go. We shall certainly analyse the results. I have said that within the present structure I am perfectly prepared to see, if similar circumstances arise in the future, whether there is any useful action which the Government can take.
Sir A. Hurd: While we regret that on this occasion the National Farmers' Union has not been able to go all the way with the Minister in agreeing that this is a fair settlement, may I ask whether he will make it clear that the price reductions which are being effected by the award are not intended in any way to deter progress in further economical production in this country?

657
May we take it that no ceiling has been set to home production?
Last year, something went wrong with the egg price guarantee which resulted in producers receiving a good deal less than they expected. Can the Minister assure us that, in the new arrangements which he has made with the Marketing Board, that will not happen again and that there will be greater stability in egg prices to the producers?
Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend has put his question in two parts. First, we want agriculture to become more and not less profitable, and we think that there is plenty of scope for that, but, as I made clear in my statement, we also want to reduce the burden on the taxpayer. These aims cannot be achieved simply by producing more of everything, irrespective of market requirements. The right course is for the industry to concentrate on bringing down costs and on producing what the market wants.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance about the arrangements with the Egg Marketing Board. With the full agreement of the National Farmers' Union we have made changes in the profit-and-loss sharing arrangements, and I think that these will help to reduce the year-to-year fluctuations in producers' prices which we have been seeing. Last year, they worked very much to the disadvantage of the egg producer. Although the guaranteed price was cut by only 1d., the producer suffered a cut of 5d. Details are given in the White Paper, and I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the new arrangements will be very much better.
Mr. Harold Davies: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate the magnificent increase in agricultural production by our British farmers? Is he aware, however, that the time has come when an examination should be made of this expenditure of public money on agriculture not because we are against increased production, but because the subsidies—although that is not the correct term for them—are not being fairly distributed? It is the very small farmer, such as the farmer in North Staffordshire, who suffers as a result of the cuts in prices for milk, sheep and eggs. The small men are not encouraged at all.
658
I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I sincerely hope that more attention will be paid to the method of weighting by which this public money is distributed so that the small man is given the encouragement which he deserves for this magnificent productive effort which has been made by the British farmer.
Mr. Hare: I listened very carefully to what the hon. Member said. I think that he will agree that I am not unaware of the problem of the small farmer. He will also agree—he gave assistance in doing it—that we have produced a very interesting experiment to try to help the very man he has in mind. We have many lessons to learn from this, and I do not know what will emerge from those lessons.
Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister's statement an indication that the Government's policy is intended to be one of restriction?
Mr. Hare: I have already explained that that is certainly not so. I have said that we want agriculture to become more and not less profitable, but we also want to reduce the burden on the taxpayer. There is no point in producing more fresh eggs, for example, than people are prepared to eat, because that merely means that we must sell them to the manufacturer at an uneconomic price. In the same way, if we produce more milk than we can use for liquid consumption, the extra milk used for manufacture is sold considerably below the price for liquid milk. The producer gets a smaller return and the taxpayer has to pay a larger contribution.
Sir L. Plummer: The Minister must be aware that the Danes have today announced a slash in their butter prices to compete with the British butter producer. Will he explain what protection he is giving to the British dairy farmer against this threat by reducing the guaranteed price for milk? Will he tell us whether there is to be a greater reduction in any commodity price than is laid down in the guarantee provisions?
Mr. Hare: None of the cuts, as the hon. Member will see from the White Paper, is as severe as it could have been. The hon. Member tells me that the Danes have announced a reduction in the price of butter and asks how I reconcile that with a cut in the price of milk.

659
As he will find when he reads the White Paper, although I have cut the milk price by ¼d. a gallon, by giving an incentive to increased sales of milk for liquid consumption I am handing back ·17 of a penny to the Milk Marketing Boards. The cut is, therefore, not quite as severe as the hon. Member thinks it is.
Commander Maitland: I think that my right hon. Friend said that he had taken into account a figure of £25 million for increased efficiency, which is a very large sum. Was this figure agreed with the National Farmers' Union?
Mr. Hare: No. The National Farmers' Union has never agreed the figure of £25 million, but it has not been disputed very strongly. We have used this figure over a number of years, and I think that it is a very fair and conservative figure when we also take into account the increasing investment from farm improvement schemes and similar measures.
Mr. Peart: The Minister said that farming costs, particularly labour costs, were expected to increase. Can he say anything about farm rents? Can he say whether they have risen considerably and whether that has been taken into consideration? Secondly, in view of the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) about sugar beet, can the Minister give us the amounts of the reduction of the guarantees for all those things listed, such as wool, sheep, eggs, sugar beet and cereals? Is it possible to give the figures now?
Mr. Hare: I think that the hon. Gentleman will get the figures from the White Paper. I think that labour costs came to about £10 million of the extra £13 million, and the rest is divided between rent, interest, and other items. The White Paper gives the total for rents and interest as about £89 million for 1958–59 compared with about £96 million forecast for the current year. I think that the extra labour cost next year will be about £10 million or £11 million.
Mr. Kimball: Is not the net income of the industry already too low to warrant a cut in the guarantees?
Mr. Hare: I have already said that taking efficiency into account, the figure of £25 million is a very fair one. The industry this year will be keeping £3 million of that amount and, therefore, it should be able to maintain its income. It has been maintaining its income at the record level, on a normal weather basis of, about £355 million during the last three years.
Mr. Stodart: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that there is to be a reduction in the fertiliser subsidy? If so, is he aware of the tremendous effect that the intelligent use of fertilisers has had in achieving that 68 per cent. increase in production? Is there not a danger that the reduction in the fertiliser subsidy may have repercussions in discouraging their use?
Mr. Hare: I agree with my hon. Friend about the great effect that fertilisers have had in achieving this remarkable increase in production, but these things are relative. The fertiliser subsidy has risen to a very large figure. It is now standing at £29 million a year, and the cut that we are making is £1½ million. If we see that in proportion, it will not have the effect of discouraging the use of fertilisers.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the enormous profits made by the manufacturers of fertilisers? Would it not be more suitable for them to forgo part of their profits than for the farmers to suffer a cut, even to the extent of £1½ million?
Mr. Hare: As my hon. Friend knows, a Report has been issued on this subject. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is consulting the industries concerned and obtaining their reactions to the Report. It would be improper for me to comment on that until my right hon. Friend has allowed these industries to make their representations.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: It is easy to realise that there is a lot of material to debate, but I think that we must draw some limit to this.
Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order. The announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman applies to Scotland as

661
well as to England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Scotland is now on the Front Bench, and I wonder whether I might put a question to him, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: I will allow the wrath of Scotland to rise to that extent.
Mr. Fraser: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland satisfied that the reduction in wool and sheep guarantees, coupled with the reduction in the marginal agricultural grants, will not have serious adverse effects in those parts of Scotland where no alternative employment is available?
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I do not think that I can give that assurance, but as far as one can forecast and see the consequences of these things, I do not think that they will have the effect that the hon. Gentleman envisages.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  AIR ESTIMATES, 1960–61, AND AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; NAVY ESTIMATES, 1960–61, AND NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE. 1959–60; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61. AND ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1960–61, AND ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1960–61

AIR ESTIMATES

  Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £113,110,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay. etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: It will give us all a sense of proportion to realise that this Vote, one of six, and not the highest, is for £113 million. After the sums that we have heard talked about in other connections this afternoon, it is right that we should pull ourselves up to realise that. It is not the highest Vote. It is the second highest, it is true, and it is for £113 million. Most of the probing from the Front Bench on this side will be done this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). However, I have two questions to put on this Vote.
  As the Minister knows, I am most unhappy about the continued rise in the proportion and cost of very senior officers in the Royal Air Force. I am not satisfied that the Government have tackled this problem. In 1939 there were 114,000 personnel in Royal Air Force uniform, and 84 air commodores and above. Twenty years later, although the numbers had risen by only

  663
  a half, to 180,000, the number of air commodores and above had trebled. This year we are asked to vote pay for a smaller Air Force—174,000 personnel —but the number of air commodores and above has not declined. There are still 240 of them. There are fewer officers, fewer men, but still 240 air commodores and above. There are fewer Commands and fewer Groups than there were twenty years ago, when there were only 84 air commodores and above.
  The Government have made no attempt to answer this criticism. The present position is bad for the Service because it reduces the status of the very high ranks. It is also bad for the taxpayer because it inflates the bill for the pay of those officers. I have heard it argued that we need all these officers because of inter-Service and international Commands and organisations. That must have some effect, but I cannot get over the fact that the Service is becoming increasingly top heavy. I am particularly exercised that we are asked to vote money for the staff of the Air Member for Personnel's Department. Of all places, the Air Member for Personnel's Department this year shows an increase in the number of air ranks. What an example for the Personnel Department to set. What assurance can the Minister give us, before we allow the Vote, that the Government are attempting to tackle this problem?
  My other point is how much of this pay goes to officers and men serving on the staff of CENTO, that mysterious treaty organisation which we discussed in the defence debate. How much goes on that, and what do they do to earn it?
  4.39 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I should like to reinforce what the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) said, because, as I see it, the Service has reduced all the way round. There are now 100 fewer group captains, wing commanders and squadron leaders and 330 fewer flight lieutenants, flying officers and pilot officers, but the number of air officers of the rank of air commodore and above is exactly the same—240. One recognises that there are air attachés and so on who have been upgraded, but I cannot believe that that is necessary or a good thing for the Service.
  664
  Unfortunately, we have the same thing in the Navy, as was said two or three days ago. I do not know about the Army, but I deprecate the position in the Royal Air Force. If it was not necessary 20 years ago, it is not necessary today that the figure should be as high as it is. I welcome the Under-Secretary's present appointment. He is doing a tremendous amount of good work in dealing with personnel problems, but he should try to reduce the number of senior officers.
  I should like now to deal with the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I referred to a number of these points the other night, and I wrote to my hon. Friend saying that, having studied these matters, I was disappointed that not a single point that I raised in the debate last week was answered by him. He took a lot of trouble answering points raised by the Opposition, but in an Estimates debate it makes no difference whether questions are raised by hon. Members on one side of the Committee or on the other. My hon. Friend was not restricted by time; the debate could have gone on all night. He did not even say that he would write me a letter, which is what Ministers usually say when they do not want to answer questions.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): I did say that if I could not answer all the points raised by hon. Members I would write to them. I am in the process of doing so, and if my hon. Friend has not yet received his letter I can assure him that he will be hearing from me in due course.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I have not received a letter. I was so "brassed off" towards the end of the debate that I walked out five minutes before my hon. Friend finished speaking. It may be that that was when he said he would write letters.
  The other point I wish to raise concerns the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. Neither my hon. Friend nor the Secretary of State referred to the volunteer effort in the Royal Air Force during the Estimates debate. I appreciate the fact that the part played by the Reserves today is nothing compared with what it was a few years ago—and here I include the Royal Observer Corps—but those men and women who give up their time to this side of the Service should receive some

  665
  encouragement from Ministers when they speak in our annual debates. I see that the Vote in respect of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force has increased slightly. I welcome that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to it.
  Cadets were referred to in the Estimates debate, in that the ratio of the number coming into the Royal Air Force was given, but my hon. Friend ought to enlighten the public and the Committee on the part they are playing and the job they are doing. The Estimate has risen from £202,000 to £237,000. Is that enough, in view of the vast sum that is being spent on the Service as a whole? We must remember that the future of the Royal Air Force depends upon the personnel entering it in the future. Is a sum less than £250,000 enough to devote to what could be the future commissioned and non-commissioned ranks? I would like an assurance that more will be done to encourage the entry of young people who could be the backbone of the Service in future.
  The Air Ministry Vote has risen by £180,000—
  The Chairman: The hon. Member has already trespassed into Vote 2; he is now going on to Vote 3.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I appreciate that I have gone a little too far, Sir Gordon, but I think I am in order in referring to the Air Ministry Vote.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is not in order in referring to the Air Ministry Vote.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Then I will leave that point.
  I now want to turn to the question of Transport Command, which must be in order, since it comes under the heading of equipment.
  The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but that is not in order on this Vote. We are discussing Vote I.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I think I shall be in order in dealing with armaments.
  The Chairman: No. We are dealing with Vote I.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Then I will delay my remarks until I am in order.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I can well appreciate the difficulties of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). I was going to congratulate him on getting into Vote I a subject appropriate to Vote 2 in the same way that some hon. Members managed to get a speech on defence or foreign affairs into our debate on the Air Ministry's Memorandum.
  This is a very important Vote. It involves an Estimate of £113 million, and, within that figure, there is an increase of nearly £4 million. This year we are keeping the Estimate down to £113 million by virtue of a saving of nearly £1 million in bounties, which will not be repeated next year. This Vote covers the pay and allowances of the Royal Air Force, and the approaching end of National Service has brought home to us the necessity of making pay and conditions in the Services appropriate to pay and conditions existing outside. If we wish to attract sufficient men of the right quality, we must accept the burden of increased pay and allowances.
  I want to go through the subheads of Vote I. There is Subhead A— "Pay of Officers" and Subhead B— "Pay of Airmen and Airwomen" and then, on page 13, we see:
  "The rates of pay for the various branches and ranks of officers, which are normally shown in Appendix I, were under review at the time of going to print."
  We have been given an Estimate of expenditure and, at the same time, a subsequently published White Paper showing considerable increases in rates of pay. Are we to understand that the Estimates with which we are dealing are under-estimates of what is to be spent? Does it mean that owing to the inevitable increases in Service pay and pensions, which have been welcomed by the House, this is not the end of the story and that there is to be a further increase? We should know the exact position. We are working towards a regular, full-time Air Force.
  Mr. W. J. Taylor: The new pay scales have been taken into account in the Estimates which are now before us.
  Mr. Ross: That means that we have had some intelligent anticipation. We welcome that.

  667
  We have had some discussion about the ending of National Service, and remarks have been made about National Service and National Service men in past debates. As a result of the increases in pay and their aggregate cost it has now become strikingly clear that the men who did National Service did so at considerable financial loss to themselves and their families. They gave pretty good service. Although some of the remarks made about National Service have not been well phrased, all the derogatory remarks have been directed at the system rather than at the quality of National Service men, and we should appreciate that fact as we discuss this increase.
  The question of the ability of the 240 air officers to retain their little empires despite the rundown in the Service has been sufficiently stressed, and I will leave that matter. I want to raise a point relating to Subhead D.2—"National Service Grants". There has been a remarkable jump this year, although there are fewer National Service men. We are being asked to vote an increase of £70,000 in respect of these grants, which are available only to National Service men in respect of commitments to their dependants in civil life, which they have had to leave upon being called up. The increase seems to be a striking one, in view of the fact that there are fewer National Service men in the Air Force at present, and I should like to know the reason for it.
  It may be that we are now dealing with men whose call-up was deferred. It may be that more married men are being called up, with greater commitments in civil life—in the "never had it so good" world.
  If we go on to overseas allowances, I think we can deduce from the figures —the number of fascinating statistics and implications one can draw from them is endless, but I wonder whether they are always justified—that according to the overseas family allowances, which are the same as family allowances paid by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in this country, there are more children of R.A.F. families overseas in respect of both officers and airmen. We have an increase in the one case of £5,000 and the other of £15,000. That is £20,000 more. It is something which is reflected in all the Estimates with
  668
  respect to education allowances and so on. There would appear to be more of the Royal Air Force with their families serving overseas than in the past. The implications of that in respect of the housing and welfare of these men is a matter of importance.
  Subhead E relates to education allowances. This is an old topic for me, and I am not very satisfied about it. We find that there is an increase in the allowances for officers and a reduction in the case of airmen. It is a reduction of £5,000 and an increase of £20,000. I do not think that all the airmen who would like to have their children educated at home are able to do so because of what is available to them after taking their pay into account. We cannot judge this matter properly unless we have a breakdown of the figures to show how many of these allowances are for boarding school and how many for children who live with a guardian during the time when they are attending a school in this country.
  I do not expect to be given those figures today, but if we could have that information it would give us a chance to study this matter to see what more might be done. My feeling is that the allowance of £50 for a child in the care of a guardian is inadequate. It may well be that that is why we find a fall where we should have expected an increase, particularly in view of the increases in rates of pay. On the whole, we support the Vote, but we should be glad to have that information if the Parliamentary Secretary can provide it.
  4.55 p.m.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: I wish to ask my hon. Friend about the medical services. In Appendix IV on page 180 of the Estimates it states that £4,442,000 is to be spent on pay for the
  "medical, dental and nursing personnel of the Royal Air Force (including personnel at the Air Ministry) and of other air force personnel employed at hospitals and other medical units."
  At Ely there is a Royal Air Force hospital which is very well known, much admired and, I think, extremely comfortable. The civilians in the area greatly appreciate the help they receive from that hospital, and all the local doctors are grateful for the facilities afforded there for civilian patients as well as Service men.

  669
  I wish to know whether there is any drawback from other Government Departments contained in this total to take account of the treatment of civilians in R.A.F. hospitals. My hon. Friend may rest assured that we are not in any way trying to undermine the excellent relationship which exists between the Royal Air Force medical services and the local doctors, in fact we wish to encourage it. But to me it seems unfair that the Royal Air Force should be landed with a tremendous wage bill, bearing in mind the work which it does on behalf of civilian patients, without there being a drawback from other Departments, particularly the Ministry of Health. Perhaps that is taken account of in appropriations in aid, and if so, I shall be quite satisfied.
  Is my hon. Friend entirely satisfied with the pay and conditions of the men who serve on the rocket bases in East Anglia? As I mentioned during the Second Reading debate, there is one of these bases in my constituency. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) referred to the number of people in the senior branches of the Service, but I do not suppose that any installation has a higher proportion of N.C.O.s and a lower proportion of other ranks, airmen and so on, than these establishments. There are a great number of first-class warrant officers and N.C.O.s but practically no airmen. When I visited the base in my division, I found only one airman and I felt sorry for him. He was surrounded by so many stripes that he might have imagined himself on a zebra crossing in London.
  When a man is promoted it is always desirable that, so far as possible, he be given something to command or to be in charge of. When there are a great many men of the same rank together, only one can be in command or have any authority to exercise. At these bases the men have a great technical responsibility and it is necessary that they should possess high technical qualifications. But this arrangement raises problems regarding man-management and it is important that we do not discourage men from wanting to take promotion and receive higher pay.
  There may be some danger of that happening if these highly qualified technician N.C.O.s, and warrant officers are
  670
  left too long in the same place. I believe that the policy is to try to transfer them as much as possible and I should like to know whether my hon. Friend is satisfied that we are getting the value for the money which we ought to be getting. I think that we are, because I was impressed by the morale and bearing of the men I saw when I visited the base in my constituency, and I was extremely grateful for the time and trouble taken by the officers there.
  Reverting to the question of medical personnel, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is satisfied that we can continue to maintain the high standard which exists among specialists and other senior officers in the Royal Air Force medical services on the present rates of pay, bearing in mind what could be earned outside the Service? The Harley Street "magnet" has always been an attraction and I hope that we may be assured that the present high standard in the Service can be maintained.
  5.0 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): I wish first to say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) that I referred to the Air Training Corps during the recent debate, but I think that he must have been out of the Chamber when I did so. I will attempt to deal with the points which were raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I should like to know, Sir William, whether I should be in order in replying to him on the subject of auxiliaries now or whether I should defer my reply until we come to consider Vote 2.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The answer is that it would be more appropriate to do so when the Committee discusses Vote 2.
  Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Sir William.
  The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) referred to the air marshal post in CENTO, and I will deal with that first. This is a post in the Central Treaty Organisation, on the Permanent Military Deputies Group, on which an air marshal, appointed at the beginning of this year, represents the United Kingdom Chiefs of Staff. Other officers of similar rank represent the other member countries. The establishment there is

  671
  one air marshal and one air commodore. I am advised that the financial aspect of these posts is dealt with under Ministry of Defence Votes. Therefore, it does not fall directly within our discussion this afternoon.
  The hon. Member for Lincoln and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield raised the question of the number of air rank officers in the Royal Air Force generally and suggested that too much money was being spent on the "hierarchy". This is a subject which frequently crops up in these debates. Last year my predecessor gave a very full and detailed explanation. I regret that I cannot at short notice give the precise details of the figures, but I should like to go over some of the points for the benefit of the Committee.
  No one, of course, would reasonably expect the top rank structure to be necessarily proportionate to the total Service strength. There are a number of posts at the top which are necessary independently of total numbers, and in many instances tasks still have to be performed although the responsibility for performing them has been transferred from Service to civilian personnel, or have been let out to civilian contract. Over the last five years the proportion of civilians to Service personnel has risen from about one in four to one in three.
  Another point made last year which I emphasise again now is that there are a substantial number of air rank posts which are not paid for out of Air Force funds or which arise out of career considerations and are not dealt with on the basis of normal establishment criteria. There are thirty posts not paid for out of Air Votes. These are mainly in connection with the international treaty commitments to which the hon. Member referred, such as N.A.T.O. or CENTO and, in addition, in respect of research and development posts under the Ministry of Aviation. There are also a number of air rank posts asked for and paid for by Commonwealth Governments, such as those of Pakistan, Malaya and Ceylon.
  The career posts to which I referred are those in the specialist medical, dental and education branches, in which it has been decided to allow a limited
  672
  number of air rank posts in order to provide an appropriate career. This refers to the point raised by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) about the opportunities provided for professional medical men in the Royal Air Force. It has a direct bearing upon the question he asked. For the medical and dental branches the numbers have been worked out in conformity with the recommendations of the Waverley Committee.
  The upshot is that in these branches the number of air rank posts, which is already over twenty, will tend to rise slightly further over the next few years. Our strength of air rank officers also has to allow for a number of students at the Imperial Defence College, and for those who at any given time are non-effective between posts or on account of prolonged sickness or during terminal leave. All these factors go to make up the average figure of 240 given in the Air Estimates, which we do not think is at all unreasonable for carrying out the important world-wide national and international commitments of the Royal Air Force.
  We are fully conscious of the need to keep the total number down to the absolute minimum. I agree with what was said about the necessity of that, but it must be consistent with efficiency. Over the past three years there has been a decrease of twenty in the number of air rank posts, other than those in the specialist branches, paid for from Air Votes. This is a net decrease and allows for the additional essential commitments which arise from time to time, such as those for a new group headquarters in Transport Command and the Commander of the British Forces in Aden.
  The hon. Member for Lincoln asked specifically why it was necessary to add an air commodore in the Department of the Air Member for Personnel. This is not an additional post, but reflects the transfer to the Air Ministry of the post of Deputy Director of Dental Services, which happened to be located at Home Command at the time of its disbandment a year ago.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised the question of National Service grants. The Air Ministry values very highly the service of the men who are entitled to these grants. They certainly will not have earned as much in

  673
  the Service as they might have earned in civil life, but it is important to note that in cases of hardship Service pay could be supplemented up to £7 a week by the National Service grants to which the hon. Member referred.
  The increased provision in the Estimates for National Service grants reflects an interesting and understandable trend in the type of man coming forward to do his National Service. It also reflects certain social trends. The fact is that, although the number of National Servicemen serving in the Royal Air Force next year is expected to be a few thousand less than in the present year, the average age of National Servicemen will be somewhat higher. That is because more of these men now being called up have been deferred for one reason or another. Understandably, the older men will usually come into the Service with bigger domestic responsibilities. We are finding that increasing numbers of National Servicemen were drawing very good wages before they were called up. Many are married and have substantial domestic responsibilities.
  I do not wish to make any party points, but it is nevertheless right to point out that those pre-Service responsibilities are larger than they were in the past because the housing shortage has eased and young couples are consequently about to set up homes and incur liabilities in the way of mortgages and hire purchase agreements, which they were discouraged from doing earlier because the accommodation was not available.
  Mr. Ross: In other words, "We have never-never had it so good".
  Mr. Taylor: That is so—they have never-never had it so good, to use the hon. Member's phrase. These National Service grants are intended to cushion the impact on the man who has domestic responsibilities, either to his parents, his wife or other dependants. In the circumstances, I am sure it will be appreciated that the average amount of National Service grant is going up. It is even higher than it was last year and it will be still higher in the coming year. As against the average cost that was assumed for the 1959–60 Estimates of just under £120 for each National Service grant, in the coming year it is likely to be £130. The second component in the sum is the number of cases which
  674
  qualify for grant. Despite the fall in the total number of National Service men, we expect an increase of at least 10 per cent. in the number of these cases.
  The hon. Member also raised the question of educational allowances, which I think he raised last year. That is a subject which I know is very near his heart. It comes under subhead E of Vote 1. I wish to make two things clear from the start. First, the allowances are the same for all ranks. This is a rather important point. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any difference in the rates paid to officers and men. The rates are the same for all ranks.
  Secondly, the changes from last year's provision in the Vote have no policy significance. The explanation is simply that we are seeking, in the light of the experience we now have of the new rates and allowances, to achieve closer estimating. Expenditure on educational allowances of both officers and airmen is tending to increase. In 1958–59 the actual expenditure was £205,000 for officers and £36,000 for airmen. As from 1st April, 1959, the amounts of the allowances were very substantially increased, which accounts for the provision in the Air Estimates for 1959–60 of £500,000 for officers and £90,000 for airmen.
  It was, however, rather difficult to estimate just what the effect of the improved allowances would be in the year which is now drawing to a close. It has become clear that we slightly under-estimated the amount which would be claimed for officers' allowances and slightly over-estimated the allowances for airmen. The amount provided for officers in the next year is the same as is likely to be spent in the present year, and that for airmen is rather more than is likely to be spent in the present year.
  There is no doubt whatever that the more generous rates of education allowances have been widely welcomed by all ranks in the Service. They are of real value to Service parents in helping them to ensure that their children do not suffer in their education from the disturbance from postings which inevitably arises in a Service career. It is to be expected that expenditure in this field will tend to rise, the more so as the long-Service regular elements of the Force increase in size.

  675
  That brings me to the numbers of children, about which the hon. Member for Lincoln asked. The latest returns show that day school allowances are paid for forty officers' children and about 200 airmen's children. Boarding school allowances are paid for 3,400 officers' children, including six children of one officer, and nearly 650 airmen's children. I recognise that some hon. Members may not be wholly content with these figures. Some may think that too many children go to boarding schools; perhaps some will think that too few go to boarding schools. They may think that there is too great a difference between the numbers of officers and airmen taking advantage of the scheme.
  I should be the last person to claim that the present arrangements are by any means perfect, but they have been operative for only 12 months at the new and very much improved scale of allowances. These are still early days to make changes. We must see how we get along.
  Moreover, I would ask hon. Gentlemen not to forget that education allowances are not the only means by which we try to ensure that the children of Service parents get a square deal. There is also the Service Children's Educational Scheme, through which education is provided at schools run by the Services overseas. Many Service parents, particularly airmen, prefer to take advantage of this scheme which enables them to have their children with them when serving overseas. If hon. Gentlemen would like to look at another vote—I do not want to get out of order—they will see that nearly £700,000 is in the Estimates for this kind of expenditure next year.
  Mr. de Freitas: Which one?
  Mr. Taylor: Vote 9C, but I do not want to get out of order. I certainly believe that the two schemes, together with the educational scheme we have in the United Kingdom, go a very long way to ensure that no one need be deterred from taking up a Service career because the education of his children may suffer thereby.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely asked me several questions about the hospital service. One question in particular related to the financial aspect. He asked whether there was any drawback to Air Ministry Funds
  676
  from revenues derived from treating civilians in our hospitals. The answer is that there is no drawback. If there had been a drawback, on a point of order I should have been bound to say that I was not allowed to refer to it, being appropriation in aid. We take the view that the service which we give to the civilian and the general experience that it gives our own medical officers of life and conditions other than those immediately associated with the Service, are more than worthwhile. The sum involved is not a tremendous one and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree with me that the general help which we give to the public through our medical service will benefit both the public and us.
  I was very interested to hear what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the rocket bases, particularly about the rocket base in his own constituency, which I visited last Tuesday. If all the rocket bases are as cold as the one I saw last Tuesday and if all constituencies are as cold as the Isle of Ely, we have reason to be sorry for the chaps who have to sit there day and night looking after these installations.
  My hon. and gallant Friend was right when he said that morale was extremely high. He was also right in saying that he felt that the proportion of N.C.O.s to other ranks was very high indeed. I visited the sergeants' mess, and I have never seen as many sergeants in one place in the whole course of my life. There is a reason for this. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that the policy with regard to Thor bases was decided upon very quickly and within a matter of two years we have constructed the bases. That was no mean task for the Air Ministry Works Directorate. We have installed the weapon. We have had to go round the Service and collect the expert men with the skills necessary for this important work. It will take a little time for us to get the balance restored and train other men to do the job. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will bear with us in that rather important task, to which we are now giving attention.
  Those are all the points raised on Vote 1. I will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield on the next Vote.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £113,110,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

  Vote 2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £1,069,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 161,100, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 3,400 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. 1961.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I wish to refer to Vote 2F, which deals with the pay of members of the Royal Observer Corps. In the course of our debate on Vote A, I deployed a number of arguments in connection with the Royal Observer Corps. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did not have time to reply to my points at that time. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), I do not complain. The Under-Secretary made a long speech on that occasion. Saturation point is sometimes reached with hon. Members listening to Minister's speeches.
  The Royal Observer Corps is, after all, the one branch of the Service which deals with the future. Its duty is to check radioactive fall-out and to identify aircraft or missiles. If one single branch of the Air Force is looking towards the future and should have the greatest attention from the R.A.F. itself, it is the Royal Observer Corps. I do not propose to detain the Committee today in deploying these arguments again, but I hope that my hon. Friend will have them in his mind once I have sat down and will be able to answer them.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I wish to stress the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) about the question of our reserve and auxiliary forces. I think that some short statement is due to us about just what exactly the Government's intentions are in relation to these services and to their training. I was astounded, for instance, to see under Subhead A
  678
  "Pay, allowances and National Insurance during training"
  the amount being spent, because this is a matter which is vital indeed to any reserve forces of the Royal Air Force. That Reserve includes a very considerable number of people, and when we appreciate that only £16,000 is to be spent in respect of the training of all these people we can see that pretty small training is anticipated this year. This is quite an important matter, and if the Ministry have anything in mind for the future in relation to this Reserve we should be told of it right away.
  The other point is the important one about cadet forces. There is no doubt that as we move into a full-time all-Regular Air Force the Cadet Force is going to become more important. I know the enthusiasms with which people attach themselves to these forces and the work which they do. I do not think that there is any better unit in Scotland than the one in Kilmarnock, although the men concerned occasionally have some grouses.
  Can the Minister indicate what the future policy will be in relation to this matter? We see that there is to be an increase of £35,000 in the coming year, but if the Minister could expound a little about what the Government's ideas are we should be very glad.
  About the Royal Observer Corps, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said that this Corps was the only part of the Royal Air Force that was looking to the future. I am not quite so happy about it as is the hon. Gentleman in that respect. I think that the Corps has a past rather than a future, and I doubt whether the duties laid upon it now bear any great relevance to the major tasks of the Royal Air Force.
  We have this build-up. There are 82 or 83 full-time officers. They are pretty well paid officers and cost about £96,000 a year, but the major part of their work of administration and lecturing is done by enthusiastic people on spare-time duties. What do they do? They identify and spot planes. We actually find that stated on page 37 of the Air Estimates. They
  "are trained in the identification and reporting of aircraft."
  I thought that we had got a little beyond that.
  Mr. Page: Will the hon. Gentleman read on a little?
  Mr. Ross: I am coming to that. I continue the quotation:
  "and in the measuring and reporting of radioactive 'fall-out'."
  With due respect, I do not think that this is the task of the Royal Air Force but rather of some branch of the Home Office. It is really Civil Defence, and to that extent I question the relevance of this to the Air Ministry and to this Vote.
  5.25 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: When we were discussing Vote A, I made some mention of the impact which the siting of rocket bases might have on Civil Defence. I realise that there might be difficulty over this. I am in touch with the Home Office on the whole question of Civil Defence policy, which seems to me to be getting out of gear. One thing that occurs to me is that there really must be a special rôle for members of the Royal Observer Corps in relation to Civil Defence in areas where rocket bases are sited and which might not be the same rôle in areas where rocket bases are not sited.
  When we were discussing Vote A, I asked my hon. Friend if he would give us some assurances that in areas where rocket bases are sited, special consideration would be given to the Royal Air Force personnel co-operating, where required, with the Civil Defence authorities. It may well be that the Royal Observer Corps personnel are the people who would do the most co-operating. If the Minister would bear that in mind, even if he cannot answer the question this afternoon, because I realise that it is a confidential matter, I should be much obliged.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. W. J. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) for not pressing me for an answer to his last question this afternoon. I will convey what he has said to my right hon. Friend and we will see if we can give him any information by letter or otherwise.
  Now may I return to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) with
  680
  regard to the reserves, that is, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, and University Air Squadrons and so on. I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to mention the volunteer effort in our various reserve forces. Nowadays, our requirements for reserves are small in comparison with earlier years, but the tasks for which we need them are still vital.
  The Royal Auxiliary Air Force continues to back our main radar stations with its Fighter Control Units, which are in a high state of manning and efficiency. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force now has the additional task of supporting the Royal Air Force element of the joint Maritime Headquarters in the United Kingdom, which would control the sea-air battle. Three Maritime Headquarters Units have been formed in the past year and recruiting is now going ahead well.
  The Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve provides us with three important classes of reservists. First, there are the volunteers for specific war tasks in support of the Regular Air Force, who are, in the main, members of reserve flights at particular stations. Secondly, there are the seventeen university air squadrons through which pass many of our university entrants to regular permanent commissions and which provide a valuable link between the Services and the universities. Thirdly, there is the Training Branch of the Volunteer Reserve which provides the officers of the Air Training Corps. I will say a little more about that Corps in a moment.
  In these classes there are numbers of men and women who devote their time, skill and experience in the evenings and at weekends and, in addition, part of their summer holidays to voluntary service in these essential branches of the Service, and I should like to express our deep gratitude for their efforts.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was surprised that so little provision was made in the Estimates for pay and allowances during training. I would say in reply that our policy is to call up reserves for training only when it is essential to do so. Our requirements for reservists nowadays are comparatively small, and we rely as much as we can on men who have recently left full-time

  681
  service and who do not need to be called up for training.
  On this subject, the hon. Member may have noted the reduction under subhead A of Vote 2. This sub-head provides for the pay and allowances of various members of the Royal Air Force Reserve other than the Volunteer Reserve and its training branch and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force which are dealt with under other sub-heads.
  The decrease in the provision from £400,000 in 1959–60 to £254,000 in 1960–61 is almost wholly accounted for under item 3, which refers to the reserve pay of airmen. The maximum number of airmen to be maintained, as set out on page 28 of the Estimates, is 145,000 as against 171,000 in 1959–60. But those who are paid reserve pay are much fewer and are limited to those ex-regular airmen on our mobilisation lists. Thus the reduction of this subhead reflects the reduction in our war manpower requirements. National Service reservists who would be required on mobilsation are paid not reserve pay but ordinary pay and allowances if called up for training.
  I have to say a few words about the Air Training Corps and particularly about personnel expenses, to which we have been giving some attention recently. I said in the debate last week what I feel about the tremendous value of the work of the Air Training Corps. I think that hon. Members will know that I have had a very long and very deep interest in the progress of the Air Training Corps, and I am glad to say that it is doing extremely well. It produces regular entrants to the Royal Air Force, and I mentioned the figures in the debate the other day. I can assure hon. Members that the detailed story of the progress of the Air Training Corps reflects the greatest credit upon all concerned, including, of course, the officers of Flying Training Command who look after it.
  On the point about expenses for officers who are in the Training Branch of the Volunteer Reserve; I assure hon. Members that we are anxious to ensure that no one is out of pocket because of his service to the A.T.C. A detailed review of this question is now nearly finished, and I will shortly be considering it with care. Quite apart from this question of expenses, however, which I
  682
  trust will be satisfactorily settled, I repeat that the work which these volunteer officers do in this Corps is of tremendous value to the Service. In fact, the Royal Air Force would find itself in very grave difficulties if this source of pre-entry training were suddenly to be denied us.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for not being able to reply to him last Thursday on the subject of the Royal Observer Corps. I am now glad to have an opportunity to underline the importance which I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary attach to the Royal Observer Corps. I would not like him to think that the R.O.C. is in any sense the Cinderella of the Royal Air Force.
  The Corps has two rôles to perform— fall-out reporting and its traditional rôle of aircraft reporting. Those rôles are both important, though the importance of aircraft reporting varies considerably with particular areas. My hon. Friend suggested that, owing to shortages of equipment, the exercises carried out by posts of the Royal Observer Corps might be a little unrealistic today. That may not have been what he has just said, but I have taken the point from one of his recent letters to me on the subject.
  The posts themselves have a considerable amount of material in the way of silhouettes and recognition manuals for purposes of aircraft identification, and flash trainers and films are held by Groups in the Corps, but are used for the training of observers at posts. Similarly, for the fall-out reporting task, the Groups hold such items as radioactive sources, radiac calculators and radiac slide rules. These are made available by the Groups for training observers at posts. I agree that at present the posts have to carry out fallout exercises by using a series of pictures showing the dial of the radiac instrument, but we are putting into production a Fixed Survey Meter Trainer a mechanical instrument which simulates radiation intensities. It is planned to equip every Royal Observer Corps post with this instrument as it becomes available.
  My hon. Friend also suggested that the construction of posts was not going as well as it should be. There are more

  683
  than 1,500 posts to be dealt with, partly by adapting existing posts and partly by providing new posts. That means quite a considerable problem, not only in acquiring sites—because the whole disposition of the sites has to be considered in relation to modern strategic requirements—but also in construction.
  So far, more than one-third of the posts have been completed and handed over to the Corps. In the Group of which Merseyside forms part, 27 out of 45 posts have been completed and handed over. On Merseyside itself, two out of four posts have been completed and handed over and land has been acquired for a third, so that construction can now take place, and negotiations are still going on over the acquisition of land for the fourth post.
  Finally, I am glad to be able to say that there has been a net increase in the strength of the Royal Observer Corps in the past year and I have every hope that that increase will be maintained and even intensified. This is a public service of major importance and I am sure that the Corps recognises, as do both the Royal Air Force and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the high value of the work which it is trained to do in both its rôles.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £1,069,900, be granted to Her Majesy, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 161,100, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 3,400 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, 1961.

  Vote 7. Aircraft and Stores
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £238,000,000, 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, 1961.
  5.38 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: While we were discussing Vote A, I raised the question of the wording of the information, which we are afforded on page 101 of the Estimates, in connection with this Vote. With his customary courtesy, yesterday my hon. Friend sent me a note to say
  684
  that if I was prepared to raise the matter again he would do his best to answer the question which at that time he found himself unable to answer, or without time to answer.
  To refresh the memory of hon. Members, I will restate the question. In the third paragraph, there is a reference to payments made under the bulk settlement arrangement. We have been presented with the most tortuous piece of English which I have ever seen in an Estimate. I am encouraged to take some exception to it by the fact that when I raised the matter, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air fully agreed that it was far from being as clear as it ought to be before we passed a Vote as large as this.
  I suggested that there might be some element of voting on account involved. I do not necessarily take any exception to that, because in many ways many of us would be only too glad if in dealing with Service Estimates during the year we were able to vote on account at the beginning of the year, so that later in the year we could have a review to see how things were going, thus having a double opportunity to exercise Parliamentary control over finances.
  However, this paragraph takes some reading. I have read it four times and I have attempted to calculate what it means by using algebraic expressions and so forth. One finishes up with a quadratic equation to which there is no solution. If my hon. Friend can help with it, I shall be very grateful, because it appears that we shall not know what we have voted this year until next year, and we shall not know what we voted for last year until the end of this year. I think that that is more or less what it means. If that is what it means, perhaps we can have some indication of the total amounts involved.
  I must congratulate my hon. Friend on the skill with which his Department prepares these various subheads, because one cannot find out the cost of one aircraft, complete with engine and necessary equipment.
  There is no doubt a very good reason for putting this in such a way that no one can possibly calculate how many aircraft this expenditure produces. It may be a very good thing that nobody outside this country should know that, but I

  685
  have always been a little uncertain as to whether this is right. For instance, it has always seemed to me to be the absolute absurdity that all our allies know how several of the most important weapons invented during the last year were made—and sometimes those weapons cost many millions of pounds— and that the only people who have never been told are the people who have had to pay for them, the British taxpayers.
  I am afraid that some of the people who know how some of these inventions were discovered, and their full content, are no longer such reliable allies as they were at times during the last war. Therefore, we do not want too readily to deprive our own people of knowledge of a weapon of which potential enemies may know already.
  I have some sense of security, but as I mentioned in last year's debates on the Estimates, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation on one occasion took a chance on a question of official secrets. I do not think that he did our defences any harm by doing so. All of us, when we occasionally come across some piece of information about aircraft or about rocket bases and the like, are always in a little difficulty as to how far we should go in using that knowledge, with whom we should or should not discuss it, and whether we should air it in the House.
  In general, however, moving about the country as ordinary citizens and not deliberately afforded special privileges, if we can see something for ourselves that interests us, it should be with the greatest reluctance that we hesitate to raise the matter in the House if we think that it is something about which the country as a whole should be informed.
  The country deserves a great deal more information than it has about aircraft for the Royal Air Force. This all really harks back to the Defence White Paper of 1957, when the decision was supposed to have been taken that we were not to make any more manned bombers after the V-bombers. But there was a beautiful safeguard which I do not think the Government this year have taken nearly as much advantage of as they might—a wonderful escape clause saying that research and development would continue.
  That is covered by another Vote altogether. It is mentioned on page 101, where we are told that:
  686
  "Expenditure in connection with research and development is borne by the Vote of the Ministry of Aviation (Civil Estimates. Class VI, Vote 9) and by Army Votes."
  It would, therefore, be out of order for me to discuss here and now the amount involved.
  Be that as it may, I think we are entitled today to ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that the Royal Air Force itself can possibly plan ahead as it should be able to plan, or whether his own Department can plan ahead as it should be able to plan—and particularly its scientific section—unless the Air Ministry has certain rights in connection with the Vote of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation in connection with research and development— rights which, in the ordinary run of events, one would say should reside in the hands of the men finding the money.
  My own feeling is that if we are to make any sense at all of the Air Ministry's aircraft programme, with which this Vote is concerned, we must ensure that the Royal Air Force, and the scientific advisers to the Secretary of State for Air, have proper access to information, and proper power to decide policy. It is all very well having a Minister of Aviation, but what concerns me is the fact that the main power of launching the deterrent resides in the Royal Air Force and, presumably, the Royal Air Force, in deciding how it will launch this deterrent, can at present use only a manned aircraft or a rocket.
  If we are to have the deterrent at all —and I think that we are absolutely right to have it; heaven knows what Mr. Khrushchev would be saying today if we had not had it over the years, so I do not question that decision at all —it is absolutely essential that we are satisfied, so far as Parliament can demand satisfaction, that the means of conveying it are the best available.
  My own belief in 1957 was that we unduly emphasised dependence on rockets, and that we should have to come back to aircraft in the end. I take it that this Vote, in so far as it affects the deterrent, is concerned solely with V-bombers—with any other aircraft coming under this large expenditure of £238 million, which is the total Vote.
  The Vote includes a great many other things besides airframes and aeroengines, but they have been the two

  687
  principal elements, expenditure on armaments, aero-engines, and airframes alone being £72 million, £54 million, and very nearly £73 million, respectively. I presume that the majority of the bombers are V-bombers, and that the fighter aircraft—which, presumably, would not be directly concerned with the deterrent— are Gloster Javelins and aircraft like that.
  I am quite sure that the V-bomber will soon be out of date. Many people say that it is out of date already. At the moment, they are some of the finest aircraft flying. Incidentally, after our debate on Vote A some days ago, when I spoke of having seen a Vulcan do a vertical roll, I was corrected by my young son aged 12 who assured me that it was a Victor.
  All three types of V-bombers are magnificent examples of British engineering. No one complains of the hard work that has gone into designing and making them, nor of the skill with which they are flown, but when one looks at the lumbering big Vulcan one feels that there must be an awful lot of the aircraft that is not used for lifting the machine at all but is actually retarding its flight —certainly when at full altitude—and that that proportion is there only to get the machine off the ground.
  We have to overcome the great problem of designing an aircraft that can get off the ground without needing a runway ten miles long, and that can fly at the speed required if it is to make sense in the grand strategy of the use of the deterrent. I do not want to go over all that I said the other day, but I am sure that we have to consider our bomber force— which, I am quite convinced, will come back in the end—as the main means of launching the deterrent.
  We have to think in the traditional terms of exterior lines of communication. We have to bring the whole Commonwealth into this, and be prepared, if necessary, to have one-way trips; starting in one part of the Commonwealth and finishing in another, and being able to launch the "cookie" on the way. I am sure that that is the future for this, and that we must have aircraft able to do that. As I have said, we are voting the vast sum of £238 million in one year for aircraft, and the various equipment going
  688
  into aircraft. That is a great deal. I am quite certain that there is nothing much better in the world at the moment than the aircraft which we have available, but I am equally certain that others will come along, and we must keep right in the forefront of development.
  However much we rely as a country on the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, I hope very much that the Air Ministry will put its foot down absolutely firmly and say that it must have a proper voice in the decisions which he takes. These decisions must be taken in the light of our strategy being based on the exterior lines of communication. The safety of this country, the safety of Western Europe and world peace depend upon whether or not we take the right decisions in this matter. I should hate to feel that the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Aviation were both sitting on top of the Secretary of State for Air, with the result that the professional Royal Air Force men, the really highly qualified men, did not have proper attention paid to their views.
  The more I see of this problem, the more convinced I am that the man who eventually will have to be responsible for commanding other men who will be flying these aircraft is the man whose opinion must be considered very closely indeed before any big decisions are taken. I do not mean to be in any way disrespectful, but it sometimes makes me shudder to think of comparatively uninformed Ministers taking political decisions, on the advice of scientists, let us say, in certain departments only and, perhaps, ignoring the opinion of those upon whose shoulders will ultimately rest the consequences of whether those decisions prove right or wrong. The people who will use these aircraft and the equipment given to them must not be ignored. After all, they are the first people to get the blame for having mishandled the matter or something like that, when, in fact, the decision was made some years before.
  This is why I am standing up for the Air Ministry. I am standing up for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for my hon. Friend his Under-Secretary of State, for those in the Royal Air Force who are most qualified to speak on aeronautics in the future and all that will be entailed, and for the scientists in the Air Ministry. I hope that we shall not

  689
  have complete domination by either the Minister of Defence or the Minister of Aviation in these matters. It must be a team operation, in which everybody will play his part. I hope that the professional man who will, in the end, have to fly these machines and use the equipment will be the one to have the biggest say of all.
  That is, perhaps, as far as one can go without stepping beyond the bounds of order on the subject of research and development, Sir William, and I thank you very much for your tolerance and I thank the Committee for allowing me to go as far as I have.
  The more I learn of these matters, the more am I convinced that there is no country in the world today with more latent talent, more amassed knowledge, more technical ability and, ultimately, higher qualifications to use the results of those qualities than this country possesses. To my mind, it would be utterly deplorable if we handed over the manufacture of aircraft in the future to the Americans or to any others of our allies. We must keep in this business. It may be expensive, but, if it means that Britain will be more influential in maintaining world peace, then I say that it is well worth every penny.
  5.54 p.m.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Taking first Item L, "Meteorological equipment", I do not wish to be critical. I very much welcome the expenditure on this equipment. Many of us have in years past been highly critical of the Meteorological Department when it has sometimes been wrong in its forecasts, but, speaking for myself, I have noticed during the last year or two that the service has improved and its work has been of great value to the country as a whole, particularly to the fishing and agricultural industries. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us a little more than the Secretary of State did about long-term forecasting.
  Item J, "Clothing", shows an increase of about £500,000. We heard the other day that the Army is to have improved uniforms, and I should like to know what my hon. Friend has to say about Royal Air Force uniforms. During the past forty years, the R.A.F. uniform has changed many times. These changes have been costly, but I still feel that if the Royal Air Force is to compete with
  690
  the other Services for recruits it must have a comfortable uniform made of good material. I understand that barathea is to be used in the Army uniform. Is the Royal Air Force likely to follow suit?
  We have been told by the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State that there is a probability—they put it no higher—that the Royal Air Force may order some Vickers VC10 transport aircraft. I said recently that it seemed to me quite wrong that the Air Ministry had only just woken up to the fact that it may require VC10 aircraft and may now find itself in the queue some two years after B.O.A.C. had ordered them.
  It has been well recognised in the House that if we are to have a worthwhile civil aviation industry it must work hand in glove with the Service Departments in ordering military aircraft in order to avoid situations like that involving the Britannias which went into commercial use and, quite understandably, had considerable teething troubles. The Royal Air Force took them afterwards. It should be the other way round. But now we are told that the Royal Air Force is contemplating ordering a civil aviation aircraft which was ordered nearly two years ago by B.O.A.C.
  I want my hon. Friend to tell us what the operational requirements Department of the Air Ministry has been doing during the past two years. Some of those 240 senior officers are paid to sit at their desks and think of what the Service may want not in two years but in five or eight years, as was done in 1932 with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Moreover, it is not just a matter of equipment for the Royal Air Force. It affects our whole economy, our export trade and the reputation of our aircraft industry. I hope that my hon. Friend will look into the matter. It is not something parochial for the Air Ministry; it goes much wider. After all, it is taxpayers' money, and the reputation of our craftsmanship in the manufacture of aircraft is at stake.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I am glad that others have found the technical explanation of this Vote a little tough and incomprehensible. I can remember referring to this matter about three years ago, and I am more mystified than ever. The fact is that this

  691
  is not estimating at all; it is crystal-gazing. This is not an estimate. It is a forecast of an estimate which is not yet made. It must be made about ten months ahead and yet, when we come down to it, we shall be told by the Under-Secretary of State that it does not really matter any way because it is just something between one Department and another.
  In my view, this Vote is probably the most important Vote in the whole Estimates, and I regret very much indeed that we have to deal with it under such restrictions of time that we cannot do justice to its importance, quite apart from the fact that it totals £238 million.
  Major Legge-Bourke Major Legge-Bourke rose—
  Mr. Ross: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had his share, and we have not very much time.
  Not only is it financially important. The effectiveness of the Royal Air Force, the efficiency and capability of its officers and men, its versatility in relation to its tasks, its mobility, and all the rest, are dependent entirely on this Vote and the quality of the equipment coming forward.
  There is no doubt that we could ask many questions, and, doubtless, we should receive very few answers, for fairly obvious reasons.
  On Subhead C, "Armament, Ammunition and Explosives", we find that it amounts to £72 million. If we could have a better break-up of the figures in the subhead, we could get a better idea of the balance of the Royal Air Force in respect of its manned tasks and the push-button tasks that are now part and parcel of the R.A.F. Anyone who has watched this Vote over the past four or five years has seen the change in balance, and it is about time that we had a look at it from the point of view of giving us an opportunity, not of understanding the details but of understanding exactly what is happening in broad outline on this Vote for aircraft and stores.
  We should all like to know exactly what guided missiles we are paying for here and what we are going to get. I can remember that in the Memorandum last year paragraphs 18 and 20 mentioned two new guided weapon systems. In paragraph 18, there was reference to
  692
  a new one to replace Firestreak, and in paragraph 20 reference to one to replace Bloodhound. Is there any penny in this Vote related to the delivery of these new systems? We have to appreciate that there is no mention in this year's Memorandum of those things of which we were told last year. It may be my suspicious Scottish mind, but we tend, first of all, to hear about guided weapon systems from between the optimistic blue covers of the Service Memoranda, and the next we hear about them is from between the more complaining covers of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in reference to money that has been wasted.
  In regard to these things, on which it is right that we can safely ask questions and hope to get answers, I was interested in the Explanatory Note to Subhead D, which mentions electronic simulators. I know what a flight simulator is, and I can make a reasonable guess what an electronic simulator is, but I would be grateful if the Undersecretary could give us in a few words some enlightenment in regard to it and tell us what is the effect of it. In regard to flight simulators, the position is quite fantastic. In these places, in which one actually flies without leaving the ground, all the conditions that might well be met in flight can be simulated. I think the efficiency of the Royal Air Force is very much dependent on these expensive pieces of equipment, and, no matter how expensive they are, they are a tremendous saving in life and aircraft.
  In Subhead H (1), we have an increase of about £1½ million—an increase of about 50 per cent.—in accommodation stores, which relates to domestic equipment, hospitals, gymnasia, recreation rooms, barracks and so on. If this means any better provision of this kind in Air Force establishments, I am sure that we very much welcome it, but we cannot let an increase in the Estimates of about 50 per cent. and amounting to over £1 million go by without getting some definite explanation about it, particularly when, in the next item of the subhead we have a reduction of £20,000 for educational equipment. At a time when, I should have thought, we might quite well have been spending a little more on education in the R.A.F. we have a reduction in laboratory equipment, lecture room apparatus,

  693
  equipment and general stores in respect of schools abroad, and this at a time when it appears that there are more children abroad. If there are more children abroad to be educated, why have we this reduction in the provision for education?
  I should have said something about meteorological equipment, but the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has mentioned it, and we should be grateful that it is there. If as a result we can be provided with more accurate forecasts, and these in turn provide us with better weather, we shall be all the more grateful for it.
  Mr. W. J. Taylor: May I first reply to the very informative and splendid speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). He raised many questions which, I must confess at the start, I cannot answer completely. I will answer one or two, and I hope that if he thinks that there is anything that I can do by letter or by conversation with him afterwards, or perhaps by a meeting with my right hon. Friend, he will take advantage of that offer so that we can pursue the matter in that way.
  With regard to his confusion or self-confessed inability to understand the third paragraph on page 101, he is not by himself. I do not understand it either, and I have taken some advice as to how I might explain in a few words what it is all about. My hon. and gallant Friend said that the wording was not clear. I fear that it is not easy to describe in a few simple words what is unavoidably a complex arrangement, but if my hon. and gallant Friend looks at the Army and Navy Estimates he will find the same form of wording there. I will give him this undertaking. I will consult with all the Departments concerned to see whether we can draft a simpler and more readily understandable explanation for next year.
  With regard to the bulk settlement arrangement which is mentioned in this paragraph, this does not amount to an arrangement for carrying forward unspent money from one year to another. The bulk settlement arrangement was worked out in the years after the war when Departments resumed the practice of paying the Ministry of Supply for the stores they received. These arrangements were
  694
  framed to prevent a lot of detailed checking and adjustment between Departments, and the Public Accounts Committee, which went into them very carefully at the time, accepted them. In practice, the Departments agree early in January the best estimates they can make of the value of deliveries during the whole financial year and settle on that basis. When the value of the actual deliveries is known later in the following year, any necessary adjustment is made. The Treasury gives approval to the figures and there is no question of the arrangement being a device to carry forward money from one year to another. I do not know whether that brief explanation will enable my hon. and gallant Friend to get a clearer picture of this matter, but it is the best I can do in this brief reply.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and will take advantage of the very kind offer which he made at the beginning of his speech. On this matter, what I should be interested to know is what happens if it is discovered in the subsequent year that there was a considerable balance left unspent. Does that balance become available to be employed on other things during the year in which it appears as a balance, or has it to be paid back to the Treasury?
  Mr. Taylor: I am not a financial expert, but I will hazard a guess that such a balance may be placed to the credit of appropriations in aid. No, I should not think that it could be spent for any other purpose than that for which it was originally voted.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) raised the question of meteorology. I cannot add anything to what was said by my right hon. Friend and myself in the debate last Thursday. I refer him to my remarks in col. 1564 of HANSARD of that day. I am sorry that I have nothing else to give him today about that.
  He also raised the question of uniforms for the Royal Air Force and asked me if I could say anything about them. He asked whether it was intended to introduce what, in effect, would be a programme of dress improvements. For the last two or three years we have been introducing better clothing for the R.A.F. and the W.R.A.F., notably

  695
  worsted material uniforms. In 1960–61, we shall be introducing these improvements at a cost of about £300,000. We are at present considering a new range of dress improvements for officers and airmen, which includes better tropical service and working dress. Trials are beginning next year.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to Subhead C of Vote 7, "Armament, ammunition and explosives", and asked me whether I could give any information on it. My right hon. Friend noted in his speech introducing these Estimates that the largest increase on Vote 7 compared with last year was under this subhead. He explained that the increase fell particularly on guided weapons. This, perhaps, is not surprising because hon. Members will know that some important guided weapons, notably Firestreak and Bloodhound, have been successfully developed and are now in full production for the Royal Air Force. They have to be paid for by these Votes.
  As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock reminded us, it is true that the ratio of expenditure under this subhead has increased in recent years compared with expenditure under the subheads dealing with airframes and engines. This is a logical development, with the increasing importance of the guided weapons field generally, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that this does not mean that there is any weakening of our plans in the aircraft sphere for increasing mobility.
  The hon. Member also referred to the question of accommodation stores. The increase here is largely due to the need for more furniture for married quarters and hirings. As my right hon. Friend said in his speech last Thursday, we are greatly expanding our married quarters building programme; and all these quarters have to be furnished. Perhaps I may say in passing that when I was in Aden one of the most consistent complaints made to me was that there was not enough R.A.F. furniture available. I undertook to look into the matter as one of urgency when I returned. I am glad that the Estimates bear out what I felt should be done. In addition, we have included £500,000 for further improvements in certain scales of furnishing. New and better scales have
  696
  recently been approved for airmen's sitting rooms, air-crew meal centres and boy entrants' study rooms.
  The hon. Member also made the point that there is less expenditure under Item 2 of Subhead H, "Educational equipment and materials". It is true that we are expecting a reduction in expenditure on educational equipment and materials under Item 2 of Subhead H, but this does not mean that we are neglecting our responsibility for educating our apprentices and boy entrants, or, indeed, our schemes for general education throughout the Service or for our Service children. We take these matters very seriously. It so happens, however, that the provision during the last two years has been particularly high for new equipment and apparatus for the R.A.F. Technical College at Henlow. We are not having to provide so much on this account in the coming year.
  Hon. Members will see from Appendix V on page 183 that we are also providing £45,000 for furniture and general stores for education. This amount has increased over the past two years by nearly £13,000.
  Mr. Stanley McMaster: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, I wonder whether he will answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) regarding the ordering of the Vickers VC10. Very great difficulty is often experienced by companies which are developing and planning new planes through delay in changes and modifications in design. If my hon. Friend could give an assurance that contracts will be expedited and that regard will be paid to the difficulties of the manufacturing companies, I should be most grateful.
  Mr. Taylor: I should very much have liked to be in a position to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), but this is a matter on which I do not feel I can make any comment without notice, much though I regret it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £238,000,000, 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, 1961.

  Vote 8. Works and Lands
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £37,770,000, 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, 1961.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: Having regard to our agreement, we have very little time left.
  Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member has said that for the second time. Between whom was this agreement made and what right have the Front Benches to make any agreement depriving back bench Members of the right to question Votes on Supply?
  Mr. Ross: I do not think that it is anything more than a gentleman's agreement about dividing the time available among the three Services. The hon. and gallant Member is interested in the Army, and if only half an hour were left to discuss the Army Estimates, I think that he would be the first to complain, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to carry on like that, it is entirely up to him.
  First, I should like to deal with Subhead A, "New works, additions and alterations amounting to £10,000 each and upwards", both at home and abroad. Here we are hampered by the form of the Estimates, because we are given a total Estimate of new works to be started and an Estimate of what is to be spent in the next year. We are also given what is to be voted towards work started in previous years. However, unless we know what is outstanding from that work started in previous years, we have no idea whether the Estimate is adequate. I think that we can well invite the Under-Secretary to try in future so to arrange the Estimates that he will be able to give a proper picture. Estimates that have been made in previous years have a way of inflating themselves, and it becomes quite meaningless to state that we shall spend £1,200,000 on married quarters at home if we do not have an indication of how much work is outstanding. We cannot decide whether the Estimate is adequate.
  We have accepted with considerable tolerance during discussions this year and in the past Estimates about work being done or said to be done with
  698
  regard to married quarters. I was considerably upset when I read the Supplementary Estimate and found that what we proposed to spend has not been spent and that there has been a scaling down of effort in relation to building married quarters at home and abroad. I sincerely hope that we shall have a much better picture next year when we are told what has been achieved with regard to married quarters.
  One thing that struck me about married quarters to be built abroad was this. It is proposed that we should spend over £3 million, but this year we are to spend only one-tenth of that— £365,000. This figure of over £3 million is for the construction of 600 married quarters. That means that married quarters will cost £5,300 each. This is a quite large sum. When we weigh it up in these terms it means that what we are providing is cash enough for 70 new married quarters and for less than 100 that were started in previous years. We thus begin to get into proportion exactly what we are achieving.
  Can the Under-Secretary estimate what will be the waiting list for married quarters in Aden at the end of 1961? During the debate, somebody spoke of temporary difficulties. The trouble is that they are far from temporary for the people who are serving there for two years.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I am sure that the hon. Member wants to be fair. He should recognise that many of the married quarters are built in outlandish places, a fact which puts up the cost considerably. In addition, the houses are graded according to the rank of the N.C.O. or officer, and the shortage of materials as a result of the successful Government programme for industry and housing means that the Services have to take their turn.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Member will appreciate that we are not dealing with questions at home, but are talking about matters abroad. I could have given some of the answers myself, but these are the kind of things which people reading the Estimates pick out and we are entitled to an explanation from the Minister. That is the purpose of an Estimates debate.
  Mr. W. J. Taylor: Concerning the building programme for married quarters

  699
  in Aden, I hope that by the end of 1961 the programme as at present laid down will be completed.
  Mr. Ross: That does not answer my question about the waiting list.
  Mr. Taylor: It means that I hope there will be no waiting list either.
  Mr. Ross: I hope so, too, but we will see when the time comes.
  Concerning the schools abroad, can the Parliamentary Secretary say something about the school at Khormaksar and about technical storage facilities? Additional cold storage facilities were certainly required in Aden also. Is this covered in the Estimate? Will something be done?
  Equally, concerning Item (d), "Work shops and technical buildings", for certain signals and technical facilities, there has been an urgent need and the Air Ministry has been pressed for a long time concerning technical and storage buildings in Aden. We have valuable electronic equipment out there which deteriorates unless it is under the right sort of cover. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give us some information that, at least, there were hopes of making a start on the kind of buildings that are required for this purpose.
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. W. J. Taylor: Concerning storage and technical facilities in Aden, I am glad to be able to say that not only has a start been made towards overcoming the problem, but that work is going on very well. I have seen the situation for myself. The hon. Member for Kil-marnock (Mr. Ross) is quite right in saying that the lack of accommodation and storage facilities for extremely complicated and expensive equipment is a serious problem in Aden. We are, however, taking active and rapid steps to put this matter right.
  Work is well under way on the building of the new primary school at Khormaksar and also on a secondary
  700
  school. The primary school, for 680 children, is expected to be completed and in use very shortly. The secondary school, for 270 children, should be ready by the end of this year. These buildings were being roofed when I was there and they should now be completed quickly. Work on them was started in the middle of last year. It may be of interest to the hon. Member to know that this year we plan to start work also on a new school at Bahrein.
  The hon. Member also mentioned that we had not started to build schools in previous years. It is difficult to estimate what the requirements will be when there are so many changes in strategic policy which involve numbers of men moving about from one place to another and altering the general scheme of things. We do what we can to anticipate these requirements, however, and I assure the hon. Member that the question of progress in education abroad is very much in our minds.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £37,770,000, 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, 1961.

  VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £3,700,000, 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. 1961.

  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, 1961.

  Air Supplementary Estimate, 1959–60
  Motion made, and Question proposed,

  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Maj-esty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year

  Schedule

  —

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations

  £

  £

  Vote

  1.

  Pay, &c, of the Air Force

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1,100,000

  180,000

  2.

  Reserve and Auxiliary Services

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Cr.

  100,000

  —

  3.

  Air Ministry

  …

  …

  …

  …

  420,000

  30,000

  4.

  Civilians at Outstations

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1,100,000

  510,000

  5.

  Movements

  …

  …

  …

  …

  2,740,000

  *-130,000

  6.

  Supplies

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Cr.

  3,910,000

  *-1,080,000

  7.

  Aircraft and Stores

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Cr.

  5,270,000

  *-1,650,000

  8.

  Works and Lands

  …

  …

  …

  …

  3,650,000

  *-550,000

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  …

  …

  …

  10

  *-520,000

  10.

  Non-Effective Services

  …

  …

  …

  …

  270,000

  —

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  …

  …

  …

  …

  —

  *-150,000

  Total, Air (Supplementary, 1959–60

  …

  … £

  10

  *-3,360,000

  * Deficit.

  Major Legge-Bourke: This Supplementary Estimate is the result partly of the payment of £100,000 to the Maldivian Government. I know that on the Service Estimates it is not in order to go into detail about the foreign policy which leads to these things—in fact, I was in the Chair last year when this very matter arose. We are, however, entitled to just a little explanation of the purpose for which the £100,000 was spent. It may seem chickenfeed compared with some of the ghastly sums
  702
  which we have been considering so far, but we are entitled to know what the £100,000 went on in the Maldivian negotiations.
  Mr. W. J. Taylor: If my hon. and gallant Friend turns not only to the Explanation on page 2 of the Supplementary Estimate, but also to the letters between the Maldivian Government and Her Majesty's Government, which were published in Cmnd. Paper 948, he will find all the information he requires.
  Question put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES

  Vote 1. Pay, &c, of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £69,997.000, 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, 1961.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: As a considerable part of our time today has been taken and we have, therefore, to curtail our remarks on these Estimates, I will drop some of the questions I intended to raise and confine myself to one or two remarks.
  My first point about this Vote concerns the new pay increases. Generally, the increases in pay announced in Cmd. 945 have been welcomed. There is no doubt that they provide a standard of living for those in the Services comparable to that of men with similar qualifications and tasks outside. But there are one or two things to which I should like to draw attention. The first is that there still seems to be a great differentiation between the higher-ranking artificers in the Navy and chief technicians and warrant officers in the Army.
  I have asked this question before. Is it not time that for the lower deck in the Navy there was a prospect of promotion to a rank similar to that of warrant officer in the Army or a master technician in the Royal Air Force? It means a big difference in pay. According to the pay code in Table IB a chief engine room artificer on the nine-year rate gets 322s. a week. A warrant officer gets 360s. and I assume that the master technician in the Air Force, with his incremental pay, will receive roughly the same. That seems rather a big difference. It is time that the Navy did something about it.
  I understand that at the same time as the increases in pay come into operation, the payment for the engine room watchkeeping certificate will be stopped. Therefore, in reality the artificers are not getting the increase that at first they would appear to be getting. There is a great deal of feeling about this. It is a very old payment made to engine room
  704
  artificers ever since the inception of the branch about three-quarters of a century ago. It was one of the few differentials that was maintained. Some of the others have been wiped out, such as the charge pay which has now become payable to other artificers. But this was one which was kept and, as far as I know, there was never much quarrel about it.
  When I was in the Service it was accepted and I understand that it has been accepted generally since then as a recognition of the fact that engine room artificers had to perform duties in circumstances very different from those in which other artificers performed their duties. They worked in very high temperatures, frequently in dirt of all kinds, and really in most unpleasant circumstances.
  I remember some of the things I had to do as an engine room artificer in the Navy in appalling conditions. When one had to stop a valve on a boiler one was practically "flaked out". The artificer often has to work in the bilge of a ship, rolling about in oil and water. He has also to do a great deal more watckeeping, for a number of reasons. Most of these duties have been accepted quite gladly but they do not apply so much to the other artificer branches.
  It seems to me that this 1s. a day might at least have been retained. I have said in many debates on Navy Estimates that for the past twenty years the Admiralty appears to have been engaged in a policy of taking from artificers, and especially the junior artificers, the privileges which they enjoyed. They have kicked them around for the last twenty years. This latest move seems to be the last straw. I do not know what the Admiralty will do further, but this is certainly not the way to get the men it wants or the way to keep them.
  I do not know whether it is too late to reconsider the matter, but I ask that it should be reconsidered and that if possible this intention should not be put into operation. If it has been put into operation, I can only express my great regret. This is a final kick in the teeth to a branch which has been considerably kicked about. I have no time to relate all the things that have been done to it. On previous occasions I have given a list of some of the things that have

  705
  happened to the branch in the last twenty years.
  I understand that one of the real reasons why this is done is that the Treasury does not like these odds and ends of payments that have existed in the Navy for a great number of years. The Treasury has been trying to bring pressure to bear on the Admiralty to eliminate them. They were not tidy enough and the Treasury did not like them. That may be true, but it means that many of the arguments used in the matter of a master rate are disappearing, if they have not already disappeared altogether.
  I remember having a long session with a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the subject of a master rate. His argument was, "They are very well off. Look at the odds and ends of payments they get by way of engine room tickets, charge pay, and the rest." If those things disappear, the Navy ought to be brought into line with the Army and the Royal Air Force and a rank should be instituted on the lower deck to which the chief artificer can aspire during his term of service.
  I have other questions which I should like to put to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. My first concerns hard-lying money which was abolished for ratings a long time ago.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C Ian Orr-Ewing)The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C Ian Orr-Ewing) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Willis: I thought that it was. It certainly does not appear in the Navy Estimates and I seem to recollect something happening about it some time ago. However, my memory is probably at fault. I intended to ask why it is retained for officers and my argument was that if they have it, the ratings should have it too. If it is paid at present it should appear among the allowances that are payable to ratings.
  The other question concerns educational allowances. There is a reduction in the allowances estimate this year of £5,000 in respect of officers. That seems perfectly reasonable in view of the fact that the Services are being run down, but I was amazed at the very large reduction in the Vote in respect of seamen and marines. There is a fall from £45,000 to £25,000, or roughly half. Perhaps the Civil Lord can tell us something about that when he replies.
  6.38 p.m.
  Miss Joan Vickers: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Civil Lord a few questions about this Vote and particularly about the new nursing auxiliaries, a section which I understand has just been formed. I believe that it is the Admiralty's intention to do away with the Voluntary Aid Detachments which it has had previously and that only nine V.A.D.s are expected to be employed during the coming year.
  What will be the age limits of the new auxiliaries? What will be their pay? Have they any chances of promotion, or is this merely a dead-end job? Will they have a special uniform and is there a certificate for which they can work after two or three years, or a final certificate before they leave the Service? When the nine V.A.D.s have completed their service, I presume that it is the Admiralty's intention not to employ any more. Why are these nine being retained, and will they be given any gratuity when they leave? Some of them have given long service.
  I notice that we pay quite a lot for lodging allowances. From my own personal experience I think that some of the furnished accommodation hired by the Admiralty is very poor, and I am not certain that in many cases the Admiralty are not paying far more for it than it is worth. I have myself had occasion to go to a house where the top flat was rented by the Admiralty and the lower one by a private individual. I had to bring in the sanitary inspector to inspect the lower one. I could not interfere in respect of the top flat, but I realised that the whole house was not in a good state of repair.
  I should like to support what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said on the question of education. I understand that people are getting married younger and having larger families. This does not seem to me to be the right moment to cut the vote for education, particularly as I understand that a number of these married couples go overseas.
  Finally, like the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted to see that there is still an increase in the number of members of the W.R.N.S. We did not have much opportunity in a previous debate of mentioning their services. I think that they

  707
  are giving increasingly valuable services. In view of the fact that some discouraging remarks were made about the women's Services in the debate yesterday—
  Mr. Willis: Not in the Navy.
  Miss Vickers: —I should like to express my particular appreciation of the services which these women are giving to the Royal Navy. I hope that they will be kept in increasing numbers in the service of the Admiralty.
  6.42 p.m.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): To deal with the question of the master rate first, I think that anyone in my position who visits the fleet cannot fail to be reminded of this problem. Wherever one goes one meets it. I know that many senior ratings feel that a new rate should be introduced by the Navy which would rank above the rate of C.P.O. and be equated in pay to the rate paid to warrant officers in the other two Services. The master rate has been considered over a long period of time, in fact on several occasions since the end of the war. A fresh review of this problem is very near completion. A statement will be made to the fleet about it, and I shall send a copy to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
  Mr. Willis: My point about it is that in addition to the higher status there is a very big difference in pay between the top ratings of the lower deck and the top technicians in the ranks in the Army and Air Force.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am aware of the problems. It is all linked up with the special duties list and promotion into that list. That has been the case for a long time during which the matter has been reviewed.
  The second point raised concerned the E.R.As. First and foremost, we recognise the tremendous job which is done by the engineer room artificer in the Navy. I suppose that it is fair to say that when the hon. Gentleman was in that capacity he was among the most skilled ratings in the ship. With the increasing complexity in other branches, even although today the same skill and even greater skill is demanded of the E.R.As., it is true that there are many
  708
  other people who must have a high degree of skill. It would not be right to say that the wiping out of all watchkeeping certificate pay has left them worse off. There is an increase under the new pay code of 6s. 6d. a day, but it is true that the men lose 1s. a day from their watchkeeping certificate pay. I have been comparing the rates of pay with the increase which the E.R.As. receive, and it is true to say that they got up to 13 per cent. more out of this recent increase than any other chiefs or petty officers.
  Mr. Willis: All artificers?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, all artificers. I think that I have dealt with the main point. I will make a note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he is worried about whether they get a certificate, I would point out that they will continue to get a watchkeeping certificate, because they may want it in later life elsewhere.
  Mr. Willis: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the other branches being highly skilled. When I was in the Service, the electrical artificer was an exceedingly skilled rating and so were others. The point I made was that the nature of the work and the conditions under which it has to be undertaken are very different in the case of the engine room artificer. That is probably one of the reasons why, so far as I know, there has never been any great complaint about the 1s. a day watchkeeping allowance. It is a form of compensation and, for that reason. I think that it should have been kept.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: We recognise that. In a great number of ships which I have visited I have been in the engine rooms and know the conditions, particularly in places like the Persian Gulf, under which the E.R.A.s have to work. It is equally true that we have advanced to a great degree in heat insulation and air conditioning. We have a long way to go still but the conditions are probably not as bad as those which the hon. Gentleman experienced.
  As regards hard-lying money, I have an unusual explanation there. When we came to prepare the Estimates for printing we were in fact negotiating the hard-lying rate. It was, therefore, thought wrong to include it in

  709
  Appendix I as at that stage we were not firm as to what it should be. A sergeant major, Royal Marines, C.P.Os. and petty officers, and equivalent Royal Marine ranks get 2s. a day, leading ratings and below and equivalent ranks 1s. a day, and juniors 6d. a day. In Votes A and B £15,000 is allowed for officers and £50,000 for hard-lying money for ratings.
  On the education point raised by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), this was merely an adjustment because last year we had nothing to go on when the education allowance was introduced and the rate from £75 was up-graded to £150 with extension. But we were not quite sure how many officers and ratings would apply. The result is that, in the light of experience, we found that we had slightly over-budgeted. That is why it is not a reduction in fact but is bringing the Estimate this year much more into line with what was spent last year on the number of people who applied for it.
  Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that this allowance is well known on the lower deck?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that it is well known. Of course, it is for those people who are either abroad or in this country and moving about a great deal. There is still a certain amount of feeling among some families that they do not want their children to be sent away to boarding schools. This is not universal, but perhaps we under-estimated that feeling. I shall certainly ensure that in the fleet orders there is plenty of notification on this matter.
  Reverting to the E.R.As., I should say that they receive their promotion about a year earlier under the new pay code. This advantage becomes even more valuable because engine room artificers will be eligible for the C.P.Os'. higher rate of basic pay and will receive their increments one year earlier than other artificers. So, when pay goes up they will get the extra pay one year earlier than other artificers.
  Mr. Willis: I know that this is one of the arguments of the Admiralty, but I am not certain that it is true. I am informed that, while this may be partly true compared with other artificers, under the new scheme for mechanicians
  710
  it is possible that mechanicians will be chief petty officers a year before chief artificers. I am not objecting to that but only pointing out that it is not a good argument.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think we should wait and see how the mechanician scheme works out before passing judgment. If the hon. Gentleman and I are in our respective places next year, we can have another discussion on this point.
  The hon. Lady asked about the Naval Nursing Auxiliary Section. I am glad to have an opportunity of making an announcement because recruiting began in February for one branch, and the duties previously performed in other hospitals and establishments by naval V.A.D.s and W.R.N.S. sick berth assistants will in future be the responsibility of the Naval Nursing Auxiliaries, a new section of the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service.
  The Naval Nursing Auxiliary Section will offer a permanent nursing career for girls between the ages of 17½ and 28, and for members of the British Red Cross Society, St. John Ambulance Brigade and St. Andrew's Nursing Association who wish to volunteer their services. It will also provide a permanent link between nursing W.R.N.S. who transfer from the sick berth branch. Nursing auxiliaries will be given twenty weeks' initial training at a naval hospital before serving in Royal Naval Hospital shore establishments in the United Kingdom or overseas. They will share the privileges of Service life while following a nursing career, and there will be opportunities for suitable auxiliaries to qualify as State registered nurses.
  Examination fees for those who enter the examination for S.R.N. are to be refunded, and for those who remain in the Nursing Auxiliary Section there are prospects of advancing to three grades above the basic rate, with pay of £13 9s. 6d. at the top.
  I am not in a position to answer off the cuff the hon. Lady's query about V.A.D.s who leave the Service, but I will write to her on that point and also on her question about uniform.
  I endorse everything the hon. Lady said about the W.R.N.S. They have always played a tremendously valuable part in the Royal Navy, and they are unique in the sphere of communications,

  711
  where their accuracy and conscientiousness are of great value. We rely on them to a great extent and I am delighted to have an opportunity of praising them.
  The hon. Lady felt that there were instances where houses were not in the best condition. If she would let me have the name and address of the house in question, I will certainly look into the matter. We like to make regular inspection of hirings and it looks as if there has been an error. I will look into any detailed case as carefully as I can.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £69,997,000, be 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, 1961.

  Vote 2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £14,044,000, 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, 1961.
  6.54 p.m.
  Miss Vickers: I had an opportunity of mentioning in our earlier debate the question of the Admiralty constabulary, and now I would like to have an assurance from my hon. Friend that he will look after the victualling yards. The men in those yards render a great service to the country. They are practically all ex-Navy men or ex-Royal Marines, and I hope they will receive equal consideration and that their age range will not be levelled down. It is difficult for them to retire at 63 and to have to wait for retirement pension until the age of 65, so I hope we can be assured that their services will be required and that the age range will not be reduced.
  These provisions are under Subheads G and H. Why has there been a decrease of nearly £500,000 in provisions and victualling allowances? It is extremely important that the Royal Navy should be well fed. I am interested in the fact that apparently the officers and men are to have more implements with which to cook their
  712
  provisions but are to have less provisions to cook. We read this under paragraph G(2):
  "The victualling allowances paid to messes which are not victualled on the general mess system. The rates of these allowances vary according to the costs of victualling on the several stations on which the officers and men are serving, and they are revised from time to time in relation to fluctuations in prices of foodstuffs."
  Doing housekeeping myself, I can appreciate that it must be extremely difficult for the mess officer when he is trying to make arrangements, and nothing is more important than to have good food when serving in the Navy. I have been on the big ships, such as H.M.S. "Ark Royal", where the equipment and the food is excellent, but I cannot say the same about the smaller ships and some of the messes. Anything my hon. Friend can do to get better allowances for provisions will therefore be much appreciated.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. H. Hynd: I want to ask a question which I think I can get in under the heading "Salaries and allowances", because we are referred to Vote 12, where they are explained and there we find various departments mentioned. My point concerns the higher ranks. I have never been able to understand why so many high ranks are required in the Navy. Last December I asked a Question about the number of admirals and I was told that there were eighty-six plus Admirals of the Fleet.
  There are all these victualling departments and stores in the Admiralty and I am getting the impression that people are being upgraded in all the different departments to the rank of admiral and that this is destroying the original idea of admirals. There may be a desire to encourage people to stay in the Navy by dangling this rank before them, but I think it is being overdone. Would the Minister direct his attention to this point and perhaps tell us that since my Question was asked in December the number has been reduced, it may be by bringing civilians into some of the departments, or in some other way, so as to reduce the number of admirals?
  The Temporary Chairman (Commander Donaldson): Order. The hon. Member is going rather wide. In this

  713
  Vote we are referring to salaries and allowances which are, in the main, civilian and they cannot be compared with allowances to admirals. I ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Vote under discussion.
  Mr. Hynd: Thank you, Commander Donaldson, I have made my point.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am not sure that I can answer the hon. Gentleman since his question was out of order.
  The hon. Lady asked about victualling allowances. There is no question of our lowering the standard of feeding in the Royal Navy. The principal reason for the reduction is that we have been supplying some places from Malta for Army and R.A.F. units. This arrangement has come to an end. In some places, for instance in North Africa and Libya, the Army preferred to take over its own feeding arrangements, and therefore victualling does not pass through our hands any more. It will be noted, if the hon. Lady looks at the decrease in the appropriations in aid under Subhead Z, that we are receiving £895,000 less. That shows that we are not getting back any money for services which we previously rendered to the Army and the Air Force.
  I note the point which my hon. Friend made about big ship feeding. It is generally acknowledged that small ships, perhaps to a much greater extent, do suffer in the standard of cooking and serving they can offer, particularly in the number of choices, to their companies. We are looking at this matter and I will bear what she said in mind. I am not in a position to give a positive answer on constabulary in victualling yards. I did undertake to write, and I shall keep that promise.
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of mess traps, and the reason there is that we have been living on our stock. We were running down stock last year, but we have now come to the level when we cannot go on living on it and we have had to order new mess traps. That is why that estimate has gone up from £41,000 to £77,000.
  I suppose that the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) was concerned with clothing for admirals under this Vote. We are looking carefully at this position. There were 114 admirals at one time and they are being run down
  714
  fairly fast. I have no doubt that this will continue, although the number will not go down as much as it did in the last five years, because we are now approaching the size of the Navy we shall eventually have, about 100,000. There will, therefore, not be so much reduction as in the last five years.
  Commander J. S. Kerans: I see that there is an increase of some £308,000 for victualling store issuing ships. How many of these ships have we in the Fleet? Is this the cost of maintenance or operating? These ships are a very essential function in our fleet train, and the fact that an increase has been granted is all to the good.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: We have two combined naval store and issuing victualling ships, one in the Mediterranean and the other in the Far East. Next year we shall have, in addition, a combined air store and victualling ship. This will eventually be fitted out for Far Eastern operation. That is the explanation for the increase under that heading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £14,044,000, 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, 1961.

  Vote 6. Scientific Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £19,362,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydro-graphic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: This Vote is up by £1,500,000, which seems rather strange in view of the fact that the Admiralty did not spend the money which it was going to spend last year for scientific research. Perhaps that might be due to the fact— and I am very pleased to see it—that the Admiralty has been successful in obtaining the scientists which it has been losing very badly over the last two or three years. I had intended last year to raise this question of the numbers in the scientific and experimental department, because it was losing staff. This year it

  715
  has managed to maintain that staff, and, indeed, has slightly increased it. I presume it is because of that fact that the Admiralty feels that it can now spend as much as the Committee voted last year and rather more.
  I have one question to ask on nuclear research for surface vessels. I am not quite certain what the position is on this. The Admiralty is carrying out nuclear research and undertaking development on Dreadnought. I understand that the Minister of Transport is responsible for the building of the nuclear tanker. What does the Admiralty expect to do in nuclear research on surface ships? Is it to have a liaison with the Ministry of Transport? I ask this because the Civil Lord, in mentioning this once or twice in the last two weeks, has not been very clear in his remarks. Perhaps we could be told something about it now.
  Miss Vickers: I see that there is an increased cost in the observatory at the Cape of Good Hope. What does this observatory do? Is it manned by British personnel or by South Africans? Are we going to keep it there in future?
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It is true that we have had difficulty in the past years in recruiting the staff we need to carry out scientific research and development. This year we hope, from the signs that we are getting, to be able to recruit them. This is all to the good. Perhaps it is a reflection of the tempo of the increased scientific and technical education over the last five years. So at last one is beginning to reap some of the reward of that effort.
  This is a Vote—and I am sure the House will sympathise in this—which should not be cut down. In the long-term future of the Navy, its ability to build ships and equipment and weapons of the highest standard must depend on the amount of research and development which we undertake, so we are continuing at a high tempo. I am afraid that we shall not see this Vote reducing, for, as is the case with so many Navy Votes, whether we fit out 100 or 1,000 ships we still need the same amount of research and development; indeed, whether we fit out ten ships with a particular piece of equipment we still need the same amount. I think this Vote will stay on at this level.
  716
  I now turn to nuclear research. It is true that Dreadnought and its successor fall to the Navy Vote. It is also true that the 65,000-ton deadweight tanker, if it is decided upon after examination by the Minister of Transport, will not fall on Navy Votes. The only part which falls under this Vote is a small study contract which we have with the Yarrow Admiralty Research Department at Scotstoun. It is undertaking a feasibility study for us to see just what size ship a nuclear propelling unit might be fitted into. That is a very limited commitment and is all that falls at present under this Vote.
  The observatory at the Cape of Good Hope does very valuable work. It would be wrong for us to drop the interest, long and traditional, which the Navy has had in astronomy, particularly because some of the more sophisticated approaches in the long term may well be in this field. We are carrying on with the observatory at Good Hope. It is manned by British personnel and comes under the control of the Astronomer-Royal, so that its work is controlled by the Astronomer-Royal, as are its personnel.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: The Vote, under Subhead H, "Coast and other surveys", is somewhat down. Can my hon. Friend say whether we are getting information about under-water conditions in the Arctic from the Americans, or doing anything in that line ourselves?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot give a ready answer about why that figure is down. As I remember, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, we had to go through these Votes in detail in the autumn session and, as far as I can remember, we undertook a certain amount of coastal survey as part of coast defences, as it was thought that we were the best people to do that on behalf of other Government Departments. That work is now at a slightly reduced tempo, which means that the Vote is down.
  I cannot say whether there is any element of repayment to the Americans for their work in the Antarctic. All I can say is that this is one kind of scientific research in which there is a pooling of information among almost all nations under the I.G.Y., but I have no doubt

  717
  that we have equally supplied information on conditions in the Antarctic to other nations.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum. not exceeding £19,362,000, 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, 1961.

  Vote 10. Works, Buildings, Machinery and Repairs at Home and Abroad
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £19,264,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, machinery 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, 1961.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I wish to raise in rather more detail a matter which arose when we discussed Vote A, the Admiralty's decision to keep Chatham Barracks. When I questioned the hon. Gentleman about this, he said:
  "… 'Circumstances have changed. We have to refit some live ships at Chatham. We find that this is absolutely essential and, therefore, it is sensible and economical not to give those naval barracks to the Admiralty'"—
  I think that the hon. Gentleman meant the Army—
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing indicated assent.
  Mr. Willis: —
  "'and to move our Supply School to Devon-port, but to stay where we are and occupy the greater part of those barracks.'"—
  Surely the Admiralty knew last year, when it categorically said that it intended to close those barracks, whether ships would be refitted in Chatham Dockyard.
  I am not certain what is meant by "live ships", but I presume that that means ships more or less in commission coming in for refit. The practice seems to have changed. As far as I remember, when we came in for refits, at least a great number of ratings lived aboard ship. Some might have gone to barracks, but certainly not all.
  718
  I then asked the hon. Gentleman what had happened to H.M.S. "Collingwood". The H.M.S. "Collingwood" block at Chatham is a comparatively modern block and I understand it to be capable of accommodating about 1,000 men. Surely that could have been used for this purpose. I am told, however, that "Collingwood" is now to be completely gutted to provide dockyard workshops. I received a letter this morning to that effect.
  If that is so, it seems a rather strange and expensive procedure to take this comparatively modern block and gut it in order to provide workshops. I should have thought that it would have been much better to have provided modern workshops. If what I was told is not true, why cannot "Collingwood" be used to accommodate the men from ships being refitted in Chatham Dockyard?
  After my intervention about "Collingwood", the hon Gentleman went on to say,
  "We are taking that matter into consideration, but the Supply School comprises 500 people. We visualise that the absolute peak load might reach 1,000, or perhaps even 1,300, outside that from ships, fleet maintenance parties and other organisations."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 191–2.]
  I wonder whether that number requires accommodation. Surely a great number, if not the majority, of men live ashore. Surely they live in Chatham, Gillingham, Sheerness, or somewhere else nearby, and go ashore every night and are delighted to be on "lodge and com". Why should we have to provide barrack accommodation for them when they prefer to live at home instead of in barracks? Even if as many as 1,000 or 1,300 require to be accommodated, "Collingwood" would accommodate 1,000.
  Are the barracks to be reopened? When it was decided to close them, I assume the Admiralty had sufficient knowledge to know that it could take the Supply School to Devonport, which was the original decision. Why has it become necessary for it to go to Chatham? Whatever may be said about empire building, if there are to be 1,000 men ashore at Chatham, the hon. Gentleman will find that a staff will be required—cooks, sick bay attendants, messmen and others—and then we shall have a great deal of paperwork and,

  719
  before we know where we are, we shall have large office accommodation and, in a year or two, before the end of this Parliament, we shall be told that there is once again a Commander-in-Chief, Nore. That is in the nature of things.
  I think that this is a mistake by the Admiralty. The Admiralty should have adhered to its original decision to close the barracks. There are no barracks at Rosyth, although ships are refitted there, because the men are boarded out. I am told that only one man is required to do the work involved. I am sure that the men would prefer to be boarded out to going into barracks and such an arrangement would save the Army spending a very large sum of money on building new barracks for the Royal Engineers, because the Army could use the Chatham Barracks.
  I am not yet convinced that this is not a bad move. I cannot help thinking that, feeling reassured since the Government had won the election and the monetary situation was a little easier and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not frowned too severely on increases in the Estimates, the Admiralty was able to think that this was an opportunity to branch out a little.
  I cannot see any other reason why this should have been done. What the Admiralty want could well have been done without taking back Chatham Barracks, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to give us a much better explanation than we have yet had.
  7.20 p.m.
  Lieut-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I take the opposite view. I shall not argue the case for Chatham itself, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) mentioned Rosyth. Last summer I experienced what goes on in Rosyth when I made a short visit to a fishery protection vessel there.
  Today, we are rightly paying our men in the Navy much higher rates of pay. Their time is more valuable. Apart from that, standards also have been quite rightly improved both in the Navy and in its ancillary services. I am referring to the standards of living, food, and so on. It is wrong that men from ships which are refitting should be expected to camp out, sometimes for fairly
  720
  extended periods, in uncomfortable and insanitary conditions in a dockyard. The alternative, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East suggested, is "lodge and com", which for many reasons is undesirable.
  Mr. Willis: Why?
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: There is another alternative, that of providing adequate accommodation in or near the dockyard.
  What is being done at Chatham is a sensible step in that direction. It is a pity that it could not have been foreseen and that we had to change our minds over this, but it is right that the Admiralty has changed its mind and that a part of Chatham Barracks is to be put to this use.
  Let me go back for a moment to Rosyth. There these valuable key ratings from ships which are refitting have to waste many hours of the day waiting for, and travelling in, boats to the naval establishment on the south side of the river, or, alternatively, waiting for and travelling in road transport which takes them seven miles to accommodation on a disused airfield nearby. That is a waste of the time of valuable men which would not be tolerated in any industry. It should not be tolerated in the Navy.
  7.22 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: On this issue, which is not one of a party political nature, my sympathies are with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and against my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon). We should be told by the Government the position of the balance sheet involved in these transactions. What will be the cost of maintaining the barracks? What would have been saved from the Vote had we got rid of them? Those are not unreasonable questions. Everybody knew that this would come up when this Vote was discussed, and we should be told how much of the £19 million odd is in respect of maintaining these barracks.
  What is the total capacity of the barracks? I suspect that the total capacity is considerably in excess of the figures that have been quoted as being necessary. That leads me to ask my hon. Friend whether he can give an undertaking that

  721
  no more men will be accommodated in the barracks than those which he indicated during the debate on the Navy Estimates. My suspicion is that we shall find that this is only the first step in the complete restoration of Chatham as a main manning depot. I do not believe that anything can stop that happening, except possibly this House if we press the matter now.
  Has the modernisation of Chatham Barracks been completed? Was it completed before it was decided to give them up? If by any chance it has not been completed, can we be assured that we will not next be faced with a big bill for modernising these buildings so that the men can live in extra comfort for a few weeks while ships are being refitted?
  I do not share my hon. and gallant Friend's view that sailors are any more helpless than the rest of the community. They are perfectly capable of looking after themselves. I have had command of establishments in which year after year the men have lived on "lodge and com" and it is relevant to the consideration of this Vote to ask how the cost of maintaining an enormous monumental building such as this, with its huge and ornate officers' mess, compares with the cost of accommodating, or letting the corresponding number of men find their own accommodation, in Chatham and Rochester on the scale of allowances laid down.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Board of Admiralty, and my noble Friend and myself as the political heads, would not change our minds on this issue, knowing full well that we would have to justify such a change in the House of Commons, unless every member of the Board felt satisfied that there was solid justification for so doing. I am glad to have the opportunity to explain in greater detail the reasons for the change than I had at the end of the eight-hour debate earlier this week.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander May-don) made this point. As the standard of accommodation goes up throughout the Services we get less people into a given number of square feet in a barrack block. At peace-time rates the total accommodation in the naval barracks to which we are referring is for 1,600 people.
  722
  It has been suggested that it was not right to change our minds about the fitting of live ships. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is right when he says that when we talk about live ships we mean ships in commission which are in for a short refit of three or four months when the ships' company is very often accommodated aboard the ship. There are, however, other occasions, particularly nowadays when undergoing A's and A's, and modifications are necessary to fit in new equipment, that one has either to dismember the galley or take apart the living quarters. In those conditions it is unthinkable to ask the ship's company to remain on board while the ship is being carved up and refitted. In those conditions, if we have live ships and major modifications are going on in the ship's living quarters, we must put the ship's company somewhere else.
  Collingwood Block is being modified as the dockyard apprentices' school. It will have laboratories and workshops for the apprentices. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) knows the area, and I have been down to look at it. The old school is an old building of a temporary nature—or it was when it was first constructed, but, like so many other temporary buildings, it has continued to be used. We considered that the training of apprentices was sufficiently important to warrant them having reasonable living and workshop accommodation, and the Collingwood barracks are being adapted for that purpose.
  We then considered what we should do with the main barracks. It was suggested that the supply school should go to Devonport. If we had moved the supply school to Devonport it would have cost £200,000 to modify the accommodation there, and a further £200,000 in a fairly short time to adapt the accommodation. In a few years' time we would have had to pay a bill of £400,000 for work at Devonport. That was the balance on one side. I am not able at short notice to give the cost of maintaining the existing barracks at Chatham but it is fair to say that we would also have to pay for the cost of the other barracks for the Supply School at Devonport. This differential between the maintenance cost of the barracks at Chatham and the maintenance cost of wherever the supply school went had to

  723
  be considered before we reviewed the position.
  Why did we make a mistake? I am sorry; this is one of the errors which sometimes occur when one is forecasting the future of a fleet which is becoming ever more complicated and more extensively modernised. We cannot plan exactly ahead for five or ten years. In this instance, in our effort to cut our tail ashore we hoped to be able to do without live ships at Chatham. We hoped that there would be only dead ships, and that we could move the Supply School and manage without the R.N. barracks.
  We have now changed our minds. I do not think that it is wrong to re-assess the position in the light of experience. I am reminded of a most apt remark uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), when asked why he changed his mind. He said:
  "My views are a harmonious process which keeps them in relation to the current movement of events."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 33.]
  The same harmonious process has been taking place in Admiralty circles. We have moved them in relation to current events. That is one reason why we have gone back to Chatham.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells, rightly drew attention to the travelling time spent by key personnel of live ships, whose companies are accommodated at H.M.S. "Cochrane" and H.M.S. "Lochinvar", which I believe is on the other side of the river. Had we taken over some barracks previously used by the Army, which were smaller and farther from the dockyard, our ships' companies and uniformed personnel would have had to travel an extra mile to and from their work. There was also the problem of getting them back to their accommodation for a midday meal. This was a contributory factor to our change of mind. This does not mean a major modification. We shall have to spend some money in modernising some of the barrack blocks, but we shall not modernise more than is necessary to accommodate the key personnel.
  I will now give the broad categories of people who will be accommodated in these barracks. First, there are the crews
  724
  of submarines which are refitting. That will appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells. Secondly, there is the reserve fleet, and key personnel for ships undergoing extensive refits under dockyard control. Thirdly, there are the crews of operational ships, which will probably not number more than two at any one time. Fourthly, there are the personnel from build-ups and run-downs —ships which have come in and have been handed over, or ships' companies which are Being assembled when a ship is commissioned after an extensive refit. There is also the fleet maintenance unit.
  Mr. Willis: In other words, as the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) said, it is becoming a manning port again.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry. We have set our hearts and minds against its becoming a major command—as was suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett)—under a commander-in-chief. That will not happen. Unless there is a tremendous change —and I cannot commit future Governments—we shall not increase the numbers above roughly those which I gave in the Estimates debate.
  I have given some of the reasons which led us to change our minds, and perhaps I may again assure the Committee that we do not change our minds unless we are convinced by all the evidence. In this case we came to the conclusion that this was a sensible arrangement, and that it was much better to keep the barracks close alongside the dockyard.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I want to revert to Rosyth again, because in recent years this difficulty seems to have got out of hand in that port. Can my hon. Friend give us some information as to what is happening in this respect?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I investigated this matter when I was at Rosyth. I went across the river, at short notice, to look at the Upper Yard Men training establishment and at H.M.S. "Lochinvar". I am sorry that I cannot give the Committee any information upon this, although I admit that we have a problem there. The construction of the Forth Bridge and the time it will take to build must be taken into consideration. When

  725
  there is road transport across the river and there is not the delay of sea transport, it may be far more economical to stay where we are, rather than to embark upon a new and extensive building programme.
  I always have the same philosophy, which is to try to find enough barrack accommodation close to the men's work. The number whom we hope to accommodate in lodgings and married quarters at Chatham would be 300 at the most. We took a survey of the number of lodgings available before coming to this decision. I shall write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as we have a solution and have decided what will be the future at Rosyth.
  7.35 p.m.
  Miss Vickers: The first point I wish to raise concerns married quarters in Devonport. These are well built and well furnished, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider the possibility of having some of them unfurnished. Many people now have their own furniture, and some of them have spent several hundreds of pounds on it. If they go into a furnished house they have to pay for the storage of that furniture. It would be far cheaper if they were allowed to take their own furniture, and it would be much more pleasant for them to live among their own belongings. There would be no difficulty about getting them out of their houses, since the houses are tied to the job, so that when they went into a house or flat they would know quite well that they would have to move their own furniture when they left.
  The Estimates refer to key civilians, but nobody knows what a key civilian is. On many occasions I have asked my hon. Friend for permission for certain individuals to occupy these houses after they had been empty for a considerable time, but I have never been successful. Furthermore, key dockyard workers are now returning from Malta and Singapore and, as the hon. Member knows, the Lea Mill area is about to be taken over. I should like to know where these civilians will be accommodated in the future.
  Last year I asked my hon. Friend to consider building some of this accom-modation for the Navy in areas other than what I like to describe as canton-
  726
  ments. It is sad to see these little naval villages forming—incidentally, often without any kind of shop or post office. It would be much better if my hon. Friend asked the local authority to build the houses and to keep a number of them for the use of naval personnel. At present, with these families living side by side, it means that neighbours are continually changing, and this causes difficulties. There are no permanent neighbours, which makes it difficult to find baby-sitters and also to make friends with others in the neighbourhood, not to mention the difficulty of obtaining knowledge of local shops and organisations such as young wives' guilds. Some of the women in these houses are extremely lonely. I should like to know how the rents of these flats and houses compare with those of local authority houses in the same area.
  I now turn to the question of new works and machinery and equipment. I mentioned during the Second Reading debate that we were worried about the fact that there is a reduction in the amount of money for new machinery. I know that this comes under two separate Votes, but even then there is a considerable reduction. I presume it will be necessary to replace a lot of the machinery. Much of it is very old and obsolete. There is also the question of canteens, which arises under the next Vote, and where there is a cut this year and it does not look as if we shall have any fresh money to use for canteens. A great many of the dockyard canteens need modernising. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could let us know whether the money referred to in Vote 10, Subhead B, could be used for other things than the repairing of the ships themselves.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: I have often had complaints from people in ships needing minor refits under Subhead C when they had to rely on shore-side amenities. A thing like Stephenson's rocket makes its appearance belching black smoke over the area. It uses enormous quantities of coal but barely heats the water and causes a general nuisance. Usually only half the ship's company is on duty, and they have enough trouble to keep the ship clean without this additional nuisance.
  I have referred to this once or twice before. Apart from relegating it to a

  727
  museum, I do not think there is any place that can be found for equipment of this kind. I wish to be assured that if this equipment has not already disappeared or been discharged to a museum, that will soon be done, and that we may have up-to-date equipment, both in respect of the heads and for washing facilities, for people doing minor repairs in the dockyard.
  7.42 p.m.
  Commander Kerans: I wish to refer only to one point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) regarding married quarters. Very few young officers have any furniture of their own and welcome the provision of furnished accommodation.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I wish to ask a question regarding repairs and maintenance under Subhead E. At first sight it strikes one as a little strange that this item has gone up by something like £250,000 at a time when, presumably, a certain number of establishments are closing down. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can give me an answer immediately, but perhaps he might give the Committee some guidance on the matter. There has been an increase in the money spent on repairs and maintenance in past years, and it is a little surprising to find the figure going up again this year.
  The second point I wish to raise relates to Subhead O, the repayment of sums issued under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts. Here we find a reduction of £168,000. That seems strange at first sight, because presumably more married quarters are being built under Vote 15 with a greater amount of interest repayable in any one year. Either it means that it has been possible in the last year to repay a certain amount of capital, or there has been a transfer of this obligation to local authorities in cases where married quarters were no longer required.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I will try to deal in turn with the various points which have been raised. First, the question of married quarters. About this I think there would be two views. Our general rule is that once married
  728
  quarters have been furnished they must remain furnished, but we are always prepared to delay the furnishing if the first occupants so desire. We have done this because we find that the continual movement of furniture into and out of married quarters is not only bad for the furniture but also for the married quarters. If marks are left on the walls where pieces of furniture have stood— and we should bear in mind that a married quarter is occupied on average for only two-and-a-half to three years at the most—it would mean the continual moving of furniture in and out, either naval furniture or furniture belonging to the occupant, and this would lead to a considerable amount of wear and tear and the need for redecoration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) also asked what was the average rent. This varies from 28s. 6d. a week for furnished quarters for ratings, to £210 per annum for a house for an officer of commander status. These rents are normally geared or related to the rateable value of the house. It is not a figure which we just thought up, and we try to keep in step with the local authorities.
  Sir Peter Agnew: Are these figures inclusive of rates?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, they are inclusive.
  The third point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport related to key civilian dockyard personnel. They are defined as people who are wanted right on the job for fire service, or it may be a key engineer at a fire station, or for watchkeeping. I will look into the other point made by my hon. Friend regarding personnel returning from overseas.
  My hon. Friend also asked about cantonments. In a perfect world it would be nice to see houses in ones and twos integrated with accommodation for the local people rather than having vast blocks of Navy property. When I was last at Lossiemouth I was impressed by the fact that there they have houses built in twos and threes. But to do this would throw an extra strain on the Navy Votes, because it is much more expensive to construct two or three houses than to

  729
  build 50 or 100. There are extra costs for services and roads, drains, electricity cables and so on. That is why local authorities and private enterprise prefer to build a lot of accommodation so that the bricklayers, plasterers and other workers can be moved around.
  Miss Vickers: That was not my idea. I suggested that the money should be given to the local authorities and that they be asked to build the houses. I appreciate that it would be difficult to build two or three houses instead of a block. In a previous debate I suggested that the local authorities should be provided with the money and invited to build the houses, which I am sure that they could do more cheaply.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should like to consider that suggestion. No doubt it has been examined, and probably there is some factor of which I am not aware. But I will consider it in greater detail and write to my hon. Friend.
  I am afraid that I misled the Committee by a snap answer which I gave on 7th March when I said:
  "Dockyard machinery has been transferred to the Navy Works Vote."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1960; Vol. 619. c. 92.]
  I was thinking of other machinery which falls under that subhead. Dockyard machinery comes under Vote 8, Section III, Subhead B.
  The reduction of £215,000 from Vote 10, Subhead D, does not relate to dockyard machinery but to machinery outside the dockyard. The reason why the dockyard machinery Vote has gone down is that we have closed dockyards at Sheerness, Portland and Hong Kong and have transferred Malta dockyard to Messrs. Bailey, so our commitments for dockyard machinery are less than two years ago. That is why the Vote for dockyard machinery in the coming year is down.
  On the question of service alongside ships being refitted, I absolutely agree. I was staggered to see the most extraordinary thing alongside, I think it was, "Hartland Point" and "Chichester" at Chatham. I asked then whether caravans with modern electrical cooking could not be wheeled alongside and whether that would not be a more economical way of doing it than by using a vast amount of fuel. I was amazed to see how clever
  730
  naval cooks are at making an extremely eatable meal out of something which must have been given birth a hundred years ago and from which the smoke and dirt certainly did not create a healthy organisation in the galley. I shall look at that problem and see if something more up to date cannot be provided.
  Mr. Willis: I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for his fuller explanation about Chatham Barracks, but I am still not convinced that this was necessary. I wish to remind him that we expect some new accommodation for the artificer apprentices of "Caledonia" next year.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £19,264,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, machinery 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, 1961.

  Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £9,412,900, 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, 1961.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: Can the hon. Gentleman give the Committee any information about the Admiralty company of S. G. Brown, Limited? Could he tell us whether it has been disposed of, or is it still in the possession of the Admiralty?
  Another point I want to ask about is the reason for the increase in expenditure on travelling, subsistence and passage expenses of naval and civil personnel. I noted that the increase is mainly in respect of naval personnel. In view of the fact that naval personnel has decreased by something like 3,000 or 4,000 this year, should not the amount for these expenses have been smaller?
  7.53 p.m.
  Miss Vickers: We have been talking about sums of millions, but then we come to the welfare services and under Subheads H, HH and I, we are to decrease the amount of money to be

  731
  given to voluntary institutions, charitable or religious institutions and also ministers of religion. In view of the amount of money we are spending in other directions, it seems that we are being very parsimonious towards these people who do excellent work. I should like to know for what reason the payments to these charities and people are to be cut.
  I should also like an explanation about the sum of £100,000 under Subhead L, which shows an increase. I do not know exactly what is involved.
  When we were discussing the main Estimates, I mentioned the question of recruiting and publicity services. I hope we shall spend this extra sum. It is essential to have a modern publicity system. Last Monday in the debate I stressed that it would make a considerable difference in competing with industry for the right kind of personnel if we could have attractive publicity, showing the future policy of the Navy and encouraging a better type of apprentice to come into the dockyards.
  Finally, I wish to mention the question of canteens. I see that on this item there was a decrease of £3,500. I think it essential that personnel should have good places in which to eat, but at present many of these places are in bad repair.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: I presume that the item, Lighthouses etc., under Subhead M, refers to lighthouses and buoys in the approaches to naval ports and does not include lighthouses in other areas.
  Commander Kerans: I am glad to see that the item under Subhead U, "Courses for Merchant Navy Personnel," is continued. I should like an assurance that it will continue in future and that these courses are fully attended by Merchant Navy officers.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: I hope that the Civil Lord will say something about the recruiting and publicity services and tell us if he has any information as to the effect of publicity. He may not be able to give an answer tonight; I merely raise the point now because I think it important. I assume that most of this publicity will
  732
  be done through the newspapers. If there are shortages in certain sections, it would be a good idea to spend some of this money on publicity in certain districts and even to particularise in country districts, not leaving it all to the large towns. It may be that if the publicity were in many local newspapers as well as in the national Press, that would be helpful.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I shall deal with as many as I can of the various points which have been raised.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked about S. G. Brown, Limited. The present state of play is that we have received a number of offers from various firms. The tender date has closed, but it would not be right for me to give either the numbers of firms or, of course, the names of firms competing one against another in connection with this organisation. The point is that there will be no grant for this item this year. We had put in £250,000 of the taxpayers' money for last year's Vote. There will be no such grant this year, because we hope this burden will be taken off our shoulders.
  Mr. Steele: It is not a burden.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Member must not misrepresent the position like that. S. G. Brown, Limited, is a very profitable company and the money put into it for the Admiralty was in the interests of the Admiralty, to get certain work done. The Admiralty will still have to pay for that type of work, even when it has not got S. G. Brown, Limited. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us when the transfer is likely to be completed?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would not dissociate myself from the remarks made by the hon. Member. This would be a bad moment to do so because, obviously, we want the best price, but under Vote 11, Subhead Z, there are appropriations in aid and there is a receipt shown. We hope this transaction will be accomplished during the coming financial year and I shall write to the hon. Member when it is completed.
  Secondly, I was asked why travelling costs were up. We have taken a sample of vouchers used by ratings. We find that the costs of railway travel, before

  733
  events which were forecast in an announcement today, have risen by 15 per cent. Therefore, we increased the Vote accordingly, forecasting that that would be so in the coming year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) asked me a number of questions. Her first question was about contributions to religious, charitable and other institutions under Subhead H. The provision was increased in 1959–60 to allow for a larger contribution to the Officers' Association Employment Bureau. We were coming to a period when large numbers of officers were going out under the rundown schemes, and we thought it right to make a larger contribution to that organisation. We have now gone back and reduced the contribution, because the problem is nothing like so great as it was a year ago.
  The second point the hon. Lady asked me was under Subhead HH. The reduction there is due entirely to the lower provision for the naval contribution towards the Forces Broadcasting Organisation. We had previously allowed £15,000 for this. This was found to be an over-estimate. This year we are allowing £5,000, and so it appears as a reduction. It does not mean that we are reducing the services, except in so far as we have a smaller number of establishments with a slightly smaller fleet.
  The hon. Lady then asked me about the allowances to ministers of religion. The answer is that we continue to pay ministers of religion where we have not an appointed one but have asked a neighbouring minister to help us out. It is true that there is a reduction, because we have a smaller number of establishments. This reflects the fact that we have a smaller number of shore establishments and, therefore, a lesser need for ministers of religion. We pay a chaplain and local ministers on a per capita basis according to the flock to which they have to minister.
  Recruiting publicity was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport. The amount asked for under subhead R is broken up into three forms. First, there are classified advertisements. Secondly, there are the equipment, films, projectors, pictures, slides and the school liaison
  734
  organisation, which is extremely important and covers the country districts as well. Thirdly, there are the visits to ships and training establishments by schoolmasters, youth employment officers, career masters and boys themselves.
  It can be stated that a very fair proportion of the amount of money is used for newspaper advertising, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West. In addition to the amount provided under Subhead R for recruiting publicity, it will be seen from page 6 of the Navy Estimates, under the Central Office of Information, that we have a further sum, which this year amounts to £179,200. Therefore, the sum we see in Subhead R is not the complete sum being spent on our Press advertising and recruiting publicity.
  We have undertaken very wide publicity for the recruitment of boys for Dartmouth and to the Royal Navy through our school liaison officers. I was asked whether there were any signs of success. I should have thought that the best signs of success—this will please the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—was in the artificer field. We made a very considerable effort this time last year, and the artificer entry has shown a most healthy reaction, so much so that we have overcome the problem which seemed to be facing us last year.
  If one applies one's publicity in a certain direction, one can solve the problem. I note the point made by the hon. Gentleman that it may well be a good idea to apply some of our publicity to country districts. If an analysis is made of where the recruits to the Navy come from, one is surprised to find that they do not come, as one might have supposed, from seaside towns or ports. They come from places like Birmingham, which are miles from the sea and have a degree of prosperity which is probably second to none in this country. That is where we draw very large numbers of our recruits.
  Mr. Steele: I hope that the Civil Lord did not misunderstand me when I mentioned the country. I had in mind the specialised type, such as those directed particularly to artificers and such classes. Perhaps the Works Study Group can look at this problem to find what is exactly the best method of arriving at a proper solution.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will take note of that suggestion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) was right in his assumption that this is not the ordinary lighthouse system under Trinity House arrangements. Where we ask it to undertake the marking of wrecks or some such action, we have to repay it for its services.
  I am not able to answer off the cuff the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans). Perhaps I can write him on that detail.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) for not answering one point among the ten questions I was asked on the previous Vote. Perhaps I can write to him. I should be out of order if I answered it now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport asked me about canteens. The number of canteens has been reduced, again owing to the number of shore establishments having been reduced during the current year. We have no reason to suppose that the existing canteens are not sufficient for our needs. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very important service, and we should carry on with the high standards set in the past.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £9,412,900, 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, 1961.

  Vote 13. Non-effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £26,229,000, 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, 1961.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: I wish to raise one small point on Vote 13, Subhead H, "Pensions and gratuities for conspicuous bravery". I have recently had a case about which I have been in touch with my hon. Friend the Civil Lord. A man was awarded the D.S.O. in the last war and, for some reason, from the monetary award certain sums were deducted by reason of tax.
  736
  I think that it is utterly wrong that any money awarded for conspicuous gallantry should be subject to tax. If it is subject to tax, it is equally wrong that, because of some change in the arrangements for payment, the tax should be deducted with no reference to the man.
  I hope that my hon. Friend can give me an assurance that he will do what he can to see that payments such as money awards for conspicuous gallantry should either not be subject to tax or, if they are, that reference should be made to the man himself.
  3.8 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that I cannot remember the specific case at the moment. As my hon. Friend knows, I have a large number of Members' cases every week. I should certainly like to look into the facts. I sympathise with the view taken by my hon. Friend. It seems very sensible. Perhaps I can write to him on this issue.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £26.229,000, 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, 1961.

  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 the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1961.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: Before we let this Vote go I wish to ask two questions. After all, this is the main provision for married quarters in the Navy. Married quarters abroad, and very few at home, are provided for under Vote 10. This is a convenient moment to ask my hon. Friend what the present policy is. I see that £¾ million is to be spent in the coming year.
  What is the present policy? Is it to provide further married quarters at the home ports or is this money intended to provide them at out-stations and more isolated places, the numbers there being increased?

  737
  Secondly, what is happening about redundant married quarters built under this Vote? There must be some of them now. Under the Acts to which reference is made in the Explanatory Notes there is provision that such quarters should be offered to local authorities, which are under no obligation to take them. It is obvious that some of the married quarters built very recently must have become redundant. For instance, I cannot believe that some of the married quarters in Chatham are not redundant. Has it been possible to dispose of them to the local authority, by agreement, and has it been possible to get rid of the financial obligation of continuing to pay interest on the loan?
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The general policy in the coming twelve months with which we are concerned is to concentrate on married quarters on the airfields. This is a section of the Navy where our policy has been changing as our front line strength ran down to its present size— where I hope it will remain—and we have, I think, a little neglected places like Lossiemouth and Yeovilton. We wish to make up some of the leeway in replacing what until now have been temporary buildings and in improving conditions where people have been making do with a diminished number of married

  Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1959–60

  Motion made, and Question proposed,

  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1960. 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, etc. of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  …

  …

  300,000

  —

  2.

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  …

  …

  …

  Cr. 300,000

  250,000

  4.

  Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  …

  …

  …

  200,000

  —

  6.

  Scientific Services

  …

  …

  …

  Cr. 650,000

  250,000

  8.

  Shipbuilding, Repairs and Maintenance, etc.—

  Section I—Personnel

  …

  …

  …

  1,050,000

  100,000

  Section II—Matériel

  …

  …

  …

  Cr. 5,250,000

  1,250,000

  Section III—Contract Work

  …

  …

  …

  5,500,000

  3,195,000

  9.

  Naval Armaments

  …

  …

  …

  Cr. 3,550,000

  600,000

  10.

  Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  …

  …

  —

  *-300,000

  11.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  …

  …

  700,000

  *-1,100,000

  12.

  Admiralty Office

  …

  …

  …

  550,010

  —

  13.

  Non-Effective Services

  …

  …

  …

  1,450,000

  —

  15.

  Additional Married Quarters

  …

  …

  …

  —

  *-245,000

  Total, Navy (Supplementary) 1959–60

  …

  …

  £10

  £4,000,000

  *Deficit

  quarters. We are now trying to concentrate on that. There is no real change of policy as regards the home ports. There will be a modicum there, but we do not intend to increase the percentage at the home ports in the coming year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) asked whether we had any surplus married quarters. There will be a few surplus at Chatham, but we have agreed to transfer those which we do not want to the Army. We have not yet had an overall surplus which the other Services do not want and which we would wish to offer back to local authorities. That point has not yet arisen.
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: Yes—the former Royal Navy air station at St. Merryn.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: If my hon. Friend has a case in mind at St. Merryn, I will look into that and write to him about anything which may have arisen there.
  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. 1961.
  8.15 p.m.
  Sir P. Agnew: I wish to raise a matter on Vote 13, Subhead R, where there is an item
  "Contribution to Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Ltd., Superannuation Scheme—£250,000."
  In the Explanation, we are told that authority is being asked in order to finance the inclusion of certain formerly unestablished employees in the Malta Dockyard within the pension or superannuation scheme of Messrs. Bailey (Malta), Ltd. It would not be right for the Committee to vote this sum of money to the company without scrutinising the existing contractual relations between it and the Admiralty.
  Those contractual relations exist by virtue of the lease which was granted by the Admiralty to Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Ltd. on 30th March, 1959, in connection with the turning over of the dockyard to civil use. I have no intention of going into them in any detail at this late hour, when we are already short of time, but within the terms of that lease there is one important matter in this connection. The company undertakes to carry out at its own expense certain works of major construction and improvement to what I will call the heavy facilities of the yard itself. These affect two of the graving docks, part of the wharfage, which is to be extended by 400 feet so that commercial ships can go alongside, and the completion of a large building required in connection with the work of the yard. The total figure involved is £1,675,000.
  When I referred to the company undertaking to carry out these works at its own expense, I had it in mind to tell the Committee that, in order to assist Messrs. Bailey (Malta), Ltd., to do the work, there was a loans agreement signed on 11th September, 1959, under which the company is to be permitted to borrow from Her Majesty's Government, by stages, as and when required, a sum totalling about £6 million.
  The matter is not as simple as that. All was not clear at that stage for the money to be borrowed because certain conditions were attached in the loans agreement to the right of the company to draw any money. One condition is particularly important. No advance was to be made by the Government to the company until £750,000 of the share capital of the company Messrs. Bailey
  740
  (Malta), Ltd. had been subscribed as ordinary shares and paid up in cash.
  It is surely right in connection with this item to inquire whether this very important condition has yet been fulfilled. The last information I had, which was quite recent, was that only £300,000 of share capital had been subscribed and issued, virtually all of it being issued to Messrs. Bailey of South Wales, except for a very small part which had gone to individual directors.
  It is open to doubt whether, on this Supplementary Estimate, it would be in order to do more than mention another fact, namely, that evidence is lacking that the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), when he was Colonial Secretary, that an opportunity would be afforded to the people of Malta to participate in acquiring shares in Bailey (Malta) Ltd., has been fulfilled. If I am right in saying that the £750,000 has not yet been fully subscribed, then the loans under the agreement cannot be made and, therefore, the important works of conversion which ought to be going on now and which must under the terms of the lease be completed by 30th March, 1964, cannot have been started, unless, of course, the company is able to finance them itself.
  These are matters with which my hon. Friend is directly concerned since, of course, these works have to be supervised by or carried out to the satisfaction of the Admiralty. Therefore, at a time when we are asked to approve the payment of £250,000 to this company, I feel it right to ask what is the position with regard to the carrying out of the terms of the lease and the other cognate matters to which I have referred.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) is quite right in drawing attention to the £250,000 which appears in our Vote. This £250,000 is specifically for pensions. It so happens that the quota of established posts at Malta has been very much lower in proportion to the number of established posts in similar dockyards in the United Kingdom. The result of this has been that, at the time of the transfer on 31st March, 1959, there was a large number

  741
  of older men still unestablished who, if they had continued in Admiralty service until retiring age and had not been transferred to Messrs. Bailey, would, in fact, have received an Admiralty pension.
  When Bailey (Malta) Limited took over this commitment, they wanted to introduce a pension scheme for which employees of all grades would be eligible, and this was keeping faith with people who had served the Admiralty and the nation very well in Malta. It was right that we should allow them to draw up a pension scheme that should not necessarily fall on the shoulders of the new undertaking, but upon the Navy Votes, which had benefited over the years from the skill and the tuition which had been given.
  Resolved,

  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Maj-esty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, 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, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  …

  …

  300,000

  —

  2.

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  …

  …

  Cr. 300,000

  250,000

  4.

  Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  …

  …

  200,000

  —

  6.

  Scientific Services

  …

  …

  Cr. 650,000

  250,000

  8.

  Shipbuilding, Repairs and Maintenance, etc.—

  Section I—Personnel

  …

  …

  1,050,000

  100,000

  Section II—Matériel

  …

  …

  Cr. 5,250,000

  1,250,000

  Section III—Contract Work

  …

  …

  5,500,000

  3,195,000

  9.

  Naval Armaments

  …

  …

  Cr. 3,550,000

  600,000

  10.

  Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  …

  —

  *-300,000

  11.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  …

  700,000

  *-1,100,000

  12.

  Admiralty Office

  …

  …

  550,010

  —

  13.

  Non-effective Services

  …

  …

  1,450,000

  —

  15.

  Additional Married Quarters

  …

  …

  —

  *-245,000

  Total, Navy (Supplementary; 1959–60

  …

  …

  £10

  £4,000,000

  * Deficit.

  On the other point—and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it, this does not fall on our Vote, but on the Vote of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is true that it is an Admiralty lease which he quoted, but there is no charge on our Vote in this matter of the heavy conversions, as my hon. Friend quite rightly called them, of the old naval yards to make them more suitable for the commercial work which Messrs. Bailey wish to carry out. That cost falls entirely on the Vote of my right hon. Friend. I will draw his attention to the points and conditions which my hon. Friend has mentioned, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will write to him direct on this issue.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES

  Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £127,240,000, 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, 1961.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: There are one or two points which I should like to put to the Undersecretary. I think he knows that the Committee generally welcomed the new pay increases. I note, however, in Subhead H, "National Service grants," that there is a substantial reduction in the provision for 1960–61. I imagine that that might well be accounted for by the running down of the Army, and, in particular, as a result of fewer National Service men.
  I think that all of us in our constituency work come across cases in which we feel that sometimes the National Service grant might well have been granted to dependants, where, in fact, it has not been done. I should like an assurance that the provision for these grants is not being reduced as a result of any change in policy. I should also like the view of the Under-Secretary on the possibility of the value of the grants being reconsidered in the light of the substantial rises in expenses and the cost of living since the last date on which they were reviewed.
  My other question about pay concerns a point which I might have raised yesterday but did not, about provision of new technicians, and, in particular, their timed promotion over a period of five years to the rank of sergeant. I have no objection to technicians being properly paid, as indeed they must be if we are to recruit the numbers we should like to see, but it seems to me to be a rather clumsy way of arriving at this arrangement, and will, of course, lead to a great number of sergeants, possibly, and very few lesser ranks in that part of the Service. I should like the Under-Secretary's views on the reasons why, concerning the pay of technicians, the Army seeks to adopt this form of approach.
  I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had time to consider the
  744
  point which I hope is appropriate to this Vote and which was put by one of his hon. Friends yesterday. I wonder why in this day and age the Army could not devise a more civilised way of actually paying the money to the troops. The old-fashioned pay parade should be a thing of the past, and I am personally very much attracted by the suggestion that, where appropriate, a unit bank or some other civilised arrangement should be provided for the actual paying of the troops.
  Finally, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could also tell me tonight the answer to a point of which I did not give him notice yesterday and, consequently, he was not able to tell me yesterday, concerning the numbers that come within the contingents in the Army that we can now say are mobile by air, or airborne troops.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: It is appropriate on Vote I to say a word or two about the anachronistic nonsense in which we are engaged. It has a long history, and one comes along to say it from time to time, for it is a means whereby the Treasury and its servants in the War Office keep control over Army administration.
  Its history goes back to the Civil War in the seventeenth century, when Charles I hit on the very convenient device of taking money that was voted in Vote VI for rations and spending it on Vote I for pay, thereby increasing the size of the Army to a point at which he could challenge the authority of Parliament. Parliament has never forgotten it, and year by year we come along and are asked by the three fighting Services to go meandering through what are called accounts. They are nothing of the kind. They are the total sum of the Army which is broken up into various forms. The real estimate is presented in such a form as to be quite unintelligible to any hon. Member of this House, however diligent he may be. We can be quite sure that what is on the surface is not what is underneath. The reason for that is because the Permanent Secretary at the War Office is the real master of the Army. He and the Command Secretary run the show, are in charge of the soldiers and the Secretary of State and see that not one penny piece of Vote VI is spent on Vote I.

  745
  When war breaks out, all this nonsense goes. The sum total of the Army is carried by Vote I and the control by regulations built up over the years goes through the window. Now, in peace, we have goodness knows how many regulations. I will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman by asking exactly how many regulations there are, but there must be well over 50 sets of them. It is a crime of the first magnitude if any commanding officer or, indeed, any officer or soldier is found disobeying any one of these paragraphs or does not carry out what is contained in the sub-paragraphs.
  I have pleaded that one day a Secretary of State for War will tackle this problem of control by regulations. There was an attempt to do it after the First World War, but it failed. The significant fact is that—and this happened in both the First and Second World Wars—under the test of war the system goes. As soon as peace returns, the Permanent Secretary once again gets a grip on the Army.
  Any hon. Member who thinks that the Army is run by the Secretary of State or by the C.I.G.S. is living in a dream world. The real controller of the Army sits in the Treasury, and his chief instrument is the Permanent Secretary. If hon. Members doubt this, when they visit commands, as they have been invited to do during our debates, let them ask to meet the Command Secretary, for he runs the show. Every penny which is spent has to be authorised by him. If it is proposed to spend a single penny, the Command Secretary has to see whether there is a paragraph in the regulations to approve it. If there is not, the money cannot be spent. The real test of a soldier's efficiency is not his understanding of strategy or of modern war, but whether he carries out the regulations. This is a stultifying business, and it is an appropriate moment to say a word or two about it.
  I should also like to say a word about the new Pay Code. I have done my best to understand it. First, I should like to refer to page 65 of the Grigg Report. I have a great admiration for Sir James Grigg. He was scurvily treated, as I have said before, in his pension rights. He rendered great service to the public. He was not a great Secretary of State for War, because he failed in his relations with Parliament, but he certainly understood the Army and gave it great service.
  746
  He also understands the pay system. What he pleaded for in paragraph 7 of page 65 of the Report was simplification. If hon. Members read that paragraph they will notice that Sir James Grigg talks about another old hoary curse of the Army—reserved rights. This is a little fiction which the Treasury keeps up, and it does it very well, that anything that is ever given to anyone must never be taken away.
  Let me give a classic example of how the matter works out. Those of us whose service goes back to the days before the war will understand this. After the First World War there was a clean-up of pay. It centred on two basic Army Orders— Army Order 324 for officers and Army Order 325 for other ranks. Following those, there were two other Amy Orders —Order 357 of 1920, which introduced a new system of marriage allowances, and Order 368 of 1920 dealing with higher qualifications of non-tradesmen— proficiency pay, and the like.
  Under these new regulations, drivers —M.T. as they were called—were given tradesmen's rates of pay, because in the retreat from Mons the great shortage was not plumes and lances and things of that sort but M.T. ranks. The Army therefore had to go into the open market and pay 6s. a day to get people to join the R.A.S.C. as drivers. From that time there emerged a mechanised force. The Royal Armoured Corps had not yet been formed. It was the Tank Corps, and the cavalry at that stage had not managed to strangle it.
  As the demand for M.T. drivers grew, this became a great embarrassment. What the Treaury did, in order to welsh, was to withdraw the tradesmen's rates of pay for M.T. drivers and to revert to normal rates. That is all right up to a point, but it means that in those days chaps were serving in the same unit, in the same armoured car or tank, on two different rates of pay. That does not lead to good feeling.
  That nonsense was carried on up to the great divide in pre-war Army pay. On 26th October, 1925, the Government of the day decided to welsh on the Army as a whole. They introduced a lower rate of pay, Therefore, we then had throughout the Army, in the same unit, barrack-room or mess, two groups of chaps, those who had enlisted before

  747
  26th October, 1925, drawing one rate of pay and another contingent who joined afterwards drawing a different rate. Nothing could be worse for the Army than this.
  I suggest to the Under-Secretary—this is not a novel suggestion of mine; I have made it before and perhaps the day may come when some great reformer may adopt it—that when the point is reached and it is necessary because of changing circumstances to change the rates of pay, we should honour the obligation which we have entered into but should expunge it by means of a gratuity, or should turn round to the chaps and say, "We are sorry. You cannot go on, but must leave." What we should avoid at all costs is having two men serving alongside each other, doing the same job, with one on one rate of pay and the other on another rate.
  The new Pay Code introduced this year has, to my astonishment, found general acceptance in all parts of the House of Commons. No critical voices were raised against it. It needs to be looked at with care. If the Committee does not understand it, if the House of Commons does not understand it, in every sergeants' mess, in every officers' mess and in every N.A.A.F.I. it is understood. In short, if the Secretary of State does not understand it, the most recently joined private soldier does, at least in relation to what he is getting. During the course of conversation he finds out what somebody else is getting, and that is that.
  On the face of it, the new Pay Code looks magnificent. Admittedly, there is a certain amount of simplification. The stars have disappeared, but in their place we have grades. The reason why we have abandoned the stars and introduced grades is because the Secretary of State for War is in grave difficulties about getting people for his Service. I am not now coming back to my hobbyhorse of yesterday of recruiting, although this is getting near to it.
  The new Pay Code was introduced not as an act of generosity on the part of the Army. The Grigg Committee recommended a biennial review, but, basically, the principles on which the Code is worked out are the same principles as are used for a flypaper.
  748
  One puts on some attractive sticky stuff and hopes the fly will get on to the flypaper and be stuck. It is exactly the same technique.
  When any concessions are given in, say, Group A, my suspicious mind makes me wonder how many people will get them. I wonder how many are to lose the concession and to how many it is being given. I am sure that if we could get the Under-Secretary to break down the distribution of the tradesmen's rate of pay in terms of class, we would find a mere handful in Group A, but a heck of a lot in Group B.
  I invite hon. Members to do as I have done and make a comparison between Group B and normal rates in the Pay Code which we are asked to adopt (Cmnd. 945), and to do the same sums in terms of the Pay Code contained in Cmnd. 365. We find that whereas in the 1958 Code, for sergeant upwards, including staff sergeant, warrant officer class II and warrant officer class I, there was a distinction—the differential was operating as between the tradesman and the non-tradesman—in the new Pay Code they all get the same.
  The reason is that the Secretary of State is not worried about that group. He has got those people. He is not worried about them in relation to his manpower problems. He is, however, concerned about varying groups in which he has shortages. If time permitted, one could fairly well draw up a list of the groups in which the Army finds itself in a position of acute shortage.
  I am not saying that it is wrong to use a differential. I have always advocated the use of a differential, but it must be worked out in such a way that not only the flies who are on the flypaper do not find out until it is too late but so that we are careful to see that the flies not on the flypaper do not find out as well, because they may be "too fly". I find from correspondence that I have had that Group B tradesmen in the Army already know what the War Office is up to. They think that it is an injustice, because a differential which distinguishes upwards also irks a bit if a person finds that he gets 10s. a week more if he is a warrant officer or Class II tradesman and then finds that the R.Q.M.S. on normal rates gets the same as himself.

  749
  It is the removal of this differentiation where it has existed which has had an acute effect on the morale and good feeling in the Army. If the Under-Secretary thinks that I am exaggerating, and it may well be that he does, I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I am quite willing to discuss this privately with him. I assure him that this new Command Paper will create in the long run as many problems for him as it solves. It is clear that the rates in it are involving the various Services in competing against one another, with the Royal Corps of Signals and R.E.M.E. competing against the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the R.A.S.C. I do not know who the hon. Gentleman wants to win, but one chap can only go into one arm of the Service.
  I turn now to the star system. I do not think that this was an idea which necessarily had to last for ever, and I do not claim credit for it because it happened to be introduced in the time of a Labour administration. I am quite willing to believe that it would have been introduced if the Conservatives had won in 1945. I think that the introduction of the star system, putting the combatant soldier on the same basis as the tradesman, was a step forward. I have taken the trouble to work through the various debates which took place on this subject, and I cannot do better than quote from Lieut.-Colonel Corbett, then the Member for Ludlow, who, in a debate in April, 1946, said:
  "I must … congratulate the War Office on introducing stars as co-partners with stripes for incentive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 2374.]
  I think that there is a great deal in that and in the combatant soldier feeling that there was something worth while in it.
  I cannot for the life me understand what is behind the throwing overboard of the star system, because I cannot see that the advantage of doing so is so great or that the cost of retaining it would have been so great. I must use my words carefully, and I do not want to talk about breaking faith, but I do not see the advantage of doing what this seems to be doing, namely, altering a reform which was so essential in terms of giving the combatant soldier prestige.
  I turn to one or two other anomalies. Again, I understand and sympathise with the Treasury point of view—because
  750
  I am sure that it was not the Army's — which denied the National Service man receiving any increase. But what about the young National Service officer, serving in the same mess, having to live the same sort of life, with the same sort of expenses as the Regular officer? He is on very different rates of pay and not feeling very happy about being there anyway, because National Service is coming to an end, and to some extent feeling financial embarrassment, because it may well be that as rates of pay go up so mess charges and the standards of living go up. I suppose that one can argue that the National Service man could apply for a Regular commission, but I do not think that that is a very effective answer. I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary that the War Office has considered this problem.
  I want to deal with two or three other cases. We heard yesterday about the new career structure and how the War Office proposed to erect, as it were, a ladder half way through their career to enable the warrant officer, N.C.O. or young man who has perhaps missed his first selection period to gain a commission. I invite the attention of the Secretary of State for War to those men who have got commissions, either quartermaster-class commissions or extended short-service commissions, so that he can see how they are treated. I am not asking him to give me answers now. I shall not inflict on the Committee a number of cases I have which reek of hardship on men who have been forced out into civilian life a few days or weeks short of the period when they might get retirement pay.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State and everyone in a position of responsibility for chaps under their command would want to put this right. I am also sure that the reason why they cannot put it right is 'because of an anonymous Mr. So-and-So sitting in the Treasury. I have no hopes of getting this redressed, but perhaps the Under-Secretary would be kind enough to let me give him details of these cases so that I can answer back, although not, as I say, with any hope at all for the poor chaps who feel themselves done down. But water wears away a stone and perhaps it may be that, in the long run, we can get some of these matters put right.

  751
  It is an excellent thing that we are getting this biennial review, but before we have the next one there ought to be a really serious attempt towards simplification. Anyone who argues that the new White Paper is simpler than the old might reach that conclusion if he just totted up the number of rates of pay that a private soldier can draw; but that is perhaps inherent in the complexity of our society. The simplicity which I aim for is not born of that. It is that anyone in the Army, from a field marshal to the most recently joined private, should be able to know which of the fifty rates of pay he is entitled to. I defy anyone to be quite sure what the White Paper means. I should like to think that the Under-Secretary would suggest to the Secretary of State that a popular booklet should be published, explaining to the troops what it is all about, because it may well be that some of the belly-aches that I have are misconceived. It may be that I have not the facts.
  On the other hand, if what I think is right, that there is something to hide, then my suggestion will not be very popular. I should like to put it to the Under-Secretary. I am sure that he is a kind and innocent man and would not be a party to this. But he has not watched the Treasury for so long as I have. Whenever I see the Treasury giving anything, I always look for the hook—and I have never been disappointed. I think that the troops are entitled to know what this is all about. If there are some hooks, and I am sure there are, the quicker they are discovered the better it will be for the Army.
  8.50 p.m.
  Brigadier Sir Otho Prior-Palmer: Following on what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said about soldiers not knowing what they are entitled to, I raised a matter about three years ago and I did not raise it yesterday because I thought tonight would be a more appropriate time. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to look at this point to see whether the system is still in operation in the Army or whether it has been abolished. I am referring to the question which arises when there is overpayment either of allowances or pay to a soldier. The hon. Member for Dudley said that
  752
  it is extremely hard for anyone to know what he is entitled to. A soldier is only too grateful to get what he is given and does not go into the amount too carefully to see whether or not he has been overpaid. Perhaps, as has happened over and over again, three months, six months or nine months later he receives a chit stating that he was overpaid £X and will he please refund it.
  I know of many things which upset soldiers in the Army, but I know of nothing which upsets them quite as much as that, because on Thursday evening they have little left of last week's pay let alone nine months later when they are asked to refund the money. I should like to know whether anything has been done about this. I believe that the one who should repay the money is the clerk in the pay office who made the mistake, not the unfortunate soldier.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: Is the Minister in a position to deal with a question about which I have written to him and which arises out of the doubt which people in the Army sometimes feel about their pay? That is the position of the doctors in the R.A.M.C., where there seems to be a large discrepancy between those with Regular commissions and those who enter under National Service. Since they do the same work, this is unsettling. Could the Minister deal with that point? It would be helpful if he could say a word on it.
  8.52 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): We have not long in which to got through the large number of Votes, so I will be as brief as I can in replying to the points made. On the first point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) on the National Service Grant, there is no change of policy—it is merely due to a diminishing number of people.
  Mr. Mulley: Is there any question of the rates being revised as far as the hon. Gentleman knows?
  Mr. Fraser: Without saying that the Treasury is a sinister influence, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) put it, I am afraid the answer to that question is no. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of technicians. I do not

  753
  believe that this is clumsy. It is the best way to deal with it. The numbers involved are comparatively small. I could let the hon. Gentleman have the actual percentage, but the technician today is, for example, an armament artificer who is a fairly rare bird. The hon. Gentleman also asked about paying money to troops by other methods. We have tried other methods but we have found that the present system is the most effective way. However, commanding officers and pay officers now make arrangements whereby a man can if necessary get his pay at the time he wishes, and we make it as agreeable as possible for the individual concerned.
  The hon. Member for Dudley, as usual, made a profound historical attack on past administration. I can say that there is no intention on the part of this Government, which has given £5 million by way of pay increases, to welsh on the Army. Nor, looking round the crowded Committee tonight, do I feel there is much danger of what happened in 1894, when Lord Rosebery's Government fell on the cordite Vote in the Army Estimates.
  Now I will try to answer some of the rather complex points made. The hon. Gentleman always has himself as an alter ego. One of the colonels, so to speak, was demanding that there should be a greater simplification and the other was demanding that there should be differentials. Of course this leads to some conflict. He posed the problem nicely. There is as shown by the two sections of his speech a continuous problem in Army pay, the question of simplification and the question of differentials. There is always the difficulty of simplification and of fairness to the individual.
  We think we have got it fairly right. Pay is complicated, but we cannot simplify it much beyond what we have already done. We have kept the number of scales, but we have reduced the number of groups from five to four. I believe that the total number of rates of pay has come down from about 260 to about 160 or 120. I may be wrong in the precise figures, but there has been a considerable reduction in the rates of pay. He talked, quite rightly, about the problem of pay and seeing that the fighting soldier keeps up with the tradesman. He argued in the first part of his speech that it was a bad thing that it was the
  754
  driver who should be let down, who used to be a tradesman in the B class, I believe, or lower B.
  Mr. Wigg: The driver mechanic of Army Order 325 is in Group E, but that is a detail. It is not a question of letting men down. My argument was not that but that the War Office gave those who had already got it reserved rights, so that they continue to draw it even after they have been declassified.
  Mr. Fraser: I see that point. The hon. Gentleman was also making a point about the rates of pay of fighting soldiers. He said that the star system entailed greater equality between the various types of tradesmen and—to put a quick word to it— the fighting soldier. He said that in 1946 it was brought into the three star system. The trouble was that the system quickly started breaking down because of the need of differentials. In a speech last year, the hon. Gentleman said he was sure that the Secretary of State must make greater use of the differential. What was the trouble by 1948? The number of stars had risen to six—the star being a point of excellence. By 1948—also under the late Labour Government—it was impossible for the ordinary fighting soldier, unless he was in a superior rank, to get six stars. He could only get five.
  In 1954 we brought the system up to seven stars. At this stage, all I can say —without wearying the House in explaining complicated technicalities—is that the fighting sergeant is helped to get a considerable advantage under this review. The two people who will most benefit are fighting soldiers of sergeant's rank and above, and the technicians. They are the two chief gainers from this very good pay code, which involves some £5 million.
  The hon. Gentleman also talked about extended service commissions. These are matters not of right but of privilege. Therefore, they must rest on individual cases; but I will consider any such cases he might care to bring forward.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) raised the question of over-payment. We have given commands power to remit it if the recalled overpayment from the soldier should cause hardship. That

  755
  will cause some benefit. We are shortly installing an electronic calculating machine, at a cost of several hundred thousand pounds, which will undoubtedly make either a mass of errors which will put every one in credit to the tune of millions, or, as I hope, will avoid the nine months delay we have suffered on occasion in the past.
  I will note the remarks made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and will write him, because this applies very much to individual and specific cases.
  Mr. Wigg: Is the hon. Gentleman to say anything about the poor National Service officer?
  Mr. Fraser: I have been into this question of the difficulty of the National Service officer in mess with some care, and the Army has kept close watch, because this could be a dangerous situation. There are about 2,000 National Service men who are second lieutenants. We have certain rules. The mess subscription is limited to ten days pay of the rank per year. Mess maintenance is limited to £1 a month and extra messing must not exceed 2s. 6d. a day. There is no maximum for mess entertainment of guests, but commanding officers see that no undue burden is put on the mess. Various miscellaneous charges, like batman and laundry and so forth, have to be added, so that the total amount is above £7 per month, while the pay of a second lieutenant is about £22 per month, so although he obviously cannot enjoy the same standard of living as his Regular fellow officers, he is not in a position of missing out. For £7 a month he can live in mess and join in guest nights, leaving him with £15 or £16 in his pocket. I think that the large number of National Service officers find that the system is working reasonably well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £127,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c, of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

  Vote 2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £20,140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenses of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 337,500, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 325,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 333,865, 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, 1961.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: In the newspapers which are close to the Minister responsible for the Government's information services, there were authoritative reports a few weeks ago saying that the Government were contemplating reorganising the reserve Services. I had quite a bunch of Press cuttings on the subject. I expected to see something on this subject in the Defence White Paper, because it is clear that the reserve organisation, based as it is at present upon Class A and the subsidiary reserve class, is falling out of date.
  Those hon. Members who say that we will never again get mass mobilisation, because there will not be time and so on, are probably right and we are spending a great deal of money on Reservists whom we may never need. Apart from the political advantage which might be gained from a reorganisation of the reserve forces, it is about time that the Government made some statement of policy.
  It is clear that each of the three Services has a different problem. The Royal Air Force, for example, has no mobilisation problem, because it can expand only in relation to the expansion of its equipment. The Army, on the other hand, has a problem if trouble arises. We got into difficulties two or three years ago in Jordan, for example. We were almost at the end of our tether, as were the Americans, and if things had got bad, we would have had to call on Class A Reservists.
  This is a useful opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether the Government have in mind any proposals for the reorganisation of the reserve forces. Such a reorganisation would undoubtedly require legislation and it may well be that there is not time in this Session, but I should be very pleased if the hon. Gentleman could tell us what

  757
  the Government's intentions are. I should be very happy to learn that a change is being considered, if not for this then for the next Session, and that we can look forward to new legislation to bring the present reserve structure more into line with modern needs.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry: I agree with every word the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said about laying down a policy for the reserve forces. That was gone into fairly fully last night and I hope that a definite rôle will be given.
  I should first like to express pleasure at seeing that the cost of training the Territorial Army in the forthcoming year will be larger than it was last year and that this is largely due to an increase in the number of volunteers. That brings with it increases in pay, and, thank goodness, increases in the training allowance which will be very welcome to every Territorial Army soldier.
  There is another thing which gives me no pleasure. That is the large increase in the grants for local associations. It is a large increase, so much so that the grants to local associations this year are almost as large as the expenditure on the training of the Territorial Army last year. I ask my hon. Friend to look closely into the expenditure on these Territorial Army associations. I consider that they are a complete anachronism. For years the Territorial Army has been marching nicely in step with the staff provided by the Regular Army. Despite that, it has been a cripple as a result of a third leg which consists of these local associations.
  Let us look at what happens. These associations were started many years ago for the purpose of providing good public relations for the Territorial Army, and to take an interest in its welfare. They have done that job very well throughout the years. The members, or at least the interested members, have consisted mainly of retired officers of the Regular and Territorial Armies and they have done good work, but since the war there has been built up a tremendous organisation which is unnecessary now.
  I make no apology to my hon. Friend for bringing this up because I have been preaching this all over the country for years. I made myself extremely un-
  758
  popular on this point while I was a serving officer, and my views, and the views of many Territorial Army officers, are well known on this subject.
  Before the war, the unit which I commanded until a short while ago, was administered by a Territorial Army association which had one part-time secretary, who was a local solicitor. He found his own office and his own staff. His salary, inclusive of everything, was £365 per annum. I do not know whether it was a coincidence that he was paid £1 per day for the job, but he had to find his own assistants and his own office.
  That association now has a full-time secretary who is a retired brigadier. I do not know what he is paid, but it is fair to assume that it is in excess of the sum paid to the secretary before the war, despite the fall in the value of money. He has a full-time assistant who is a retired Regular Army quartermaster who receives a four-figure salary. There is also a retired R.Q.M.S. working with him and a variety of highly-paid bodies —I am not sure how many, because I was naturally not selected as one of the military members of the association, and I am rather out of touch with what it is doing. What this association costs I hate to think, but I find that the first purpose of these grants is to pay for the administration of the headquarters of these associations.
  I suggest that my hon. Friend should look closely into this. He could cut down enormously on the vast amount of money being spent on these useless headquarters which serve little or no useful purpose.
  To justify my statements, I should like to consider the activities of these associations. Their principal duty is that of providing buildings for the Territorial Army. They spend a great deal of time on doing that. They erect the buildings and they employ local architects to design them. The secretary of the association with great regularity runs up to command headquarters, and also frequently visits the War Office, in connection with the erection of buildings.
  Even if it is necessary to provide a garage there have to be all sorts of approvals and an architect has to be employed. It would be so much easier for the unit, which has the specification for a

  759
  garage to which it is entitled—a yardstick as it is called—to go to district headquarters, find the C.R.E., and say, "What about supplying us with a Mark VI garage?" The C.R.E. has the staff. He is a capable man and he can do it quite well. A vast amount of money is spent on administration and architects' fees, not to mention the builder's charges. The Territorial associations are regarded as fair game by many people. A great deal of money could be saved by putting that work under the staff which already exists in the Regular Army set-up.
  The next most important thing that they look after are the ranges. This is a very ancient arrangement. I do not know how far back it goes. There are two kinds of rifle range throughout the country, one provided by the Regular Army and the other, which includes some very ancient ranges upon which a great deal of money is spent, belonging to the Territorial Army, under the administration of the local associations. The Regular Army ranges are looked after by the Regular Army staff at district headquarters and the other ranges are looked after by the local associations. This is a complete duplication of effort, which is quite unnecessary.
  The Estimates show that the associations are responsible for a number of other duties, including medical examinations of Territorial soldiers, the payment of civilian staff at Territorial headquarters, the payment of training and travelling allowances of Territorial soldiers, and the provision of clothing. If a Territorial soldier is being examined by the doctor he is sent to the doctor by the local company commander—a Territorial officer. The doctor examines the man and sends the bill to the local company commander, who sends it to his adjutant, who pays it and passes it through his books. He then has to send it on to the local association, which keeps a completely duplicate set of books. I cannot understand why that cannot all be done through the paymaster in the ordinary way. Why cannot the doctors be paid by the adjutant, through the ordinary pay channels.
  Exactly the same thing applies to the civilian staff at unit headquarters. They are paid by the adjutant, who has to keep a separate set of books, while a
  760
  completely duplicate set is kept across the road in the local association office. The same applies to training and travelling allowances. Comparatively small sums are involved. The adjutant must pay them, and he must keep a separate imprest account and completely separate books, in which he enters these comparatively small sums which he could deal with quite easily in the ordinary way.
  But the most ridiculous situation concerns clothing. Every major Territorial unit has a full-time Regular quartermaster, who is considered capable of dealing with ordnance and with every kind of store except uniforms. For some reason which I cannot understand he has to go to the super-duper quartermaster—the assistant secretary of the local association—to draw his clothing. The quartermaster keeps one set of ledgers for all clothing and equipment, and an exactly similar set is kept in the office of the local association.
  I do not think that people realise that all this duplication goes on, and I would ask my hon. Friend earnestly to look into this matter. A tremendous number of vested interests are involved. Many jobs are given to ex-officers and ex-warrant officers. They are all very estimable gentlemen, and I hope that they will get proper employment, but I suggest that they are quite misemployed in local associations, and that a close investigation into the affairs of these local associations, with a view to making drastic economies, is long overdue.
  9.15 p.m.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: As I think my hon. Friend knows, the county regiment for the Isle of Ely is the Cambridgeshire Regiment, which has had many changes in its rôle since the war. I think it is now firmly settled on an infantry basis. I am a little concerned about what is to happen regarding the rô1e of this regiment in connection with civil defence. There is a sort of mobile column in which I imagine that the Cambridgeshire Regiment might play a part in the event of an emergency, but I think we are entitled to know a little more about how the War Office and the Home Office visualise a tie-up between civilian and military organisations in an emergency.

  761
  I do not begrudge a penny of the money we pay to the Territorial Army. Recruiting for the Territorial Army is first-class and its morale, particularly that of the Cambridgeshire Regiment, is high. It is a source of gratification to me that the principal recruiting area for the Cambridgeshire Regiment lies in my constituency and not in that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Gerald Howard). We do not wish in any way to upset that state of affairs, but as Parliamentarians it is our duty to find out how it is visualised that the Territorial Army would be employed in the future.
  As I reminded the Committee during the debates on the Air Estimates, we have a rocket base in the Isle of Ely. Whatever may be the association between Regular and civil forces in other areas I am convinced that wherever these bases are sited the importance of civil defence becomes considerable. I am already in touch with the Home Office about its side of the responsibilities for Civil Defence, but I wish to make clear to my hon. Friend that there exists considerable disquiet—I put it no higher—about the present state of readiness regarding civil defence. There is an appalling atmosphere of uncertainty about what should happen in the event of an emergency.
  I do not know how much information is outside the bounds of secrecy and can be conveyed to me by my hon. Friend. I appreciate that there may be special arrangements which must be kept as confidential as possible. But whether we are interested from a Parliamentary point of view to ensure that the minds of our constituents are set at rest or whether it is a question of advising our sons and heirs to go into the Territorial Army, it is important that we should all know what rô1e is visualised for the Territorial Army.
  If the Territorial Army is to be used to provide front-line troops in overseas theatres of war, it will need to be equipped with modern weapons so that it can play its part in the general arrangements as a fully equipped army. If, on the other hand, its principal rôle is to be that of home security, perhaps we could avoid spending quite so much on providing weapons which otherwise would be necessary.
  Among the illustrations in the Memorandum published with the Estimates is
  762
  one of a new machine-gun. I know that in the Isle of Ely the Territorial Army is equipped with Vickers guns, a weapon with which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prio-Palmer) and I had some experience in bygone days. I realise that under Vote 2 we are not discussing the cost of weapons but if we are to recruit Territorial troops we should have in mind before doing so what sort of rôle they will play, and with what equipment they will be provided. We should also like to know whether the money is being spent as wisely as possible.
  Whenever the Army changes from one form of armament to another there are some spare parts and more obsolescent material is available. Before we decide exactly how to arm the Territorial Army, we have to consider very carefully what its rôle is to be. If its rôle is to be primarily concerned at home, it is quite possible that we might save by providing weapons which would not be effective if it were engaged overseas, but nevertheless might be most suitable for what would possibly be required in keeping law and order at home.
  I realise that my hon. Friend has very little direct responsibility for what the Home Office might decide over Civil Defence, but I hope that he can give some indication whether the Territorial Army is to be primarily designed to play its part in keeping the homeland secure in the event of war or emergency, or if it is to be employed overseas and, if it is to be employed at home, where it is to be employed and to what extent the installation of static rocket bases in this country will alter that particular rôle. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that I am entitled to ask that question because of the installation in my constituency.
  I wish to say a word or two about the Army Cadet Force. We have raised this matter from time to time in previous Estimates debates. It has always seemed to me that one of the most valuable things about the Army Cadet Force would be if a young boy who had done well in the Cadet Force could get some benefit for having done so well when he joined the Regular Army. We regard cadet forces, both in the Royal Air Force and in the Army, as a recruiting ground for Regular service. It has always

  763
  seemed to me that not enough recognition has been given in the past to achievement in the cadet force when the man concerned becomes a recruit in the Regular Forces. As this is the centenary year of the Army Cadet Force—on which I think we should congratulate all concerned—it might be a very appropriate year in which to make some particular gesture on this matter.
  Where a boy has shown considerable powers of leadership and so forth he might be able to receive some priority when he first joins his Regular unit. The work which the Army Cadet Force is to do should be considered with the general advancement of scientific interest which is taking place in the Regular Forces. I hope we shall not keep them merely as a rather good way of disciplining young men. We should arouse their interest in the most modern weapons and equipment of the Army. If we do not do that I am sure that in the end support for the Army Cadet Force will gradually fall away on the ground that it is becoming archaic and obsolescent. That would be a great pity.
  I hope we shall keep headmasters of public schools, grammar schools and high schools throughout the country well in touch with all this. There was a trend not so very long ago for some headmasters to say, "What was possible in times of National Service is no longer possible for our cadet forces. Now National Service is ending, we can cut down on school cadet forces". It would be tragic if that were to happen. I hope that my hon. Friend can give a satisfactory report on that matter because a few years ago, with the prospect of National Service ending, there was a dangerous trend creeping into the minds of headmasters who ought to have known much better.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. H. Fraser: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) raised the problem of the reorganisation of the Reserve. He raised it in the widest possible sense and referred to the other Services. This must be a matter for the Ministry of Defence. Obviously this is a problem which must concern us all, because by 1963 at the end of National Service our Reserve will be dropping. Clearly, something will have to be done in the next year or so. I thank the hon. Gentleman for using
  764
  his usual perspicacity in these matters. It is a problem which undoubtedly lies ahead of us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) paid some compliments to the War Office for returning to the fifteen days training period, amongst other things, and then made a fairly slashing attack on the local associations. About three years ago, a report on the Territorial Associations, called the Maclean Report was published. I do not know if my hon. Friend has read that. The Report exonerated the associations from most of the allegations which he made against them. I shall be happy to go into any detail he thinks it worth while bringing before me, but in general we must stand by that Report, which was thorough. It went into the whole field of these associations and their activities and found that, on the whole, they did a remarkably good and useful job.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) talked about the Territorial Army, and the Cambridgeshire Regiment in particular. Some of the things he said cut right across my field and are matters more for Civil Defence and the Home Office than for me. I can give him the assurance that we are seeing that the military organisation of United Kingdom Land Forces is being strictly paralleled with the Civil Defence organisation. I do not suppose that he would expect me to tell him this evening what the rôle of the Cambridgeshire Regiment is. I must confess that I do not know it. Doubtless it is fitting in with the general pattern.
  My hon. and gallant Friend then discussed role and equipment. Many of the things he said showed great wisdom and appreciation of the problem. As I said last night, it would not be appropriate at this stage to try to tie the Territorial Army down to too strict an interpretation of role. As I tried to say then, one of the problems of war today and of understanding war is the insurance against improbability. One of the great uses of this gallant and powerful body of men, the Territorial Forces, is that they are prepared to put their hand to almost anything. We will see as the years go by that more equipment which flows from the Regular Army—which, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, we are still in the midst of equipping—is available to the Territorial Army.

  765
  My hon. and gallant Friend then talked about the A.C.F. It would be an excellent idea if we could do something on the lines of his suggestion. There are problems about the actual implementation of his idea, but I am sure that there should be some method of seeing that new men are documented when they come forward so that commanding officers of units can understand what excellent recruits they have. It is impossible to go beyond that with any more formalised system.
  My hon. and gallant Friend then discussed the leadership of the A.C.F. Here again, I can report that we are now using Frimley Park, where there is instruction and where the A.C.F. and the T.A. are working more closely together, which is all to the good.
  Lastly, my hon. and gallant Friend talked about schools. We are trying always to improve our relationship with schools of all sorts in this country. In general, we are making some progress. Certainly the standard of our liaison has improved greatly in the last year.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £20,140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenses of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 337,500, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 325,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 333,865, 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 1961.

  Vote 7. Stores
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £64,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of stores (including stores for research and development projects and inspection, disposal and certain capital and ancillary services relating thereto) which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Mulley: In view of the short time which remains for discussing the rest of the Army Votes, I shall not put some of the questions I had intended to put. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will permit me to write to him and take up some of the more detailed matters in that way.
  This Vote is probably the most important of the Votes with which we
  766
  are concerned, because, as far as I can understand the accountancy of the Army, this is the Vote within which the technical stores, weapons, and so forth are contained. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can amplify a little paragraph 6 of the Memorandum which simply says that
  "Much of the Army's maintenance requirements will again be met from accumulated stocks, but savings from these sources are diminishing. The sale of surplus stores is expected to realise £10·3 million, compared with £12·1 million in 1959–60."
  To what extent can we, in this year, in view of the improved equipment of the Army, expect to have our maintenance requirements met from past stocks?
  The other thing which surprises me is that surplus stores should today have such a phenomenal value as £10 million. Every year, it seems that the Army has large surplus stocks to dispose of. This seems to indicate, unless there is some overriding reason, very bad planning in the purchase of stores at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) has often raised questions about Army boots. I shall not take up that matter tonight, but such things do cause considerable concern in the public mind.
  People feel that, while they do not mind providing the money for the Army, they want the money to be well spent. As one goes about the country, one sees the many "surplus stores" shops selling what is alleged to be Army equipment, clothing and so forth, and one wonders how it comes about that, so long after the war, if there is prudent planning by the War Office, such shops never seem to lack clothing and equipment of many kinds.
  I think I should disappoint the Under-Secretary of State if I did not ask him why the hair cutting of Gurkhas has special provision within this Vote, under "Clothing Services." My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) asked about this last year and I remember that, not surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman was then unable to furnish an answer. I am sure that this year he has come fortified with the reasons why the hair-cutting of Gurkhas has such a prominent place in our Army accountancy. I should, of course, be the last person to want to deprive the excellent Gurkha troops of anything they

  767
  reasonably require, but it is a little surprising that they alone should be catered for in this particular way.
  It seems a little odd, also, that, while the provision for clothing is to be subtantially increased in the next year, despite the rundown of the Forces—perhaps this is a result of the new uniform and we shall be told about that—the Subheads "Clothing Allowances" and "Clothing Services" show reductions.
  The main issue we must concern ourselves with here is the broad question of whether the men in the Army are having the weapons about which we hear in these debates. We see pictures of them in the Memoranda. I was interested when the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) spoke about the possibility of the Territorials having the gun illustrated in the Memorandum. I should like to know the date when our troops in the front line in Germany will have that kind of gun.
  Mr. H. Fraser: What is the hon. Gentleman referring to?
  Mr. Mulley: The new general-purpose machine gun. I think that the hon. and gallant Member spoke about that.
  Major Legge-Bourke Major Legge-Bourke indicated assent.
  Mr. Mulley: Presumably, it is the replacement for the Vickers. Last year, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), then Minister of Supply, speaking always in the future tense about the provision of weapons said:
  "The rifle before the F.N. rifle goes back to the First World War. The machine gun goes back to that war, and the 25-pounder gun goes back to 1938."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 1317.]
  He also said in the same debate—I thought not very encouragingly for the young men in the Service—that the Army could not have proper equipment until it got rid of the National Service men, which was very surprising and I thought rather unfair. The deplorable state of the weapons in the Army was shown last year. We are asked for considerable sums of money, and now, of course, the War Office has control of the provision or ordnance for the Army. I think it would help us a great deal if we could get from the hon. Gentleman tonight some idea of what has actually
  768
  gone to the men in the last year, and what weapons they will get, not in terms of designs and pictures of weapons, but in terms of actual weapons in the hands of the fighting troops in the current year, for which we are asked to provide money tonight.
  The gap between the design and the time when the weapons are actually in the hands of the units, ready to be used if necessary, is extremely long in the Army, as in all the other Services. While we can understand the big problems concerning the provision of aircraft, I should have thought that in the case of Army equipment we could cut this gap. I wonder to what extent, both for reasons of speed and economy, we could possibly work more closely than we are doing with our Allies in N.A.T.O. and Western European Union, but that is rather a large question on which we cannot do much with the present generation of weapons. It will be the next generation of weapons in which, if we get the proper drive from the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, we can possibly make economies and work in greater co-operation with our Allies.
  I should like to know what the Army got last year for the money which we voted, and what it is getting this year from this money in terms of weapons actually in the hands of the troops.
  9.38 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: My concern is not with the goods in the shop window. We shall know before many months are out how far the first line re-equipment of the Army has gone. I am prepared to accept, as the Secretary of State has told us, that the first line of re-equipment is going smoothly, and I can tell hon. Members who may go round visiting units that I think they will find the situation quite satisfactory.
  To my mind, that is not the problem. It is a question of the whole service and the organisation and maintenance of the stores which exist. I want to take up the question of the ammunition which is borne on this Vote. I think that one of the most short-sighted economies which the War Office and the Minister of Defence have carried through is the winding up of the command ammunition depots and the concentration of ammunition in three central depots at Kineton,

  769
  Corsharn and Bramley. Hon. Members should pause for a moment and see what this means.
  The major part of the strategic reserve is in Southern Command. This reform—if that is the right word—and I would call it something quite different— means that that strategic reserve, if ever called upon to operate, even in a limited field, would have to draw its ammunition from Bramley. By my calculations, the regimental transport of 140 units would be milling round Bramley for a period of four days. I do not think that that is clever, and I want hon. Members to note what happened in the First World War. It was a model of what mobilisation should be. Hon. Members have no need to look any further than the first chapter of the first volume of the history of the First World War. It was a magnificent achievement. We cannot recall it too often. Sixty thousand men and 60,000 horses, with their forage, in a period of fourteen days were taken across to France and were in action by first light on 22nd August.
  We cannot even begin to touch this problem. Perhaps the best thing to do is to hand the whole matter over to the hon. Member who asked about boots and dispose of it for all the value it is, because they are of use only if they can be available on mobilisation. This is one of the most short-sighted economies that any Government has ever carried out. I hope that in the reappraisal of defence policy which is taking place at present the hon. Gentleman will have a look at this matter. It is one of the key points in the Army.
  I say to the Government, for heaven's sake do not be cheeseparing in this matter. If they are, and should another situation like Suez come along, the Government will find themselves in precisely the same situation as that which prevailed at Suez, namely, a situation which requires immediate action, but they will be incapable of acting. The matter therefore gets drawn out. When the operation is finally launched, it is a hopeless flop. It depends on the Government's ability to carry through speedy action in a real emergency and on their ability to handle the problem speedily. I therefore begrudge every penny that the Government save in this sphere. It is the falsest of false economies.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I should like to support what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said. Perhaps I might add one point which I think emphasises what the hon. Member has been saying. If we have automatic rifles, we shall get through ten times the amount of ammunition needed for any previous rifle. That is the great argument against having automatic rifles. The expenditure of ammunition is appalling.
  Having fired the F.N. rifle, being one of the first hon. Members to have done so, I can say that I have a great respect for the efficiency of the weapon and I do not wish to suggest that we should cancel the order to supply it. However, we must be very careful before we change the basic machine gun of the Army. I have been reminded of this throughout these debates. The Vickers machine gun had one type of stoppage in which one fired a few rounds and then stopped again and took various action with the crank handle and other things and eased, pulled and tapped. This reminds me of the hon. Member for Dudley attacking his right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). However, I think that we all fire a few rounds, stop, and then fire a few more throughout these debates.
  I shall need a lot of convincing that any replacement for the Vickers is better than the Vickers. I believe that we should be very careful before we dispense with this gun.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. H. Fraser: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) referred to the general purpose machine gun and said that we should get it into operation immediately.
  Mr. Mulley: I did not say that we should get it into operation immediately. I thought it proper that the fighting men should have it first before it was considered for the Territorials.
  Mr. Fraser: I agree. The trouble about a question like this—and this is where the former Minister of Supply was to a large extent right—is that it is vital to get the basic weapons of the Army right. It would be the greatest folly to invest in a weapon until it had undergone the most stringent, urgent and tough troop trials. I agree with the hon.

  771
  Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that the mass of equipment is coming forward as the House of Commons expects and that it is being successful.
  The hon. Member raised the question of ammunition, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). Last year, we had difficulty with ammunition. We had difficulty with fuses and with special types of shell and, as will be remembered, we dropped rather heavily. This year, I am happy to say, the position is much better. If hon. Members look at the Estimates, they will see that our ammunition supply is going well.
  The hon. Member for Dudley raised the great question of the Expeditionary Force in 1914. It was indeed a remarkable achievement. Many of those conditions, however, do not apply today. The main difference is that more than half our Army is overseas, in Germany especially; and that is where the bases, dumps, and so on, must be. Therefore. I would not agree with the hon. Member about the rundown from the command ordnance depots to the central ordnance depots. I should be prepared to debate that in detail with him.
  Among the other questions, the hair-cutting of the Gurkhas was raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park. As time is running short, I will communicate with the hon. Member by letter. I remember the details but do not want to weary hon. Members with them. A point of importance made by the hon. Member concerned the amount of equipment we were selling annually. He asked whether we were living too much off our fat and whether all the stuff was dud. The truth is that we have been running down the Army since the mass Army of Korean days. It automatically follows that £10 million worth of stores, including items like boots, flows on to the market every year while we run down. We do not want to over-flood the market, but try to keep it in fair balance so as not to suffer undue loss. This state of affairs, however, is coming to an end within the next few years. The sale of surplus stores has dropped from £12 million last year to £10 million this year and will continue to drop as the rundown continues. Since 1956, the number of ordnance depots has been reduced by 62.
  772
  Those were the main points raised on the Vote. On the whole, the provision of stores has gone well. Hon. Members will take pleasure in the fact that we are spending £5 million more on the equipment of the Army than we spent last year.
  9.48 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: I shall look forward to the debate with the Under-Secretary on the subject of ammunition. He was skating on thin ice when—he put it rather nicely —he said that last year we had some difficulty with ammunition. As we are to have a debate, let us mention one or two of the difficulties that we have had so that the hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, clear them up.
  At the time of Suez, our infantry antitank weapon was the Bat. It had to be withdrawn because the ammunition was defective. In its place, the only thing we could do was to use the American 106 mm. and use it at Suez in defiance of a solemn undertaking which we had given to the Americans that we would use that weapon only with their permission. If the hon. Gentleman cares to check, he will find that on 5th November, 1956, the State Department protested against the misuse of that weapon.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I cannot see how I am responsible for that. I am responsible only for the present Vote.
  The Chairman: It does not arise on this Vote. The Question is—
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say, Sir Gordon, that there had been difficulties and he talked about a debate. I am all in favour of debate. I am not going into it at any great length, but it is important to point out also that we went into Jordan a little later. What did we go in with? The British anti-tank weapon? Oh, no. Up pops the American 106 mm. again. Therefore, are the ammunition difficulties in this field being solved? First we had the Bat, then the Mobat, now we have the Wombat. When he mentions ammunition difficulties, is the Undersecretary absolutely certain not that we are overcoming them but that they have been overcome?
  Mr. Fraser: On these grounds I can give the hon. Member an assurance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £64,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of stores (including stores for research and development projects and inspection, disposal and certain capital and ancillary services relating thereto) which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

  Vote 8. Works, Buildings and Lands
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £33,910.000, 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 3lst day of March, 1961.
  9.51 p.m.
  Mr. Mulley: In view of the time, I want to ask only one question, and to ask it rather sharply. In the general debate yesterday, a great number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee mentioned that we had to be very careful about our bases in certain parts of the world, such as Cyprus and Kenya. Taking the long view, are we likely to be able to maintain those bases for a long time?
  I have not been able to find any guidance from the Estimates themselves. What proportion of the expenditure on these works, buildings and lands overseas is being spent on these bases when we may well have to surrender them in a short time? If the Under-Secretary has the figures for the expenditure abroad, divided between countries and bases, it would be very helpful to have them. In view of the time, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would send them to me.
  9.52 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Before I say anything on the Vote, as the Leader of the Opposition is now in the Chamber, I should like to lodge a protest as strongly as I can against the appalling rush in which we have had to debate in detail these Estimates today. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will co-operate in this matter—
  The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): This is not relevant to the present Vote.
  Major Legge-Bourke: If I may say so, hon. Members have sprung up from both sides of the Committee, to mention it—and my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for War has been talk-
  774
  ing throughout the debate about the time being what it is and about the little time left.
  The Chairman: We are not discussing procedure at present.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I am fully seized of that. I have a number of matters which I should like to raise on Vote 8, but because of the time I cannot do so and the Vote is £33,910,000, Sir Gordon, as you read out. It is absolutely abominable that the attendance in this Committee throughout the day should have been what it was and that we should be inhibited in this way in discussing these matters.
  In the circumstances, all I have to say on the Vote is to ask the Undersecretary if he would please see that when renewal and redecorations are taking place of property under his Department's care, especially that type of property which concerns married quarters, somebody shows some interest in the work that is being done before the workmen actually move out. We all know the sort of thing that happens. The Ministry of Works comes into this matter to some extent.
  It is really heartbreaking when one knows the considerable sums that are spent on redecorating married quarters that the whole thing should be done at the whim of the workmen concerned without anyone seeing that it is done satisfactorily. The result is that the work can very easily be done in slipshod fashion to the great disappointment of those how have been looking forward to having their quarters redecorated. This is not only bad for the Army, but it is an abominable waste of public money.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I will certainly take up any point which my hon. and gallant Friend would like to raise. The new works organisation has made great strides and Mr. Gibson, the Director-General of Works, and others who are working with him are extremely conscientious. On the whole, I think that the kind of thing to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred rarely happens. I will, however, take up most seriously any individual case he brings to my notice.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) asked for

  775
  rather complicated information which, I am afraid, I cannot subtract from the general sum which I have before me at the moment. I will write to him and let him have the details.
  I repeat what I said last night. Of course we are at some risk once we are outside this country, but I am quite convinced that the bases we occupy overseas are not merely to our own benefit but are for the general protection of the Commonwealth. Throughout many parts of the Commonwealth, such as Singapore and Malaya, they are welcome, and I am sure will soon be welcome elsewhere.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £33,910,000, 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 1961.

  Vote 9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That a sum, not exceeding £8,260,000, 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 1961.
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. Mulley: In the few remaining minutes, I would stress a particular aspect of this Vote which I think is of great importance and will be of great importance in the years to come, namely, publicity on recruiting. The point was made in the debate yesterday, and I think should be stressed again, that the War Office in approaching this matter quotes the pay of the Service men completely net, without making it clear for comparison purposes that there are allowances, rations, married allowances and so on.
  The Minister of Defence mentioned yesterday that he was making a great drive for general recruiting and was getting Sir Frederic Hooper's assistance and so on. I wonder to what extent he has been planning to do a special job for the Army. I notice that the Central Office of Information does most of the work. Does part of the cost fall on its vote as well as on this one? Is the sum that we have heard the whole cost of publicity on recruiting? I am sorry that
  776
  there is not more time because I think that hon. Members could give the hon. Gentleman a lot of expert advice on how to go about this publicity for recruiting, Which is an extremely important matter.
  In my final words tonight on the Army Estimates—I have the Adjournment to come—I would stress that if we could have more defence debates before we come round to considering the Army in twelve months' time, it would give general satisfaction to both sides of the Committee.
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: I want to refer to the payment in respect of the Suez Canal base. I had the pleasure of taking a deputation of British officers interned by Nasser at the time of Suez to see the hon. Gentleman, and subsequently the Prime Minister was good enough to see them. Some concessions were made to them in terms of their being given better jobs and, in some cases, meeting their financial difficulties. Now that we have some new Conservative Members I hope that we shall again look at this problem. I had to do it all on my own. I am very pleased and proud that I managed to do something with the help of the hon. Gentleman, and I acknowledge his kindness and courtesy in this matter.
  There was a major injustice to 470 British officers who were serving this country in the Suez base and who were interned. Many of them came back, having lost health and money, and nothing was done for them. I am sure that this was not the wish of the War Office. All the time that I was talking to the Secretary of State and to the Undersecretary they were on my side.
  The trouble is the old and ancient enemy the Treasury. If hon. Members opposite would form themselves into a deputation and storm the citadels of that barren and bleak place they would be putting right what, I am sure, is a major injustice and a blot on our record. The simple point is that these chaps were interned and because of that, the Treasury, governed by precedent, says that we must not help our nationals if they have been interned by another power.
  These officers were there and many of them had resigned their Regular commissions and had undertaken service in the

  777
  Suez base at the request of the Government. When they came home they got little more than scant justice. I hope that many hon. Members will go into this matter and, if I can give them any information, I shall be glad to do so.
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. H. Fraser: I will certainly look at the publicity point so rightly raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley). Of course, part of the C.O.I. Vote is as he knows, covered on page 7 of the Estimates. I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for the kind words he said about me, but I must tell him here and now that so far as the War Office is concerned we can take no further steps. We believe that we behaved honourably in this matter, as did the Prime Minister and the Government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £8,260,000, 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, 1961.
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Report of Resolutions to be received Tomorrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES, SHEFFIELD
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: After the very large questions with which the House has been concerned today and the large sums of money involved, I must ask it now to turn, rather characteristically in our procedure, to a very small matter. I recall one of the most penetrating remarks that I read when the Soviet Union produced its Sputnik. In one newspaper a lady wrote, "If it is going to be possible in the near future to send a rocket to the moon, I think it should soon be possible for electricity to be brought into my street". Our concern tonight is not so much the provision of electricity in the houses in question, but of the electricity supply being adequate. There should be maintained a sufficient volume of current so that the consumers can gain the benefit of the electrical installation.
  The houses in question are about fifty in Fellbrigg Road, Sheffield, in my constituency. The most surprising feature of this matter is that the persons concerned have been so patient because, as I understand it, over the last three or four years in the winter months, between the hours of 7 and 11 in the evening, it is often the case that there is not sufficient current to give enough light for them to read or sew. In particular, in recent years, there has been insufficient current for them to enjoy reasonable reception from their television sets. This concerns not only that locality but is even more widespread.
  In this connection, I am obliged to the Yorkshire Electricity Board for the following information. I am told that television is a good voltmeter, and in the Electrical Journal for 22nd January last there appeared this statement:
  "At a recent meeting of the North-Eastern Electricity Consultative Council … the Chief Commercial Officer of the Board acknowledged that variations in supply would probably never be noticed but for television, which made a good voltmeter."
  In the case with which I am concerned, I am assured by the people living in those houses that it is very much worse than merely not getting a satisfactory

  779
  supply. It is freely acknowledged by the Yorkshire Electricity Board that the voltage frequently falls outside the statutory permitted variation of plus or minus 6 per cent.
  The question with which we are concerned is, what can be done about it? I do not wish to attack the Yorkshire Electricity Board, or indeed the electricity industry generally. I know that there have been arrears as a result of the war and that the board has been placed in serious difficulties as the result of a substantial number of capital cuts that have been imposed on the nationalised industries as part of the Government's financial policy.
  We know that the local authorities and the nationalised industries have suffered from capital cuts and variations in their capital programmes in the last few years, but I think that the additional sub-station, which, I believe, is all that is necessary to provide adequate supplies to this street, should not be allowed, after four years, still to be wanting. It seems wrong, both in principle and as a matter of trading practice, for the electricity authority to be extending its supply, using capital equipment for new consumers at a time when existing consumers are not getting satisfactory service.
  I believe—though I am no expert on the technical aspects—that while the supply may not be sufficient to give them adequate light or to run their television or other apparatus, it is still sufficient to turn the meter so that they seem to be paying the same amount as they would be if they were getting a proper supply. Certainly they are paying, I understand, the normal fixed charge, which is on the normal two-way tariff basis, and they pay that whether or not they are getting a satisfactory service.
  I understand from correspondence with the board that remedial measures have been in hand since 1958. Now we are in 1960 and no satisfaction has yet been given. Since I gave notice of my intention to raise this matter tonight, I am informed that some operations are taking place in the street, or next to the street, by the Yorkshire Electricity Board, and there is considerable optimism among the persons concerned that at last remedial measures are going
  780
  to be applied and that they will be able to sit, like their fellows in Sheffield, round the television at night and enjoy the programmes.
  I hope I shall have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary—to whom I am obliged for staying tonight to reply to this debate— of a satisfactory character. This is only one example, and there may well be others in Sheffield. Perhaps in replying he can give a general picture of the electricity supply and the difficulties in Sheffield. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) did ask me in particular to mention one street, some residents of which have written to him since this matter received publicity. I believe it is Bessingby Road, Hillsborough. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, having had notice of that, has been able to make inquiries and can give us some news about it as well.
  This is a small matter after the millions of £s the House has been in the course of voting during the day, but it is the right of a Member to bring the smallest matter of his constituency up for discussion in the House, and very often I think the difference between misery and happiness probably turns on the small thing of an adequate electric light. I know of a number of cases where elderly people are unable to get their entertainment and benefit from their television sets, which they bought with money saved over the years, and this is a very real hardship indeed. This is not an attempt just to cause trouble to the hon. Gentleman or the Electricity Board, but an attempt to bring a real difficulty and hardship of some fifty families to his attention. I hope the digging in the road may indicate that he can give us some good news tonight.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry: I express the very deepest sympathy with the constituents of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), who have been deprived of a proper electricity supply. I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will take very grave note of what the hon. Member has said about the hardship suffered by these people. This is truly a case where one half of the world does not know how the other half lives.

  781
  I suggest that the hon. Member might tell his constituents of my constituents, who have been promised a supply for seven years but who have not had it yet. I wish that I could assure the hon. Member that the Minister's reason for failing to provide a proper supply for the hon. Member's constituents was the fact that he has been so busy using all the resources of the country to supply electricity for my constituents, but I am afraid that that is not so.
  It would be a very good idea if the Minister were to consider putting a surcharge on electricity consumers in Sheffield and other parts of the country to help the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board to bring electricity to the people in the heart of the country to whom electricity is absolutely vital and where the service would be uneconomic. Perhaps that suggestion is out of order, but I hope that the Minister will pay attention to what we have both said.
  Mr. Mulley: I think the hon. Gentleman will concede that I had better get proper supplies for my constituents before I dare make suggestions about surcharging them.
  Mr. Hendry: I have already suggested that the Minister should put the hon. Member's problem right.
  10.11 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for the helpful and restrained way in which he put his case and for the co-operation which he showed me in informing me in advance of the points he was likely to raise. Even though I am a Scotsman and represent a Scots constituency, I hesitate to enter into an argument about an electricity supply in Scotland. Much as I sympathise with any troubles which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) may have, I will confine myself to the problem of Sheffield.
  I said that the case had been put forward in a helpful and restrained way, but that does not mean that there has not been a great deal of irritation, frustration and hardship. My right hon. Friend and I are most sympathetic with the people concerned. The Yorkshire Electricity Board is well aware of the
  782
  defects and is very anxious to eradicate them as swiftly as circumstances permit.
  The trouble, as has been said, is the locally low voltage, which has several effects—lamps give less light, fires give less heat, the size of the television picture is reduced and the definition is poor, and there are other annoying features. Since television has become an integral and intimate part of our life, hardship is being caused, and the board's reputation suffers. The board is well aware of that, and it is therefore keen and eager to get rid of low voltage in its area as quickly as possible. The hon. Member said that this was a local and small problem, as it is, but that is not to under-rate its importance. It is also part of a wide national problem, as the hon. Member himself said.
  The electricity industry has a tremendous appetite for capital. The swiftly increasing demand since the war has involved the investment of vast sums of money to enable the industry to supply all classes of consumer. The board is eager to meet all new requests. I did not agree with the hon. Member when he said that the board should leave some of the new requests and carry on with reinforcement, because some of the new requests simply cannot be left on one side—industry and new housing estates are all urgent needs, which must be met.
  The industry has been dealing with vast new demands since the end of the war and its expansion and increase in efficiency have been among the features of our post-war industrial effort. New demands are not the only problem. As the hon. Member said, we have had the unavoidable neglect of the war years and accumulating arrears.
  In the years when we could not afford to spend much money on electricity supply, because we were using everything for the war effort, domestic demand was increasing rapidly. Between 1938 and 1948, domestic demand went up by 100 per cent., and the local cables, the sort of small cables with which we are dealing this evening, had their capacity severely tested, but nothing could be done about it. Between 1948 and 1958, there was a further increase of 50 per cent. and those little cables, already strained became severely overloaded.

  783
  Replacement and reinforcement was put in train. By replacement I mean the replacing of the small cables by cables of larger diameter. Reinforcement is the bringing of high-voltage current nearer the place of use and installing additional sub-stations. Replacement and reinforcement which began slowly after 1945 gained momentum as the years advanced.
  That was not the only task facing the boards. All the boards have had three main tasks in the post-war years. They have had to deal with new loads. That had to be first priority. They have had to deal with replacement and reinforcement, because, with the increase in domestic demand, which I have described, plus the increase in industrial demand in the big cities, the cables in nearly every large city became hot and overloaded. There were great arrears of work that had to be undertaken. The boards have also had to deal with rural electrification which had been neglected. The need for this was urgent in the minds of the people and it was also considered to be urgent by the Government.
  Electricity has been the favourite child of industry in the post-war years. The financial demands have been insatiable, but successive Governments have found it necessary to restrain local capital spending. When restraint came along the boards could not neglect new industrial demands. People had to get employment. Industry had to increase production. The boards could not neglect the new housing estates which were built on the perimeters of our cities. Those people had to get light. They had none. In addition the farms had to be supplied with electricity. People who had electricity were suffering from the difficulties described by the hon. Gentleman, but many farms had no electricity.
  In the event, reinforcement did not go forward as speedily as the boards would have wished, but the Government are well aware of the problem and they have steadily increased the amount devoted to reinforcement in recent years. If one looks at the White Papers covering capital investment in the coal, gas, and electricity industries, one sees that in 1956–57, £32 million was spent on reinforcement in England and Wales.
  784
  In 1957–58, £37 million was spent. In 1958–59 the figure was £39 million, and the estimate for 1959–60 is £46 million. While it has become habitual to talk about growing expenditure, the expenditure on reinforcement has not advanced as swiftly as the Government would have liked, or as the boards would have liked, or as the consumers throughout the country would have liked.
  In the Sheffield sub-area this financial year the Yorkshire Electricity Board is spending £314,000. It has been steadily increasing expenditure on replacement and reinforcement. Even if at this stage we were to have unlimited funds everything could not be done at once. We need skilled men to plan the changes to be made. We need skilled men to carry out the changing of the cables and to build sub-stations. Above all, in intensely built-up areas we have to secure sites. That is not easy to do. It sometimes takes a long time to secure a site and that is the position in the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  In the Fellbrigg Road area in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman it was found, as he said, that in the winter of 1957–58 the voltage was below the statutory minimum. It was 6 per cent. below the declared voltage. It might be worse now—I think that perhaps it is at times of peak load.
  In general, the position is of course worst at times of peak load. I would distinguish between the peak loads of the nation as a whole which take place at certain hours, and the peak domestic load in small cables which take place in the winter evenings when all the equipment in the home, lights, television, and so on, are on. At this time of peak local load, the trouble arises in the street mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, for the voltage is then below the statutory minimum.
  The Yorkshire Electricity Board did not just record that fact: it took action at once. It decided that not one, but three, additional sub-stations were required. It set about searching for them in this built-up area. It had great difficulty, because the local authority was not in a position to make up its mind about the use of certain parts of its area, as is not to be wondered at. When a local authority is planning changes in a built-up area one cannot reasonably ask

  785
  it to give way to a request for a substation One must wait until the plans are fully drawn up for an area. That is what happened in this area, and progress was slow.
  The board started in 1957–58; permission was obtained for the first substation in May, 1959, and permissions for a further two were obtained last December. As the hon. Member knows, one of the sub-stations is now building, and I can assure him that it will be completed before the end of the winter. The other two will not be brought into use this winter, but I can promise the hon. Member that they will be brought into use well before next winter. In the summer the position will be easier. These stations will be brought in to take care of his constituents' troubles before next winter.
  After that, I am certain that there will be no further cause for complaint in the street to which he has referred. Family tempers will be soothed again, and perhaps family happiness will be restored. I hope that that gives the hon. Member satisfaction.
  But he raised the wider question of Sheffield as a whole, and Bessingby Road, in Hillsborough, in particular. I have investigated the position, and I find that there are 198,000 consumers in Sheffield. Of that number, 5,400 have voltages which are sometimes below the declared standard. The figure of 5,400 is only 3 per cent. of the total—a small figure, but still a problem. In each of the homes of that 5,400, at some time during the day, the voltage is below standard. These people are suffering to
  786
  a greater or lesser degree the same annoyance as the hon. Member described in the case of Fellbrigg Road To deal with this problem, 37 reinforcement schemes are now in hand and in various stages of completion. One of the 37 schemes concerns Bessingby Road. The hon. Member can have my assurance that that scheme will be completed in May of this year, and that the trouble now being experienced will not continue through next winter.
  The 37 schemes will take care of 4,800 consumers out of the 5,400 whose electricity supply is at a low voltage. The board is urgently studying the position of the remaining 600. From the beginning it has been keenly anxious to get rid of all the complaints that exist in Sheffield as swiftly as circumstances will permit. I repeat the regret of my right hon. Friend and myself that these people have suffered for so long. They have been very patient, as has the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park in making his complaint. I trust that the House and the hon. Member are satisfied that the Board is diligently striving to extend to these unfortunate and long-suffering few the rightful benefits enjoyed everywhere else in Sheffield.
  Mr. Mulley: I thank the hon. Member for that reply, and I very much hope that things will turn out as he says. If next winter begins without this extra station I have no doubt that he will not be surprised if he hears further from us.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Aliens
  Aliens
  Prisoners (National Insurance)
  Prisoners (National Insurance)
  Licensed Restaurants (Motorways)
  Licensed Restaurants (Motorways)
  Children
  Children
  Fire Safety
  Fire Safety
  Prostitution
  Prostitution
  Race-course Betting (Report)
  Race-course Betting (Report)
  Murders
  Murders
  Rape
  Rape
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Birmingham Motorway
  Birmingham Motorway
EDUCATION
  Youth Organisations
  Youth Organisations
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Crowther Committee (Report)
  Crowther Committee (Report)
  Secondary Schools Examinations (Report)
  Secondary Schools Examinations (Report)
  Teacher Training Colleges (Applications)
  Teacher Training Colleges (Applications)
  National College of Agricultural Engineering
  National College of Agricultural Engineering
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Sulphate of Ammonia
  Sulphate of Ammonia
ROADS
  40 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  40 m.p.h. Speed Limit
WEST INDIES
  Sea Island Cotton
  Sea Island Cotton
FIJI ISLANDS
  Constitution
  Constitution
UGANDA
  Health Services (Charges)
  Health Services (Charges)
MAURITIUS
  Cyclone Damage
  Cyclone Damage
NYASALAND
  Dr. Banda
  Dr. Banda
NIGERIA
  Independence
  Independence
NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Constitution
  Constitution
HOSPITALS
  Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester
  Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely
The Lord St. Audries—Took the Oath.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
2.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty The Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I thank you most sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address on the occasion of the birth of my third child. The assurance of your joy and your constant affectionate concern for our well-being have deeply moved my husband and me and have added to our happiness in the birth of our second son."

EXPORTS OF STRATEGIC GOODS TO SOVIET BLOC
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they have taken to ensure that, in the process of trade operations between the United Kingdom and countries within the Soviet orbit, no goods shall be supplied which could be used for military purposes.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government participate in international arrangements to restrict exports of strategic commodities to countries in the Soviet orbit. The commodities which are subject to security export controls include weapons of war, atomic energy materials and industrial goods possessing a strategic importance.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for his Answer. I wonder whether he could answer this supplementary question. Are jet aeroplanes regarded as peaceful or perhaps as having a warlike potential; and, if so, is it true that the English Electric Company have negotiated the sale of certain electric components which are essential in the construction of jet aeroplanes?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, there are many types of civilian airborne equipment which are not subject to embargo. The East German order for an electrical generating system for civilian aircraft relates to a type of equipment used on civilian aircraft in the West. It is not embargoed and there is no objection to the export of English Electric's system of this type to East Germany.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the question of strategic control so far as the Eastern bloc is concerned has been threshed out time and again in this House, and on July 30, 1958, the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, answering me [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 211, col. 481] said that a substantial relaxation of the embargo list had been achieved
"but also that Her Majesty's Government's objective of confining the list to items of real strategic significance has been in great measure achieved."
May I further ask him whether he remembers that on December 17, 1958, he himself agreed that there was a more flexible approach in this matter and that the Government were anxious to give licences in any cases where they could do so, subject to the undertaking on the general question of strategic control?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Viscount's information.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, may I ask one further question? Would the Government agree that it is very necessary to be equally vigilant in the passing of potentially strategic goods to a potential enemy as it is to be vigilant in the case of the ability of a potential ally to manufacture weapons of defence?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, can the noble Earl give the House an assurance that there is going to be no change in the present attitude of flexibility towards this question on the part of Her Majesty's Government?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that that is another question. The Question asked about the policy which is being applied now.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, has the noble Earl observed that he has not answered the noble Lord's Question at all? In asking about strategic material he asked about supplies which could be used for military purposes. Is it not the fact that £3½ million worth of copper, for example, was sent in the first half of the year 1959 to Russia?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I suppose that tongs and pokers could be used for hitting people over the head, but that is not the main purpose of them. We must exercise common sense.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am heartily in support of what the noble Earl says, but I am pointing out that the search by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, to prevent export of anything that can be used for military purposes is absurd.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I would inform the House that at some convenient moment after half-past three there will be a statement by my noble friend, Lord Hailsham, on the Guillebaud Report, and also a statement on the Farm Price Review by my noble friend, Lord Waldegrave.

DEFENCE
2.38 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment moved yesterday by Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough to the Motion moved by Viscount Hailsham, to resolve, That this House approves the Report on Defence, 1960 (Cmnd. 952)—namely, to leave out all the words after "House" and insert "while recognising the need for an adequate defence policy, has no confidence that the policy set out in Report on Defence 1960 (Cmnd. 952), in
994
spite of increased expenditure, provides an efficient defence for the country".
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, in the long and interesting debate which we had yesterday there was a certain amount of criticism of the White Paper. I thought the criticism was, for the most part, fairly mild in substance, although not infrequently vigorous in tone. But I must, in fairness, exclude from that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. He disliked everybody and everything, including the Leader of the Opposition, although he was going to vote for his Amendment, I suppose on the principle:
"… always keep tight hold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse."
At any rate, he left us in no doubt where he personally stood. He said that we in this country must have no defence of our own against the most dangerous form of attack to which we could possibly be subjected.
LORD REA: No nuclear defence.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: But is not the nuclear form of attack the most dangerous form of attack to which we could possibly be subjected? Is not that the only thing of which we are really afraid? It is not a few little pop guns in some distant corner of the world. I would ask the noble Lord whether, in saying, as he now admits, that we must have no defence of our own against nuclear attack, he was speaking for himself in a personal capacity or whether he was speaking on behalf of his Party. I do not know whether he would like to answer.
LORD REA: My Lords, as the noble Earl asks me the question, may I say that if he reads my speech he will see that I said that I sincerely thought I represented the majority view in this country.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: The noble Lord said that he thinks he represented a majority in the country. Apparently the electors did not think so at the last Election.
LORD REA: May I remind the noble Earl that we are not at the last Election.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I do not think that on the line the noble Lord is at present following he is likely to induce many more people to vote for him after the next four or five years when

995
another Election comes round. I must say that I am interested now—and I think it is useful for my noble friends and also for noble Lords on that side of the House who take a much more responsible line in these matters than the noble Lord, Lord Rea—to know that he speaks for his Party. I had not realised—I must apologise to him—that "follow my leader" was such a popular game in either of the Opposition Parties.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, took a very different line. As one would expect, from his record and the great service which he rendered to the country in Defence Departments, he took a line that was much more realistic and much more responsible.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I say to the noble Earl that I know my noble Leader would have wished to be present during the noble Earl's speech. My noble friend will be here shortly, but I know he would wish to express apologies for not being here now.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I shall not agree with everything that the noble Viscount said, but at any rate when he arrives his noble friend can tell him that I began with a friendly introduction. Then also there were from all quarters of the House—this I think the Government probably expected—a number of questions asking for a little more light and perhaps, in some respects, even for a little more leading. The Government could hardly have been surprised at that, because although the White Paper is well written and contains a number of statements, nobody could say that it was prodigal in information, or at any rate in new information. I am not criticising. I have had to prepare Defence White Papers and to introduce them in this House, and I know the difficulties. Of course, noble Lords have had to speak to their Amendment—that is all right, and I suppose they are going to vote on it, but it did not at all reflect the sort of temper of their speeches, for this debate, for the most part, has been much more the type of debate to which we are accustomed in this House in regard to defence matters: a genuine pooling of ideas and a seeking to clear our own and each other's minds. I hope, therefore, that when my noble friend comes
996
to reply he will be able to give us some more information on some of the matters on which he was questioned.
Supposing one had to sum up this White Paper, one might say that the policy is unchanged and the mixture is as before. That is all right so long as the symptoms also are unchanged, and provided, as I think is the case, the original prescription was generally right. Here, as was said by more than one speaker yesterday, the ordinary man is at a considerable disadvantage. He can see what is going on in the world and he can form a reasonable judgment on foreign affairs and on economics, but the situation is much more difficult when one comes to matters like nuclear weapons, which are highly technical and often secret. On its main policy theme the White Paper says that our main aim is the support of N.A.T.O. On that I am sure that we should all agree. For my part, I think it is a wise decision, particularly at a difficult time in N.A.T.O.—there have been difficult times—to keep the seven Brigade groups on the Continent. It is an expensive operation. It is easier, perhaps, for me to say this than for the Government, but I think that that decision is not very generously matched by the decision of the German Government, after this year, to make no contribution at all to the cost of the seven Brigade groups which are maintained in Germany at the request of N.A.T.O., so largely for the benefit of Germany herself. I would add only this: that if facilities are going to be accorded to the German Government and to German forces in this country, I assume—I hope I can be assured of this—that the Germans will make full payment for such facilities.
We all agree about N.A.T.O. I think it is a matter, too, in regard to which we can all help—and we ought to—by making our people, and not the least the younger generation, appreciate how vital to our security the whole N.A.T.O. conception and reality is. I have something to do with N.A.T.O. propaganda in this country, and I sense a feeling of apathy in the country about it. It is not that people are opposed to N.A.T.O.—they are not; they quite accept it. But they accept N.A.T.O. passively and not actively. They accept it rather in the way that a casual Christian might accept the Established

997
Church, as an institution which it is convenient to be married in and to be buried out of; but there is not much enthusiasm about it. I think it is up to us all to try to make the feeling among our people for N.A.T.O. active and not passive. I think we are all agreed that we must all—I am sure this would be the wish of whatever Government are in office—seek with all our might for disarmament and for co-existence, but the price of freedom remains eternal vigilance.
There is another risk or danger to N.A.T.O. which I think it would be wrong to slur over. Foreign policy, economic policy and defence are all interdependent. We cannot isolate one from another we cannot put any one of those elements into a watertight compartment. We cannot draw closer together in integrated defence, which is vitally important, in integrated defence in strategy and in integrated defence in the common use of weapons, which is hardly less important, if the N.A.T.O. countries are to drift apart in economic policy. I do not think it is too much to say that if the N.A.T.O. countries were to split into two conflicting economic camps the N.A.T.O. Alliance could not long survive as an effective defence organisation. So it is surely the duty of the Common Market countries and the Group Seven countries to do all they can to get together, and to hammer out a working settlement which would enable us to coexist and to get as far as we can towards a common Free Trade Area. That is a duty which every one of these countries in each group owes to their own people and to the whole of the free world. In saying that, I am making no criticism of the Government or of the Opposition, because both Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition—in this the Government have been consistently supported by the Opposition—have spared no effort to try to reach such an arrangement.
The Defence White Paper goes on to deal with weapons. It says a good deal about weapons without perhaps saying much in detail. In paragraph 21 of the White Paper it is said—and this is an obvious truth—that as the numbers of the Armed Forces are reduced, so their mobility and the quality of the weapons with which they are armed becomes still more important. I think there is a fairly good record on the weapons side to
998
which the Government can lay claim. The fact that the United States and Sweden are buying our anti-tank gun is obviously evidence of its success. Then the Australian Malkara (I am not sure how to pronounce the name, but perhaps the noble Lord who lately did such distinguished service in Australia, before he came back to us, will give us the correct pronunciation), an anti-tank guided missile, is a great tribute to Australian ability and to Commonwealth co-operation, as indeed are all the Woomera experiments.
I want to make a concrete suggestion. I hope that it will not scandalise the House or those Members of it who have been Treasury Ministers. The White Paper says that when we have the right weapon it is vitally important to equip our formations with it as quickly as we can. That is obviously true. When we know we have the right weapon and know the formations which we have to equip with it, would it not be wise to do that as soon as possible? When I say "as soon as possible" I mean as soon as it is physically possible to get the weapon, and not as soon as it is financially possible in the sense in which Estimates can be got through the Treasury. I am not in the least advocating any extravagance in the matter, or the spending of any more money than would be spent spread over the Estimates. But would it not be very good business, and pay twice over?—because we shall get the quicker mobility to our troops.
These weapons become obsolescent in an incredibly short space of time and therefore once we have the right weapon in production, the sooner the formations are equipped with it, the better. Would not it be wise to buy the total number of those weapons in the year in which we can get delivery of them and spread the payment by borrowing over two or three years? That would not add anything to the Estimates of the three years—except perhaps a little interest—and I believe that it would pay over and over again. I believe that there is a kind of precedent for this in Army buildings, which of course, are slightly different. I am not quite sure, but I believe that payment has been made for the building of married quarters, barracks and so on, over a period of years.

999
The question of weapons naturally leads on to the question of what is the right weapon; and here again the layman obviously is in a difficulty. He cannot know the secret scientific data but he can use his practical common sense. Your Lordships will have noticed that in paragraph 36 of the White Paper the right honourable gentleman the Minister says that we must
"devise a means of delivery that is invulnerable to the opposing defences."
In a nuclear age, what are the defences to nuclear attack? We have gone back. We have gone away from the days of the Battle of Britain when the fighter was vitally important. The fighter won the Battle of Britain but it will not win the next Battle of Britain, should it ever come. We have gone back to what I, in my days as Air Minister, regarded as a rather out-moded view, the view that the right kind of defence was counterattack. Nobody proved more than the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, how right I was in that respect. But to-day the situation has changed again and the enemy is now going to defend himself against nuclear attack by his own attack—whether by air-carried bombs or by rockets. It means a nuclear attack upon the bases of the other country. I do not think that that can be argued against.
We are told that the development of Blue Streak is continuing but that it may be decided not to rely exclusively on fixed-site missiles; that the possibility of mobile launchers, aircraft or submarines for long-range delivery is being investigated. My Lords, it is time. That really is the fundamental and most important problem. All the old arguments that we used to have about the relative merits of an aircraft carrier or airfields from which to send aeroplanes apply here in a new setting. In those old days the argument, certainly agreed to by everybody in the long run—even some of the Admirals—was that it was wiser to use our aircraft off the ground because if one aerodrome was bombed there were dozens, perhaps hundreds, of others to which our long-range aircraft could come back and land in safety, whereas the aircraft carrier, useful as it was, was still a very vulnerable target; and once it had been sunk or even seriously damaged, aircraft could not land upon it. But the aircraft carrier
1000
had at any rate one asset: it was comparatively mobile, whereas the fixed-site base from which the missile has to be delivered is not at all mobile. Indeed, it is a colossal installation.
I am told that that installation is to be put a long way below ground, but presumably it will point up a bit when it comes to the surface. Moreover, however far below ground we have it, as one noble Lord said yesterday, the site of the base will be pinpointed. There will be no secrecy about where these bases are. Everybody will know where they are, and with nuclear missiles, of course, such a base would be hopelessly open to attack; and with the great and vast devastation that these missiles can cause, I believe it to be idle to suppose that a fixed-missile base in this country could remain available in action for any length of time.
The situation may be different in the United States, for that country is thousands of miles further away. In order to direct a missile against the United States, a tremendously long-range missile would have to be used, assuming that the missile is not being fired from a submarine off the coast but from a fixed base somewhere in Eastern Europe. But we in this country are very close, and missiles of great range are not required to attack our bases—although to-day even long-range missiles, on both sides, are seen to be getting deadly accurate. From the few hundred miles distant which a potential enemy base would be from us, short-rang missiles, just like the V.2 of the last war, could be sent against us. I should have thought that that meant they would be absolutely devastating in their effect.
If it is true, as I have seen stated, that there is in existence, or on its way, a low-trajectory missile of the shorter-range type—with a range of some hundreds of miles—of which we should have no warning, because it is like a hedgehopping aircraft and, I understand, would hardly be reflected on a radar screen. That is exactly the kind of missile which could be directed against us. That is shown, I think, by the fact that the Air Force have (I think they have published it; certainly I have read it in newspapers, but I think it has been in Ministerial statements, too) as their whole policy and practice in Bomber Command that it shall be able to get the

1001
aircraft so quickly off the ground that they will be in the air before a missile can be delivered.
There are all these arguments; and, after all, they are not arguments which one has to be a great expert to advance; they are the arguments which all of us who have ever had anything to do with this matter have known from the past and which any ordinary layman, applying what I should have thought was a common-sense view, would find very convincing. Therefore, my Lords, I am very glad this investigation is taking place, but I sincerely hope that it will be carried to a conclusion and a decision taken as soon as possible.
I do not know what will be said later in the debate. Very distinguished Service speakers are following and I do not know what will be said from their view on the relevant merits of the mobile base as against the static base. In what I have said I do not wish to imply that I take exception to the proposal that the United States should have this warning apparatus here. Whether it is convenient to situate it on one of our most agreeable moors in Yorkshire I do not know. Anyhow, we may have to accept that. Although I do not think—particularly if this low-flying missile is going to be the next thing we are faced with—this apparatus looks like being of much value to us, it will certainly be of great value to the United States as part of their early warning system; and we ought to accept that as part of co-operation.
That leads me to another point. This co-operation with the United States surely should be as wide as possible: it lies at the heart of all our defence problems. I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how much co-operation and pooling of information there is with the United States on guided missiles and on missile-carrying submarines. The better we play our part—and we are playing it to the full now—the more ready the United States Government and Congress will be to share with us; and if they do we shall both, the United States as well as ourselves, certainly be more efficient and save money. And the saving of money is not unimportant. These weapons are terribly costly. I know how difficult it is to estimate for something which is barely designed and of which one has no sort
1002
of prototype. But the report from the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the actual cost of some of these weapons compared to the estimates is very formidable and shows how vitally important it is to take a decision as to which weapons we are to go for, and how important it is to have this full co-operation with the United States.
My Lords, I want to ask only two more things. One is about the inter-Service co-operation which we heard of in the White Paper of last year, and which I think we all felt was just on the right lines of trying to get the three Services under unified command. It is not in the White Paper, but there does figure in the Naval Paper and the Air Paper with the Estimates the decision which has been taken about Coastal Command: the decision that it will remain a Royal Air Force Command but that the senior naval officer in each area will decide on the operational tasks of the Command when it is engaged in maritime operations and exercises. I welcome that decision. I do not call it a compromise at all. It seems to me to be the quintessence of strategic and tactical good sense, and exactly the kind of co-operation that ought to be between the Services. There is another kind of co-operation that I should like the First Lord to say a word about, too, if he would; and that is co-operation between civil and military-service aviation. The cost of the modern aeroplane is, of course, absolutely vast, and the closer co-operation there can be between civil and military aircraft production the better. Indeed, I should hope that practically the same aircraft, or as nearly as possible the same aircraft, might be used for civil and for military transport tasks.
My Lords, I have one final question to put, again on nuclear weapons, not on their construction but on their control. I am quite sure that the Labour Government, under the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, were profoundly right to make the atom bomb. I am equally certain that our Government were right to make what, for convenience, I will call the hydrogen bomb. I am sure the decision that we should manufacture these nuclear weapons ourselves is absolutely right; and I rejoice that there is such an identity of view and policy, so that continuity is assured whatever may happen between us; that we must have this

1003
weapon; that we must make this weapon; that we must play our part, and that we must have our own strategic—not, of course, attack but defence nuclear forces. That, I am sure, is right. But I should like to be assured (though I am sure that the answer to this question is "Yes") that, having that force, we are ourselves in firm control of our own nuclear weapons. That, I believe, is of vital importance, and the fact that the reply to a nuclear attack must be immediate to counter the nuclear attack makes it all the more important that that power, that control should be in our own hands.
My Lords, I think that the Amendment was moved as a sort of duty. I feel that there was a great deal more unity of purpose between us, on both sides, in this matter of defence. That is how it should be, because these things belong not to attack, as the noble Lord said; these are the things that belong unto our peace, and it is right that the two great Parties of the State should, so far as they possibly can, think and act together upon them.
3.10 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the most striking aspect of this debate is the unanimity of criticism of the Government that has come from Members in both Houses; criticism which has been delivered, I think, on the whole, in a reasonably friendly way—at any rate, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, took no exception to it. The fact that in some sense it has become a Party issue is something which surely should not surprise the noble Earl who has just sat down. After all, it is possible for a Labour Opposition Party to oppose a Conservative Government on matters other than private enterprise versus nationalisation. Defence (whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Rea, would call it attack) is a matter of such tremendous importance and controversy to us all that it is right that we should back up the criticism that we may have to make with a willingness to put down an actual Amendment to the Government's Motion. But the fault for this lies not so much in the heart of the Government—or even, at the moment, in their head—but in the incredible coyness of their statements.
Several of your Lordships have criticised the absence of much new
1004
information in the White Papers and in the accompanying Memoranda to the Estimates. We know that it is not possible to put in all the information, but is it really necessary to use such cautious phrases as appear in the second paragraph of the Report on Defence, where the Government say:
"During the third year of the Five-year Plan for Defence, the Government's broad defence policy has undergone no major change".
What the Government mean, surely, is that important changes are in process of taking place; and our complaint is that they have not yet told us that they have made up their minds, and that, in fact, an element of confusion has inevitably been brought about. And this is not a Party point. In the Air Ministry we have been lucky: we have had the same Minister for seven years. In the Ministry of Defence we have had so many that my noble Leader, Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough, could not remember whether it was seven, eight or nine. I believe nine is the correct figure. This has inevitably produced a confused situation and a confused state of the public mind; and it is quite striking the amount of criticism there is at the moment, not only among the Members of both Houses of Parliament and all Parties, but in the Press and among military commentators.
I hope that the Government will begin to show us a little more the way in which their mind is moving. Indeed, the noble Viscount, again using one of these coy phrases, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 221, col. 916]:
"I think it is insufficiently appreciated how far our defence policy has moved since the publication of the 1957 White Paper."
Unfortunately, they have not told us in what way; but I think it is apparent that, while the concept of the shield and the sword is still a fundamental one, on which I think there is general agreement, the emphasis to-day has moved a great deal more towards the idea of the shield. Unfortunately, even the word "deterrent" has changed. I rather prefer the word of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, the "equaliser", when referring to the atom bomb. Originally, the deterrent was the atom bomb: now, apparently, it is all military forces. This is part of the confusion. The Government are

1005
moving, I think, to the concept of a greater degree of conventional forces. Here, again, I am not sure what a conventional force is, but I suppose it is anything in which a nuclear explosion does not take place. At any rate that is the trend, and I hope the Government will "come a little bit cleaner" on it.
My Lords, I should like to look first at the nuclear deterrent, the equaliser—and here I must disagree with the noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Benches when he said that we had not got an efficient nuclear deterrent. I believe that we have got one. I believe that in fact Bomber Command to-day is able to do the task that it has been prepared to do: and we are all agreed that we need not qualify these phrases by saying that we hope that it will not happen, because we all know that we hope it never will happen. I believe that the present Bomber Command is capable of doing that. I also believe that, assuming that there is some warning of growing tension, it will be possible, with adequate dispersal and with the degree of training that is going on, to get a very sizeable proportion of our bomber airforce into the air the moment a warning is given—even within the four minutes that have been stated. I accept the Government's view on that matter. I believe that, despite difficulties, and despite some of the changes of policy—some of which, I accept, are inevitable—the R.A.F. is at a very high state of efficiency.
The difficulty we are in is when we come to this question of missiles, and here we move into a world which is so strange and in which the words are so unfamiliar that it is difficult to follow the precise weapons we are talking about. The inventors of that ancient game which many of your Lordships must have played, L'Attaque, would have great difficulty to-day in matching a Sea Slug with a Polaris or a Blue Streak, and I do not know what the comparable weapons are. War was simpler in those days. The fact that to-day it is more complicated is perhaps an encouraging sign, for it may be that it is so complicated and so dangerous that it will never take place.
This expenditure on missiles is one of the main grounds for criticism of the Government. The other day an
1006
American boasted that his country had wasted 750 million dollars on a missile called the Thor. They have now given it to us, although I believe the Americans still retain the keys to this weapon. However, we have done better than this: we are in process of wasting £600 million on the Blue Streak—or so we are informed by practically every commentator outside the Government; and here we really should like to know what is going on. The Minister of Defence, in another place, again with these cautious phrases, said, when talking about missiles [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 618, col. 862]:
"… paragraph 36 of the White Paper very clearly sets out the position".
Paragraph 36, which the noble Earl quoted, says:
"The development of the British ballistic missile Blue Streak is continuing. However, it may be decided not to rely exclusively on fixed-site missiles as the successor to the medium bomber armed with the stand-off powered bomb".
What the Government mean is that they now reckon that they are not going to rely exclusively on them, and obviously they are not going to. The one thing they are looking for now is an alternative to the fixed-site missile, and the time has surely come when the Government should take a decision. I agree that we have to give the new Minister of Defence a few weeks during his short tenure of office to get familiar with it, but I should have thought that if there was one thing that was pretty certain it is that some time during the course of this year the Minister of Defence will announce that the Blue Streak Missile programme will be cancelled.
The arguments for and against are, in fact, a good deal more finely balanced than some noble Lords and some critics will admit. I do not accept that it is only useful as a first-strike weapon. It would be extremely difficult to knock out a large number of sites if they were scattered very widely and were properly dispersed. But it is obvious that the limitations of this weapon are such that the Government are thinking again, and I hope they will shortly announce their policy. They must not be perturbed, therefore, if the criticisms which, for the last two years, have been levelled against this weapon grow stronger while they dither and wait to make up their minds

1007
on what is to be the successor to the present nuclear deterrent. I believe—and this may be some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Rea—that after the Blue Streak, the days of an independent British nuclear deterrent will be drawn to their close. I believe that this is an inevitable tendency and one which I do not think we should regret.
I should like to ask the Government to be more forthcoming in their expressions of opinion in regard to interdependence. I get the feeling that as the concepts of 1957 under Mr. Sandys, the really radical re-thinking on defence he attempted at that time, begin to draw into the past, the Government are not so enthusiastic with regard to N.A.T.O. as they ought to be. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will deny this, but I think that their statements ought to be a great deal more forthcoming and that they ought to be careful not to offend the sensibilities of our Allies by actions such as the withdrawal of some of our troops from Europe, which they explained in the 1957 White Paper, and the unfortunate phrase in this year's White Paper about leaving three Brigade groups in Germany "for the time being". What they mean by "for the time being" I do not know, nor how it reads when translated into other languages, but I believe that the Government ought to take a much more positive line than they have done.
We also seem to be turning further away from the concept, about which the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, spoke, of unification of the forces. We have had one or two encouraging developments. There is the conception of the commando carrier, which surely must move towards a development of an amphibious force of all arms. In reading the three Memoranda of the three Services, I get the impression that they are three distinct Services, operating with funds that they have scraped out of the Government one way or another and that have been allocated almost on a predetermined basis. This is simply not going to achieve the efficient defence we want.
I should like to move into dangerous waters and question the Government on the rôle of the Royal Navy. I wish to make it clear that I do not want in any way to attack the Navy or the wonderful
1008
men who serve in it. In 1957 the Government said that the rôle of naval forces in total war is somewhat uncertain. I believe that that uncertainty still remains. Last year, when I questioned the Government on this subject, I was taken to task by one or two noble Lords, who asked whether I was aware of the importance of the Navy in anti-submarine war-ware. It so happened that during a great part of the last war I was involved in the anti-submarine war. I would go so far as to say that under 10 per cent. of the present Navy is designed for antisubmarine warfare, and I would ask the First Lord, when he comes to reply, to say how the carriers that we have to-day are intended to be used in an anti-submarine rôle and what aircraft they have which will be employed in it. We know that they have a number of fast aircraft, which are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, but they are not suitable for anti-submarine work because they lack rough weather capability, which is essential for anti-submarine operations in the North Atlantic. Perhaps the new helicopter will have that capability and I should like to have an assurance on that if I can.
I do not believe that part of our striking or deterrent activities can come from any tactical force, and I should have thought that the real rôle of the Navy is its traditional one of being a fire brigade, available to go and put out fires wherever they may occur, and in the event of an all-out war breaking out, to do the work of salvage. If that all-out war should ever come, there is no doubt that we should need all the resources we have and all the protection that the Navy could bring.
Something has been said about mobility in the White Paper. I doubt whether we are taking this question seriously enough, and this again springs from lack of a unified approach. We know that the Royal Air Force are getting Britannias, but they ought to have had them a good deal earlier. It should be possible to get commandos and troops to any part of the world within a few hours of trouble breaking out. There was the instance not long ago when four aircraft of Coastal Command arrived in a certain district where trouble was threatening and immediately the trouble disappeared. It is essential

1009
that a high degree of mobility and readiness is achieved. I understand that if we had to move troops from Aldershot, it would take about 48 hours to get them going. As your Lordships know, the world is too difficult a place for us to accept that degree of delay.
I would ask the Government about the state of readiness of our troops in Germany. I think that here some criticism can be levelled at the Government. It has been alleged on a number of occasions that our forces are not up to strength and lack ancillary troops—"tail troops"—and are not fully equipped to perform their rôle. This view is held not just by a few people who have been over in Germany on a short visit. In a recent paper published by the Institute of Strategic Studies, a very distinguished group said:
"It is particularly unfortunate that British formations in Europe are under strength and under-equipped. It is vital that the reorganisation now envisaged should put these difficulties right as speedily as possible."
In another place they said:
"If our forces were fully up to strength… a great deal of recent sniping at Britain would very possibly not have taken place."
Now that they have got over their tremendous first obsession with the equaliser, the nuclear deterrent, I hope that the Government will concentrate on bringing our present forces up to a high standard of efficiency. In conclusion, I would say that I was impressed, as I am sure were all noble Lords, by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and his references to disarmament. I can assure him—and all noble Lords will agree with this—that, however much we may criticise and disagree on details, we are satisfied that the Government are determined to press on with disarmament; and I hope that the words that were used from the Government Front Bench will be widely read and widely known.
3.29 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, as one with no previous knowledge of defence technique, I have recently been doing my utmost to learn. I have listened to every speech I could in this House, and those I could not hear I have read carefully through. I hope that noble Lords will not feel it any disrespect to them if I say that I have not been content to learn from them only. I have done
1010
my utmost to read as many as I could bear of the speeches made last week in another place on this same Report. I hope it is no discourtesy to Members of the other place to say that I did not find all the 250 columns of eloquence devoted to this subject easy to read. But at least I have read twice over all the quite essential speeches made in the other place; that is to say, the two speeches made by the Minister of Defence, Mr. Watkinson, at the beginning of the debate and in reply, the speech made by the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Gaitskell, and the speech made by the Liberal Leader, Mr. Grimond.
From that study I take as my starting point something said by the Minister of Defence in his reply, when he expressed his surprise that there had been practically no mention of disarmament, he having hoped that disarmament would be one of the central features of the debate. To-day I am happily able to add to that the notable utterance made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in speaking yesterday [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 221 (No. 50), col. 912]:
"I regard either a world authority or total disarmament, in the long run, as the only rational objectives…"
Encouraged by these two vital utterances, I propose to take as my subject to-day the theme that has practically not been touched on at all in this debate—namely, the relation between defence by deterrence, as envisaged in this Report and by Her Majesty's Government, and total disarmament as our aim.
To one who like myself believes that total disarmament of all nations is indispensable if civilisation is to survive, frankly, neither the Report on Defence nor the two speeches of the Minister of Defence in the other place are altogether cheerful reading. The Report, having made a rather hasty bow to peace as its ultimate object, gets down to business by defining as its way to peace deterrence; having more and more destructive weapons under our British control for killing other people—and paragraph 7 of the Report emphasises particularly the growing efficiency and killing power of the weapons now available to this country. I am not going to attempt—I am not qualified—to enter into a technical discussion of alternative weapons; and though sometimes I think I know something about money, I am

1011
not going to say anything about money. To me, the question of more or fewer millions spent on saving us from total destruction is relatively a minor question. I am going to raise two questions only, each of which I think is of some importance, on the relation between the present policy of peace by deterrence and the ultimate aim of peace by total disarmament under a world authority.
My first question is this. If the ultimate aim is peace by total disarmament of all nations, how should we organise defence meanwhile so as to reduce to a minimum the risk of war before disarmament has come? I would remind the House that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said yesterday in so many words that, so long as the weapons exist, there is always the risk of war breaking out suddenly. My answer to that question is, first, that we should put our trust in the United States of America, on whom the Western deterrent in substance depends, and work with them as closely as possible. It seems to me hardly short of a tragedy to express, as some people have, doubts as to the intention of the United States to carry out their solemn undertakings to support any N.A.T.O. country in difficulty. Secondly—and here I know that I am going to be fallen foul of by the first speaker on behalf of the Government to-day—I would say that, while making our full and fair contribution to Western defence, we should not insist on establishing nuclear weapons under our independent control. We can contribute to them—and I think we should—but we should put them ultimately under the control of N.A.T.O. and get to work to secure proper political control in N.A.T.O.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am much interested in this theory. I wonder whether the noble Lord would elaborate on what he is saying. Does he mean, when he says "under the command of N.A.T.O.", that every one of the thirteen or so political heads must be consulted before the weapons are used, or does he mean that the actual question of whether to use them or not is to be delegated to a soldier, the Commander-in-Chief of N.A.T.O.?—because I think he must
1012
mean one of those things, and I do not know for which he is trying to argue.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I am sssuming that N.A.T.O., to which we all attach great importance, has got self-governing machinery. It is not my responsibility to pose what that should be. It is no good saying, Use N.A.T.O. and work with N.A.T.O.", and saying that it cannot manage its own affairs and you have no idea how it ought to be managed. I am afraid I must, with all courtesy, decline to answer that very ticklish question put by the noble Viscount. But I do want to say that the reason for putting this power, if possible, in the hands of N.A.T.O. is not a question of efficiency, and least of all is it a question of votes in an Election here. I do not think that the voters have any judgment that is worth considering on that topic. The real argument is that the demand for our own nuclear weapons under our control encourages similar demands elsewhere and, therefore, increases the number of nations—we may get ten, twelve or more—having nuclear weapons, any one of whom may suddenly launch a war on the world. That is the real danger. I think it is a danger that should be taken with desperate seriousness, and I press it on the Government with great seriousness to-day.
Let me say that on all the points I have made I am happy to find myself in full accord with what the Liberal Leader in the other place said. He accepted completely the explicit undertakings of the United States of America; and he emphasised the importance of N.A.T.O. and the danger of multiplying nuclear weapons. On all these points I would say that we Liberals are in the somewhat perhaps unusual position of agreeing completely together; and we, at the same time, differ on this question of who should control nuclear weapons—whether we should, or not—from those who sit upon our left, or, at any rate, from those who sit upon our left and follow their Leader, because Mr. Gaitskell firmly took the view of our having our own control.
Let me come to what is to me a much more important question. How long is the process of making more and more killing weapons to continue while we wait for disarmament? "Waiting for disarmament" was the phrase used by the Minister of Defence. Or how long,

1013
in the words of the noble Viscount facing me, is the long run to be before we become rational, as he says we should become rational? Both the noble Viscount and the Minister have given answers to that question. The noble Viscount has said, among other things, that it might well be fifty years instead of ten before we get disarmament.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, what I think the noble Lord is referring to is when I said that if the process went on without disarmament, the time when an explosion would take place might be fifty years rather than ten. But I did not for a moment give a term of years to the process before disarmament could take place, because had I done so I should have been saying something which I certainly would never have said, namely, casting doubt on the validity of the current talks, which we all hope will yield a result.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount most genuinely for correcting me, and I accept his correction completely. Let me go on, though, to the answer which I say was given to us by the Minister of Defence. He gave his answer in a different way as to how long we might wait. He said that the British Government looked forward to making and owning such killing weapons until the late 'sixties and early 'seventies. That was not a casual remark. It occurred twice, in his first speech and in his reply. It is obviously deliberately looking forward to going on making these weapons for the next fifteen years—and he went on to describe them in detail. The prospect seemed rather dear to him, because he repeated it.
For contrast, I should like to look back to an earlier Report on Defence which was published just two years ago, in February, 1958, under the title Britain's Contribution to Peace and Security. That said, in so many words that nothing less than
"comprehensive disarmament by all nations, coupled with comprehensive inspection and control by a world authority"
makes sense. It went on to declare that there can be no mutual confidence between nations or real peace so long as the arms race continues. This Government said that two years ago in that Report. Does it not mean simply that peace by deterrence is not a real peace at all? I want to appeal to the
1014
Government to work without any delay for real peace; to turn their words about total disarmament into deeds.
I hope the House w ill forgive me if, on this question of turning words into deeds. I am for a moment personal, speaking of my own experience of turning words into deeds. I have lived nearly all my working life by producing quantities of words. But all my working life I have been also a practical creature: when I had come to believe that there was some definite thing which my fellow Britons needed for a happy life, I could not rest until that need was met. And several of those needs have been met, and can be met, in this country. First of all, there were the labour exchanges, whose Jubilee this year the present Minister of Labour so kindly and generously allowed me to join in celebrating. There followed social insurance for abolishing want and needless disease, leading to a Report in 1942. The Coalition Government, which had asked for that Report, did not like it when they saw it. But the Government of my noble friends on this side of the House put it into force in 1946. Finally, there was the plan of full employment in a free society. I am delighted to think how all Governments that we have had since the war, one after another, have maintained full employment in a free society and have changed the lives of all our citizens.
I come now to the greatest need of all for us, and for every other people in the world—the abolition of war by total disarmament of all nations; substitution of justice for mass murder between nations when they differ; justice declared by an impartial court, and enforced by a world authority and a world police. In this House a month ago, my noble friend Lord Rea introduced a debate with a Motion for disarmament. I found myself being rebuked by the noble Earl the leader of the House for not having recognised that our Prime Minister, and other leading Ministers, had been the first among the great world statesmen to emphasise in so many words this need for disarmament and a world authority for assured peace with justice between nations. Let me say that I had recognised that fact most completely. I had begun with the Prime Minister's statement of March. 1955. I quoted a number of such words, but I went on to ask the Government whether they would kindly turn those words into deeds. The

1015
answer I received on that occasion in this House was given to me by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who told me, in so many words, that a world authority for justice in place of war was not to be expected in the foreseeable future.
Just a month ago the noble Earl the Leader of the House rebuked me—I think slightly unjustly—for not recognising the excellent words written by the Ministers of this Government. I had read them, and said, "Please act instead of talking." When the noble Earl went on to give his own definition of total disarmament, I acclaimed his words with enthusiasm; and I acclaim them still. But I make an appeal still to the Government, as those in charge of all our fates, to turn their words into deeds without a moment of unnecessary delay. Do not condemn us to another fifteen or fifty years of organising mass killing for deterrence. Natural science has made it necessary to abolish war, by total disarmament controlled by world authority. No sensible person could question that at all. What possible reason can there be why we should conceal from other nations the terms on which we, as a quite important nation, as a leading nation in the Past and as the leading nation we can be again, would be prepared completely ourselves to disarm? Why should we not work it out in detail? There are masses of complicated questions that need thinking out, but is there any reason for keeping secret our view as to how these questions can be solved?
I know that the Government are genuine in their desire for world government, but somehow they do not move from words to deeds with a pace that I personally, and I think the world also would like to see. Remembering what the noble Viscount told us, that so long as these weapons exist there is a risk of sudden unexpected war; I say: let us stop that risk; let us put an end to it. Instead of keeping anything secret from the world, instead of failing to use all our wide knowledge of responsibilities throughout the world, all our practical sense in government, why should we not set out in black and white for friendly discussion with other nations our conditions for disarming ourselves completely? I make that appeal to Her Majesty's Government.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I crave your Lordships' indulgence to interrupt the debate in order to inform your Lordships of a statement about the position of the British Transport Commission which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister? The operative part of this statement is as follows:
"The position of the British Transport Commission has to be considered in all its aspects—commercial, financial and social. From the commercial point of view, the expansion of the economy has not led to the recovery in railway earnings which might reasonably have been expected some years ago. The carriage of minerals, including coal, an important traffic for the railways, has gone down. At the same time there has been an increasing use of road transport in all its forms.
"The British Transport Commission's total deficit has increased very rapidly over the last five years and now amounts to some £350 million. For the calendar year 1960 the deficit is estimated at £80 million, which includes interest on British Transport stock. This reflects an operating loss on the railways which on present performance is estimated at £45 million, and includes allowance for the 5 per cent. interim addition to the wages bill. In addition to the £80 million there is the interest on the advances to meet accumulated deficits. This is now running at about £15 million.
"The Report of the Guillebaud Committee on railwaymen's pay, set up jointly by the Commission and the trade unions, has now been presented to them. The Government have been informed by the Commission that they have proposed that the Report should be studied in the normal negotiating committee of the industry. It is a subject of considerable complexity, for it deals not only with the level of wages but also with the grading of jobs and differential wage rates. The implications on the finances of the British Transport Commission will have to be taken into account by the Government

1017
in considering what action to take as regards the present difficulties of the industry.
"The Government accept the objective underlying the Report of the Guillebaud Committee—that fair and reasonable wages should be paid to those engaged in this industry. At the same time others also must accept corresponding obligations.

"(i) The industry must be of a size and pattern suited to modern conditions and prospects. In particular the railway system must be remodelled to meet current needs, and the modernisation plan must be adapted to this new shape. Those working in the industry must accept this. This is the only way of bringing about conditions in which a fair reward, not only in terms of money, but of satisfaction with their job, can be secured.

"(ii) The public must accept the need for changes in the size and pattern of the industry. This will involve certain sacrifices of convenience, for example, in the reduction of uneconomic services. Some increases will also have to be made in fares and charges, and the Commission intend to take action in this respect as soon as possible. It will also be necessary to examine urgently the question of relieving the industry of restrictions aria obligations which limit the Commission's earnings and prevent them from making the best use of their resources.

"(iii) The Commission must accept a radical alteration of its structure, so as to secure a more effective distribution of functions and a better use of all its assets. Measures of reorganisation should include decentralisation of management so that individual undertakings, including the regions of the British Railways, should, as far as practicable, be made fully self-accounting and responsible for the management of their own affairs. The detailed application of these principles to all the Commission's undertakings is a matter of urgency and will be worked out by a special planning board. Legislation, as well as administrative action, will certainly be required. This planning board
1018
will be appointed by the Government and will report both to the Government and to the Commission. Meanwhile the Commission are securing expert advice on the question of regional accounting for the railways.

"(iv) Finally there is the problem of finance. Here there is both a short-term and a long-term problem. In the short-term the problem is to devise interim financial arrangements to enable the railway system to be carried on until the necessary reorganisation can be made effective. The Government are now considering what form these should take. In the long-term the financial arrangements must depend on the size and structure of the undertaking, and must indeed form an essential part of the general reorganisation. The life and trade of the nation require a railway system, but it must not be allowed to become an intolerable burden on the national economy.

"The Commission, the trade unions, the public and the Government will all have to co-operate in this new approach."
But, says my right honourable friend in conclusion,
"I feel sure that they are in the mood to do so."
3.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is very useful to your Lordships' House to have this statement made. It at once appears that it has two aspects. In many of its paragraphs it is very tentative; in other paragraphs clearly it is intended to take very wide powers for alterations of considerable substance. I do not think it is possible in present circumstances, without a great deal more thought about this matter and without having further indications of the way in which the Government intends to develop this policy, to say much about it to-day. But I should like to ask in the first instance whether this very long and strong reference to what is almost like a reconstruction of the railways there is any intention to move away from the present situation, to any great change other than making them administratively independent. I hope it is not going to be taken out of the general ambit and final

1019
accountancy and appraisement of the central board as a whole. I think there ought to be some mention of that.
I am a little concerned about the double reference, in two consecutive paragraphs, to the size and pattern of the industry, and then a little later, the little homily to those who are employed in the industry. I hope there is to be no question, apart from closing some uneconomic branch lines, of so reducing the size of the industry as to interfere with its strategic value—that is of great value to the nation; strategy is most important—and also no intention by Government action still further to injure the overall economic position of the railways by carefully hiving off the most profitable of their undertakings. I think that would be a great disaster.
I also deplore the absence at present of any indication—I do not know whether any basis is going to be followed—of a real plan for the integration of our transport in its general and combined service to the needs of the nation. The last thing that struck me was that there are two or three items in this statement which refer specifically to urgency. I am not quite sure that the same aspect of urgency is attached to the consideration of the wage problems still to be settled as the result of the Guillebaud Report; but I hope very much that they are not going to be so long delayed, or so interfered with by Government action, as to re-exacerbate the feelings of the railwaymen.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount referred to the statement as "wide and tentative". I think the supplementary question (if that is what it could be called) merits both epithets. It is a little difficult to know to which of his remarks the noble Viscount really wants me to attend in my reply. Clearly, the Government regard the whole question in all its bearings as urgent. I think the interim payment, which has incurred a certain amount of criticism in some quarters, was evidence of that. As regards the question of overall strategy, I should have thought the last words of my right honourable friend made it plain that we regard an effective and efficient railway traffic system as vital to the life of the nation, and I think it would be better
1020
to await any suggestion about hiving off until the planning board has finally determined what is the best use to be made of the assets available. Our object is to find the best use and then to institute it. I was a little puzzled to know what the noble Viscount meant by an integration of all the transport services. On some lips it is often used as a plea for preventing progress in the interests of vested interests. That certainly is not the Government's policy.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I greatly regret the last remark of the noble and learned Viscount. It seems to me that our principal difficulty in regard to the question of the integration of transport was caused by those who protected vested interests for their private profit and, for that reason, took away the control of the railways. I think that is a great pity. But I should like to ask this in regard to the planning board, which may be of great importance. Will Parliament be privileged to have from the Government first the composition of the planning board, and secondly, its terms of reference? That is a most important matter. I should have thought that it would be necessary for those things to come before Parliament.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Clearly, in one form or another. Parliament will have to discuss this matter. The composition and terms of reference of the board are, in fact, still under consideration, and it was for that reason that my right honourable friend did not specify them in his statement this afternoon.
4.6 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether, since the Government have decided to set up this planning bound, the request of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition is not reasonable—namely, that they should inform Parliament as to what the board's terms of reference are to be. We are left in great doubt as to what the planning board is to consider and the sphere within which it will work. Moreover, the composition of the planning board is important, including the point as to whether there is to be included amongst its membership trade unionists who are familiar with the problems of the industry.

1021
The other point that I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount is whether the Government have now come to the conclusion that, because of their policy of pushing the vested interests of the road transport industry to such an extent that it has damaged the railway industry, they ought to reconsider it. For example, there was the cutting off from the British Transport Commission of road commercial transport; there has been a whole series of things, including the fact of bigger vehicles being allowed on certain wide roads, all of which is deliberately encouraging the diversion of traffic from the railways to the roads. I have no objection to the roads. They have their job, and they should do their job. But it is open to question whether it is wise for the Government to pursue a policy which was, as I think, of malice aforethought calculated deliberately, to damage the railways and to help their political supporters among the road transport hauliers. Can we have a little satisfaction from the noble Viscount (if he will be serious for a minute) to tell us whether the Government have any fresh thoughts on this aspect of the matter, and will revise their policy upon it?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord's interest in transport matters is, of course, well known, but I do not think he was either entitled or justified to suggest from anything that I have said, that I was not entirely serious in all the remarks which I have addressed to your Lordships. He, too, has cast his net a little wide, and it is rather difficult to know how, in an answer to a question, to deal with all that he has said. I was sorry that he appeared to think that I regarded his noble Leader's request that Parliament should be informed as unreasonable. I thought I had conveyed exactly the opposite impression, and I think that if
1022
to-morrow he reads what I said in Hansard he will see that this is so. Obviously, Parliament will have both to be informed and to discuss the terms of reference and the composition of the board. Equally obviously, matters of the kind which the noble Lord has referred to will be passing through our minds as to its composition, which, however, we should like to keep as small as possible.
The latter part of the question developed into a tirade against the supposed policy of the Government, but it was based upon a false premise. The primary cause of the decline in the Commission's financial position, which is the occasion for my right honourable friend's statement, is the decline in the carryings of coal and minerals and, incidentally, the increase of "C" licence vehicles. The first has nothing whatever to do with the policy to which the noble Lord was referring, whatever its merits or demerits, which I should be quite happy to debate with him; and the second is the result of the Transport Act, 1947, for which he was responsible.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in relation to that part of the noble and learned Viscount's statement which refers to certain sacrifices of convenience in the reduction of uneconomic services, as this will no doubt fall heavily on rural areas, particularly those in Scotland and Wales, and in view of the already serious de population of those areas, will Her Majesty's Government try to ensure that where railways are removed from rural areas, those areas will not be left high and dry and that some alternative services are provided in place of the railways?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that is obviously a question that Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind. I do not think that I ought to be more precise or prophetic than that.

AGRICULTURE: THE ANNUAL REVIEW
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the House to have a statement on agriculture?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the practice in these matters is that we should have these statements after they have begun in another place. From what I apprehend is going on I believe that the necessary green signal has now been received.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD: (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I am now in a position, with your Lordships' permission, to make a statement, similar to that which my right honourable friend the Minister is making in another place, about the guarantees to agriculture for the coming year. Her Majesty's Government have now determined these in the light of the Annual Review. The statement is as follows:
Good weather last year helped our farmers. The net output of the industry increased substantially, and for 1959–60 is forecast at 68 per cent, above pre-war, the highest it has ever been. Actual net income for the year is forecast at £356½ million, which is £41 million up on the previous year. If we adjust the figures to normal weather conditions, the forecast for the year is £355½ million compared with £362 million for the previous year. Farming costs, particularly labour costs, continue to increase, and on Review commodities are up by nearly £13 million in the year. On the other hand, the industry is continuing to increase its efficiency. The cost of Exchequer support has gone up from £241 million to £259 million. This is a continuing heavy burden on the taxpayer. It also affects trade relations especially with the Commonwealth. Moreover, the cost of support may increase still further if production continues to expand more rapidly than demand. We have had to consider, therefore, how the industry can reduce its dependence on the Exchequer while maintaining its position in our market and increasing profitability.
Taking all these factors into account we have decided to make a net reduction of about £9 million in the total value
1024
of the guarantees. The maximum reduction we could have made was about £19 million. This means some reductions in the prices for the main cereals, and for sugar beet, eggs, sheep and wool; and also for milk—though in consideration of the Milk Marketing Boards' success in increasing sales for liquid consumption, we have increased the standard quantities by 19½ million gallons. We are also making a small reduction in subsidy rates for fertilisers from next July. There will be no change for fat cattle. There will be an increase for potatoes. For pigs we have increased the standard price by 3d. per score. We have also removed the cost of the quality premiums from the guarantees—an arrangement which in effect adds another 6d., making in all an increase of 9d. per score in the standard price—and we have adjusted the stabilising limits so as to reduce fluctuations in returns to pig producers and to facilitate long-term contracts. These changes should give the industry confidence to bring about that moderate increase in pig numbers which my right honourable friend has often said he would like to see. The full details are given in a White Paper which will be available in the Printed Paper Office when I sit down.
These determinations meet the requirements of national policy regarding the production of the guaranteed commodities. We consider that they provide a fair and balanced answer to the twofold problem of, on the one hand, enabling agriculture to maintain its prosperity and, on the other, protecting the taxpayer from an increasing burden.
4.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, whilst we are much obliged to the noble Earl the Minister for giving us the text of the statement made in another place, it is very urgent that it should be the subject of debate as early as possible; and I take it he accepts the point of view that in this instance it should be by Government Motion on the White Paper. Perhaps the noble Earl the Leader of the House will confirm that, and will make an early arrangement for Government Business to include a Motion on agriculture and the White Paper on the Annual Review. That would save a lot of questions now.

1025
For the purpose of clarity I should like to ask just two questions. First, does the statement mean that Her Majesty's Government not only have an estimate of increased production but can also give us an assurance that they are basing their Review upon increased net incomes to farmers? Secondly, I should like to know whether, in the case of milk, the increase of 19½ million gallons in the standard quantities is in addition to that which was made some months ago, or is the noble Earl referring merely to what has already been done?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I have my noble Leader's permission to say that a debate can certainly be arranged. In answer to the second question from the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, the increase of in million gallons in the standard quantities is a new arrangement. An adjustment was made in last year's Price Review, but this present change comes under this year's Price Review. Would the noble Viscount kindly repeat his question about the increase in the level of income?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I believe the actual statement refers to the value of production. What I want to know is whether, in all the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government are basing their reduction of guarantee on the fact that farmers' incomes have increased. If we look at the majority of farmers, we see that, with increased costs, their net incomes have declined.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, we have not said that farmers' net incomes, adjusted to a normal weather basis (which is always done), have increased this year. Their net income, on a normal weather basis, will be found to be slightly below that of last year, while still running at the high and profitable level of about £350 million a year.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps by my question I have given notice that we shall be a little persistent on this point.

DEFENCE
4.19 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD HARDING OF PETHERTON: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate yesterday and again this afternoon, and, as an old soldier, I am sure that those now serving in Her Majesty's Armed Forces will take great encouragement from the close interest that your Lordships have taken and are taking in these affairs. I firmly believe in the policy of what I think is best described as "peace by deterrent." I look upon disarmament as the end product, not the forerunner, of the lowering of tension and the removal of causes of conflict between nations, ultimately leading to a world order based on law. But until substantial progress has been made in those directions it is my belief that, precarious though it may be, the best hope of avoiding and preventing a Third World War is by maintaining a state of equilibrium in the military field between the two political and ideological camps into which the world is at present divided.
If that policy is to be effective, however, the state of equilibrium must be whole and not partial. By that, I mean that the deterrent must be a properly balanced one. It must operate effectively in all branches of the military field, nuclear and conventional, so-called, and also in the three elements: land, sea and air. That, my Lords, is, I believe, an inescapable consequence of the political policy in regard to defence that we are pursuing. The great weakness of our defence policy during the past few years, to my mind, is due to a mistaken attempt to escape the inescapable.
It has been claimed that, for roughly the same amount of money and with many fewer men, we can maintain an independent strategic nuclear capability that is up to date and credible and powerful enough to constitute an effective deterrent in its own right; that we can also continue to make roughly the same contribution as in the past to the military strength of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and that we can, in addition, provide the Forces needed to meet our responsibilities and commitments in the Far East and Middle East and in the many territories for which we are still responsible. My Lords, in my opinion, it cannot be done—not with the resources

1027
that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make available. And the result of trying to do it has been to produce a state of strain and unbalance in our Armed Forces which is dangerous and which, unless corrected fairly soon and quickly, will become cumulative.
The bright spot, I think, is that the danger—so it seems from what was said last week in another place and what has already been said in your Lordships' House—has been recognised and there is still time, though not too much time, to put things right. The question, as I see it, is this: what should be done to put things right? It is on that aspect of the problem that I should like to put forward some suggestions.
Dealing first of all with the strategic nuclear element of our defence organisation, I have never believed—and I said so in the defence debate in your Lordships' House last year—that we should attempt to maintain a wholly independent nuclear deterrent. I believe it to be of the greatest importance to us and to our Allies that we should continue to make an effective contribution to the nuclear element of the Western deterrent. I believe we were right to make our own atomic bombs and our own hydrogen bombs, and that we should keep ourselves up to date in the business of bomb making, but without overstocking. I believe, too, that in present circumstances we are right to retain under our own absolute control all the nuclear bombs and warheads that we hold. But, beyond that, I believe in a policy of interdependence with the United States of America in the strategic nuclear field, and with France too, now that she has joined the nuclear club. If attempt to do otherwise we shall only lag further and further behind, the other elements of our defence system will have to be more and more starved and denuded, and the net result will be that the unbalance in our Armed Forces as a whole will grow worse and our contribution to the Western nuclear deterrent will become less and less credible until it ceases to have any military or political significance for us or for anybody else.
As I understand it, the practical problem in this particular field which we have to face at the moment is to decide
1028
the type of carrier and the means of delivery best suited to our situation to succeed the V-bomber force in from some five to seven years' time. With respect, I submit that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for anyone without access to all the official scientific and engineering information on this subject to express a view on the precise form and type of carrier or means of delivery that we should adopt. But there is one characteristic on which I have no doubt whatsoever. Having had some experience of war, and incidentally of horses, I have an absolute horror of being dependent on a weapon which, by its very nature, must be permanently anchored to a fixed and known site. I find it difficult to imagine an engine of war that could be more vulnerable or more inflexible than Blue Streak. Whichever horse the Minister of Defence decides to back—and I should have thought he would have to place his bet quite soon, to have a chance of being in on a winning number—I do most earnestly suggest that it should be a horse that can move, if only at a walk.
I should now like to turn for a few moments to the business of mobility, which has been strongly stressed, and rightly so, in my opinion, in the White Paper. It is a critical matter in the defence system of any country, but of vital importance to us, with our worldwide responsibilities and with the reduction, the very big reduction, in manpower that is now in progress. Until recently, very recently, because of this obsession for creating an independent nuclear deterrent powerful enough to act in its own right, R.A.F. Transport Command, on which the Army increasingly depend for mobility, both tactical and strategic, has been deliberately starved for the benefit of Bomber Command. This has probably been the greatest cause of unbalance and lack of mobility in our forces as a whole.
Let me give your Lordships two examples. Whatever we may think about the Suez operation—and here I must digress to say that I cannot accept for a moment the sweeping statements made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, about the total unreadiness of our forces of war at the time of Suez—it would, I think, be rash in the extreme to assume that we shall never

1029
again, in a different context, become involved in operations comparable with Suez in the military sense. In his memoirs, Sir Anthony Eden refers to a shortage of parachutists, amongst the other military weaknesses and deficiencies he inherited from the past. In actual fact, there were available, between us and the French, at that time something in the order of six times the number of parachutists actually dropped in the Suez operation. The shortage—and it can only he called a crippling shortage—was in transport aircraft, not in parachutists. In spite of what has been published in paragraph 43 of the White Paper about the strengthening of R.A.F. Transport Command, I fear that the position in this respect is not likely to be greatly improved, or improved as rapidly as I believe to be necessary to give the essential strategic and tactical mobility that the Army, particularly, and the Armed Forces as a whole, need.
That leads me to my second example. On Monday I was talking to the commanding officer of an infantry battalion stationed in Malaya. His unit is due to go to North Borneo for a period of training in the course of the next few months. The battalion is to be air transported from Singapore, but the process will apparently take a week to complete; that is to say, a week to move one battalion some 800 miles. That, so it seems, is because not more than four aircraft, two Beverleys and two Hastings, can be made available. Even allowing for the fact that this is not an emergency operational move, it does not sound to me as if much progress has yet been made in giving strategic mobility in air transport to our land forces in the Far East.
In fact, the information on this subject in the White Paper gives no true indication of the progress made or planned in this matter. It would do so only if the programme were expressed in terms of lift for men and equipment that it is planned to provide year by year as the programme proceeds. I find it hard to believe that our national security would be in any way endangered if that information were made available. In fact, I hold the contrary view: that it would be much more convincing to our potential enemies, and would give much more encouragement to our friends, if they knew what we were able to do in this respect. I hope that the noble
1030
Lord who is to reply for the Government will be able to give some indication of what is planned in the way of expansion of Transport Command in terms of lift, if not this afternoon then perhaps in the course of the debate on the Air or Army Estimates.
My Lords, on this question of mobility a good deal has been said about the commando carrier H.M.S. "Bulwark". On Tuesday afternoon I had the good fortune to be able to have a talk with her commanding officer, and from what he told me I believe that what I am now going to say is not very wide of the mark. Let me say straight away that I most warmly welcome what I might call this adventure, more especially because I hold the privilege—a privilege which I prize very highly—of being allowed to wear the famous green beret. The decision to set up H.M.S. "Bulwark" as a commando carrier equipped with helicopters, and, as time goes on, to provide a sister ship to work with her, is an excellent one, and one with which I do not quarrel at all. But at present the commando carrier suffers from one major defect: it is what one might describe as a fish without a tail.
Having had experience during the past ten or fifteen years of trouble spots in many different parts of the world, ranging from Trieste to Cyprus, I entirely agree with the view that timely arrival and speed of action are of the essence of the problem. But even the most timely arrival and the most speedy action will not, in my opinion, succeed in reducing to a matter of days what up till now has taken years; and some administrative and supporting follow-up will, I believe, almost invariably be needed. Yet in another place last week the Minister of Defence, referring to this adventure of H.M.S. "Bulwark", said that the means required to meet this need of administrative and supporting follow-up, and reinforcement, in the shape of landing craft, are not, as he put it, "an immediate prospect". I trust that some means will be found of speeding up the provision of this vital need—that is, the tail of support and replenishment, and the means of putting in and sustaining the reinforcements from the Army that will, I feel certain, be essential even for Marines.
My Lords, there are many other important points connected with defence

1031
that I should like to discuss, such as the necessity for giving more positive and precise political leadership and greater political cohesion to N.A.T.O.; and the need to reduce the time lag between decision and provision in the administration of our own forces, not only in regard to equipment but also in all matters which affect the efficiency and contentment of the Services. For example, the Grigg Report was laid before Parliament some seventeen months ago, I think, and yet it was not until last month that the follow-up of some of its most important recommendations, in the shape of a new pay code for all ranks and a new career structure for all officers, appeared.
Then there is the importance of avoiding the danger, which was mentioned in your Lordships' House yesterday—and I believe it to be a very real danger—of a gulf developing between the Services and the general public when National Service comes to an end. That is a very important matter. There is the need to reorganise our Reserve forces, and particularly the Territorial Army, to bring them into line with modern requirements. That, again, is something which probably would be better dealt with in the debate on Army Estimates, but it is an urgent matter. Then, last but not least, there is the inequity—and I do not think that is too strong a word—of the failure so far to temper the wind of inflation for existing Service widows, whose unhappy lot continues to be an awful warning to those who contemplate a career in the Services. But, my Lords, there are four more speakers to follow me, so I do not propose to do more than mention those important paints now.
Before I sit down, I should like to remind your Lordships that, although the Services awn a great deal of ironmongery, and occupy a great deal of real estate, they are essentially human organisations. In the final event, and in the face of the enemy, it is the man who counts. Our Regular soldiers, sailors and airmen are just as much a cross-section of the people of this country as their National Service comrades. They do not look for praise, but, like most other people, they readily respond to encouragement. The greatest encouragement
1032
they can have is to know that they have the respect and the confidence of the nation as a whole; that the people of this country realise that their men and women in the Services have an important job to do; and that, taken by and large, they do it pretty well. And they appreciate it all the more when such words of encouragement come from both sides of both Houses of Parliament, irrespective of Party.
My Lords, some of my criticisms may appear severe, but I hope that they have been constructive. In spite of them, however, I would support the Government in their Motion which is before the House, because I think that in this very difficult, important and complicated business of defence the heart of the Government is in the right place, and their thoughts now appear to be inclining in the right direction. Some real progress has, I know, been made; but I earnestly hope that action to redress the present state of unbalance in the Armed Forces of the Crown will not be long delayed.
4.38 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as one of the last and one of the lamest in a long list of speakers, and following such a great leader as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, I have a certain fellow-feeling for the stragglers in Mr. Billy Butlin's marathon. Your Lordships will no doubt wish this marathon to be over as quickly as possible. I therefore propose to confine myself almost entirely to one topic, which has been touched on already in your Lordships' House in this debate, and that is the desirability or otherwise of seeking to establish in Western Europe a nuclear deterrent force under N.A.T.O. control.
I hasten to add that this does not imply that I underrate the value of conventional forces, or of more conventional forces: quite the reverse. The deterrent, like peace, is, I believe, indivisible, and rests just as much on a balance of conventional force as on the so-called balance of nuclear terror. Indeed, it is only the possession of adequate conventional forces that makes the nuclear deterrent credible. Therefore, like other speakers, I welcome the information in the White Paper about the re-equipment of our more conventional forces and about their increasing mobility. I believe, with other

1033
speakers, that both processes should be accelerated.
The White Paper rightly emphasises the vital importance of maintaining the strength of our security alliances. Of these, the N.A.T.O. Alliance is by far the most important. N.A.T.O. has come in for quite a "drubbing" from some noble Lords in the last two days. Again, I think quite rightly so. The interdependence about which we hear so much, and which I believe we must achieve, is often much more apparent than real, and the weaknesses are all too obvious. There is the snail's progress towards the build-up target of 30 divisions on the Central N.A.T.O. Sector. There is the failure to achieve a properly integrated and technically efficient air defence system for Western Europe. There are the admitted weaknesses in command structure. There are the pathetic attempts at weapon standardisation. Again, there are the recurrent breakdowns in political consultation, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, drew our attention yesterday. I think that it would be no bad thing if some afternoon in the fairly near future your Lordships were to have a good hard look at the health of our most important Alliance.
This afternoon, however, I should like to touch briefly on a problem which I believe, if mishandled, could erode the very foundations of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, and which, if handled wisely, boldly and generously, could do much to enhance its cohesion. At present, as your Lordships know, there is no N.A.T.O. deterrent as such in Europe. Europe shelters under the nuclear parapluie of Strategic Air Command and Bomber Command. Both are under independent, quite independent, American and British control. So far as Europe is concerned, I do not believe that this is now the best or should be the permanent solution.
Last year I rather shyly suggested in our debate that we should take the lead in seeking to establish within Europe—and I include Britain in that Europe—an integrated nuclear retaliatory force under collective control. I shall be just a shade less shy this year, since I see that since then a number of pundits and professionals favour this proposal. The Assembly of Western European Union, at their last session, supported a
1034
proposal for the creation of a joint European strategic nuclear force under Western European union control. In a recent book, published in this country by the Institute for Strategic Studies—a responsible body of which I am perhaps the only irresponsible member—the author, who is Mr. Alastair Buchan, the Director of the Institute, has submitted a powerfully argued proposal for the creation, under N.A.T.O. control, of a nuclear deterrent force in Europe. Finally, and significantly, General Norstad, in a speech in America in December, suggested the creation of a N.A.T.O. nuclear force. I am encouraged in all this by the degree of support which some scheme along these general lines seems to command from all Benches in your Lordships' House.
There are innumerable possible variants of these proposals, but what, in sum, I have in mind has been put succinctly by Mr. Buchan. As he writes:
"There is a strategic requirement for the creation of the least vulnerable I.R.B.M. system that can be built, using if need be the whole real estate of N.A.T.O. Europe from John O'Groats or North Cape to Alexandretta or Palermo, designed and allocated by the most energetic N.A.T.O. committee or ad hoc authority that has yet been assembled, and subject to the most rigorous central operational control that can be devised."
That control, in Buchan's view, might be exercised by the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, or by a special Commander, in whom possibly could be vested the ultimate operational control over the European tactical nuclear forces.
As I see it, the programme might fall into three stages. In the first stage, the Thors, British Bomber Command and that part of the United States strategic forces, both naval and air, which are located in Europe, should be integrated into this system. In the second stage, the system would be reinforced by American I.R.B.M.s, like the Polaris, now under development, in very mobile or extremely hard sites. In the third stage, perhaps in the mid-'sixties, the system might be further buttressed by a more advanced weapons system, tailor-made for European strategic requirements and jointly designed, produced and financed by the United States and its European N.A.T.O. partners.

1035
In my view, a collective programme of this nature might well have great advantages over the present tendency for the nuclear Powers in the Alliance to "go it alone" in greater or lesser degree. On the military side, there would be a certain gain from the increased dispersion within Europe of the deterrent forces. As my noble friend Lord Merrivale reminded your Lordships yesterday, there are l7½ million square miles of real estate in Western Europe. There would be perhaps a greater gain from the increased credibility of the deterrent. In the good old days of American nuclear monopoly or superiority, when the Eagle could overfly the Bear, and the Bear had no chance of catching the Eagle on the ground, United States nuclear power, as a deterrent to a Soviet attack in Europe, was absolutely credible. It may still be that Mr. Eisenhower and General Power would be prepared to risk the obliteration of New York and Chicago to deter a limited Soviet aggression on the flanks of Western Europe. But that is not the point. The point is whether Europe, and above all the Russians, believe this. And on this I must confess to just a twinge of scepticism.
On the economic side, I am far from certain, on reflection, whether it has made real sense for us to try to develop an I.R.B.M. system alone. It may make even less sense for the French to do so, as I now gather they are just starting to do. It is true that we and our Western European Allies have great reserves of skill in this field, but to my mind it would make better sense if these skills and resources were properly integrated in a joint programme with the Americans. Moreover, if such a programme were jointly financed, as I consider it should be, it would give the new rich societies of Western Europe an opportunity, which I hope they would take, of bringing their defence contributions nearer to the standards set by the Americans.
But the main advantages of some such scheme would not be military or economic, but political. Apparently three N.A.T.O. countries in Europe, in addition to ourselves and France, now have the technical and economic capacity to make nuclear weapons. Unless the present drift can be reversed, I have no
1036
confidence whatsoever that these countries will not decide to catch up with the nuclear Joneses. And I can think of nothing that could do more to explode the whole concept of interdependence, the basis of the Alliance, than the existence within it of five or six Powers with independent capabilities, independently controlled. Nor can I think of a situation which would do more to encourage the spread of nuclear anarchy in the world or to impair the prospects for disarmament—and I must say that in that respect I agree wholeheartedly with the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. By the same token, I believe that the cohesion of the Alliance would be greatly enhanced were it possible—and I emphasise the words "were it possible"—to contrive a system, under the auspices of N.A.T.O., whereby Europe would regain a measure of control over its own ultimate destinies.
I quite realise that these proposals are fraught with problems, some of them technical and some political. It will be no easy matter to persuade the French Government in its present mood to come into any such scheme, and if they did not come in the scheme would be quite valueless. There is, above all, the crucial problem of the political control of this proposed deterrent force. How can the one or two fingers on the Allied nuclear trigger be replaced by a hand with fifteen fingers? That is a problem of enormous magnitude. I myself do not believe that these problems, extremely intractable though they are, are insoluble. But it may turn out on careful examination that they are. All I ask is that Her Majesty's Government should now—and I think this is the time when it should be done—as a matter of urgency, and in consultation with our principal Allies, give this matter that careful examination.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, only recently I followed the noble Earl who has just sat down in another debate in your Lordships' House and, as then, I am not now going to follow him into the realms on which he has spoken so well. This debate has, as usual, ranged far and wide. To me it is always one of the most difficult debates in which to speak, and particularly when the clock is creeping on and your Lordships have heard so many speeches; because

1037
one is apt to get drawn away, having been a member of Lord Rea's club of the three "C.'s," purely into Army matters. I feel that other noble Lords also may find that same difficulty.
I feel that we should congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having produced now a much better pay structure for all the Forces. There is no doubt that there is now a proper career for every man of the Regular Forces, and although, as the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, said, it took some time after the Grigg Report, the pay code has come out and is a most reasonable one. Accommodation, on which we have had so many debates in this House, is gradually improving, as was said by another noble Lord. I think that the not-so-gentle prods your Lordships have given to this problem, to my certain knowledge for the past three or four years, have borne fruit. There is, however, a difficulty still left in these realms, and that is with regard to pensions. The noble Viscount., Lord Bridgeman, spoke quite shortly on this matter yesterday, and I, too, intend to be quite brief on it, because I feel that the best way of bringing our view before Her Majesty's Government is to put down a Motion on the subject.
The chief trouble is that those who are retiring now, or who have quite recently retired, will get a fair pension, but those who retired before the date of the last pay rise will still be badly off. Another point is that an officer who retires and is under 60 gets no increase in his pension at all. Generally, people say that memories are short; but in some ways memories are long, and people who have had a raw deal, or think they have, over pensions remember that for a long time. It has been said in this House, and to my mind it is quite true, that so far as the sons of ex-soldiers are concerned—and they are the men we want to come into the Army—it will be difficult for them to get rid of the idea that they are going to be let down when they get a pension, because their fathers thrust it at them saying: "Be careful; look what happened to me." The trouble is that under the new scheme the gap between the new pensions and the old has widened. The noble and gallant Field Marshal also mentioned the position of the widows. Widows who lost their
1038
husbands recently, and wives who may become widows, will get a moderately good pension, but those who lost their husbands earlier than before 1958 (I think that is the year) get no more. Their case is bad. But, as I say, we will put down a Motion and discuss this matter on a day when we have more time.
There is one point that rather worries me, and it is this. There is, I believe, a feeling in some quarters—in fact, some noble Lords have mentioned it—that the proposal that has been put out by General Norstad for his small mobile force, of, I think, about a brigade strength, is wrong and that he is not entitled to do this. Surely that cannot be so. He has been appointed by us and by the respective Governments of our Allies in N.A.T.O. as the Commander-in-Chief of all the N.A.T.O. Forces. He is not, to my mind, creating, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, gave the impression to me that he thought he was creating, "Norstad's Private Army". I consider that all he has done is to make a small regrouping within N.A.T.O. for the use of a fire-fighting force within the theatre for which he is responsible; and that is all.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked where he was going to use it. I do not know where he is going to use it, but that, I imagine, is the kind of force he would like to use to get to a trouble spot quickly. We have just heard the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, talking about H.M.S. "Bulwark", and that is very much the same sort of rôle that I think General Norstad would envisage for this force. Why should there be so much fuss about it? Surely the Commander-in-Chief is entitled to this without its being debated in the Parliaments of every country in N.A.T.O. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may have been worried as to how it came out; that it came out through General Norstad, instead of through the Governments. But, at least, as the noble Lord pointed out, it did not come out piecemeal, as might easily have been the case; everyone knew about it at the same time. I am much more interested in the fact that there are quite solid plans within the structure of N.A.T.O. for our defence rafter than the way the plans come out in public.

1039
There are many other small points which one would want to talk about. I think the point brought out by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding, of Petherton, was that we have the job of keeping the troops in front of the public eye. Many British people forget that there are an enormous number of British Servicemen abroad, all doing a job of work, and a great many of them always on an operational basis. The publicity is not always what it might be for them. The British Serviceman is doing a really good job of work, and let us, who do not have to do that job, realise it and tell everyone about it.
5.1 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, in a two days' debate on so complex a question as that which we are now discussing, it is only natural that many different objectives and principles of policy should have been advocated. For one who speaks at as late a stage as I do now, it is well not only to be brief but to concentrate only upon what he thinks to be the main and essential objectives of Western defence policy. Perhaps most of us will agree that the two main objectives should be, first, to save ourselves from either being destroyed or dominated by the ultimate weapon, and, secondly, if that is achieved, to avoid disastrous retreat or defeat in a more limited war in the face of the use or threat of other weapons. Both of those are, of course, included in the Government policy, both of this country and of the United States. But many of us are, I think, reasonably anxious, after studying both the White Paper and all other evidence available to us, as to whether these objectives are clearly enough defined and agreed, or given the first priority they merit over what might also be desirable but is less essential, and whether the preparations actually made are those most likely to achieve their purpose. It is from this point of view that I propose to offer a few observations on these two objectives.
To achieve the first, the Western alliance must, of course, have an adequate deterrent in the sense that a potential aggressor would be faced by a prospect of retaliation sufficient to prevent him from launching the bomb. That means, since as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, remarked yesterday, our purpose
1040
is not to win a war but to prevent one, that the possession of such an adequate deterrent must not only exist, but must be known beyond peradventure by the potential enemy to exist. Secondly, since we cannot alone have sufficient power for this purpose, it means that allied unity and the political organisation to maintain it in changing circumstances must be created, and, thirdly—and this is a point I wish to emphasise a little—that our retaliatory forces should not be vulnerable and should be known not to be vulnerable to a sudden first blow. The main methods usually suggested for attaining this third purpose are the hardening of sites or keeping aeroplanes in the air. I think it is doubtful whether we can rely upon the success of the first, which in any case would be extremely expensive; and the second is also obviously a very precarious one, involving, special dangers of its own, which I will not elaborate.
I want to suggest that, more promising than either of these, is to transfer our bases as far as possible from the land to the sea; to rely upon mobile dispersal of the H-bomb in surface craft or in invisible submarines, not necessarily nuclear powered. I have suggested what adequacy of the deterrent must include. Let me add what I think it does not include. We do not need to aim at having, a greater or better deterrent than the potential foe. If we have enough to deter him, we need not worry if he has more than enough to deter us and to make him confident that he has. Enough is enough. The recognition of that in the relatively near future is perhaps among the best hopes we have for the continued peace of the world. There is a reasonable hope that, in the reasonably near future, both sides may feel that they have a sufficient deterrent, and then there will be the real chance of phased disarmament and the reduction both of arms expenditure and of tension.
The second objective, that of avoiding either a disastrous retreat or a defeat in a limited war, of course becomes of more vital importance as the attainment of the first comes nearer. If both sides are confident that there will be no resort by the other to the ultimate weapon, one of them may be tempted to exploit a relative local superiority by conventional weapons. If we have no answer to this, Western influence may be nibbled away

1041
until the (uncommitted world succumbs to the conviction that the Communists must win. The only answer to this is an adequate, well-equipped and mobile force, which neither we nor America appear to possess now, or, I think, to be preparing with sufficient speed and urgency. I believe it is true to say that, outside official circles, expert opinion is now convinced that too little attention has been paid to this need, and also that their views have now begun to penetrate official policy, but have not yet been translated, or at any rate translated adequately, in actual preparations.
For instance, the Minister of Defence told us that our forces are being reduced from 1957 to the end of the present period to which he was referring from, I think, about 700,000 to 400,000. Of course, policy is also based on the assumption that conscription comes to an end. I do not say dogmatically that those reductions are not possible, and that conscription cannot be permanently avoided, and still adequate, well-equipped mobility of conventional forces be achieved. But I think we ought to realise that to achieve such an adequacy of mobile conventional forces is absolutely essential if we are not to find ourselves again in a disastrous position as soon as we have realised the first objective, namely, of making the danger of war with the ultimate weapon recede into the distance.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, when he spoke yesterday of the importance of not aiming at what is more than is necessary of the ultimate deterrent—aiming at getting more than the enough which is enough, at the expense of achieving this other, and now, I think, visibly essential, purpose of securing an adequacy of conventional weapons to deal with the threat of a local and limited war with other weapons than the nuclear. Had I been speaking at an earlier stage in this debate I would have attempted to elaborate an argument which I have now only suggested. But in view of the hour I propose merely to register those points in the hope that at some later time I may be able to elaborate the reasons for them rather more fully than I feel it would be justifiable for me to attempt to-day.
5.10 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and also to the noble Lord, the First
1042
Lord of the Admiralty, for permitting me to make a short intervention in this debate, and I do so in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Salter, called the lateness of the hour, ten minutes past five, in the hope that your Lordships will receive it at least pacifically if not gratefully. I really rise because I feel that the arguments advanced, or one of the arguments advanced, by both my noble friend Lord Rea and my noble friend Lord Beveridge, have not perhaps had the amount of attention from other speakers that they might have had. I consider the point they put up to be one of the most crucial points of modern times: that is to say, do we have a separate deterrent or do we not. I was glad the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton (who made a most interesting spech, if I may say so), gave qualified support to this point of view and said that if the Blue Streak was not successful—and he held out no hope that it would be—he would support us on these Benches in the contention we put before your Lordships.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I was very careful in what I said. I could not have disagreed more with the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The fact is that we have an effective nuclear deterrent, but that does not alter the fact that with the later developments I believe the independent nuclear deterrent will disappear.
LORD OGMORE: That is what I thought I said.
LORD SHACKLETON: Not quite.
LORD OGMORE: The end result is the same: if Blue Streak disappears there will be no need for the deterrent. We would say there is no need for the deterrent now whether Blue Streak disappears or not.
Why are we in this position? I would say the fact is that we are living in times which I suggest when we were young would have been thought quite impossible. The Kaiser said a comparatively short time ago to King Edward that he was reigning over the only world empire that the world had seen since Roman times. We grew up in those times—not only we, but most of the population of this country—and it is very hard for us, I think, psychologically to get out of the atmosphere that we grew up in and realise that to-day we

1043
face completely new circumstances. The idea that a Power such as we are can retain an independent nuclear hydrogen bomb I think is an idea which is no longer tenable. It was tenable in the nineteenth century; it was tenable in the early part of this century, because it was just possible, I suppose, for national forces to have very powerful deterrents of one kind and another. To-day I do not believe it is possible for national forces either to have or to use independently very powerful weapons of this kind.
The results of not realising the situation we are in, I think are these: first, we tend to spread the butter too thinly over the various pieces of bread—we try to have all sorts of forces, nuclear and conventional—secondly, we have not given N.A.T.O. and the other European countries the leadership we should. Even in this White Paper, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pointed out, in paragraph 28, we make this extraordinary suggestion that we are going to stay on the Continent and we are going to have these Brigade groups and the air component for some time to come. Considering that these forces and this air component were promised to the other European countries by Sir Anthony Eden, when he was Prime Minister, for an indefinite period, for a very considerable period, I think it is a most extraordinary suggestion to put in the White Paper that as an act of grace we will keep them there for some time longer, and it is quite a wrong attitude. There are many in your Lordships' House, or at least some of us, who have been to N.A.T.O. year by year, to the Parliamentarians' Conferences. We know what other nations think on this matter, and there is no doubt that they believe that we have been dragging our feet. We have not been giving the other nations in Europe the leadership we should do.
I would suggest, therefore, and I would agree with my noble leader, Lord Rea, that we should give up the independent deterrent, the hydrogen bomb—give up making it, give up testing it and give up using it. It is not a moral question at all, as I see it; it is purely a practical question. It is no more immoral to shelter under the fact that the United States is going to have a bomb than to have it oneself. I would suggest that the
1044
time has come for the Western Powers to say, "All right, we agree to the United States having the bomb in view of the fact that the Soviet Union has got it." That, as it were cancels out. But if any other Power has the bomb, then where does one stop?
I asked this question of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, yesterday, where do we stop? Already France has tested a bomb. China, we are told—although there seems to be some doubt about it—is about to test a bomb. What other countries are going to test a bomb and will have the potentiality of using it? Can we look with any sort of satisfaction on the fact that President Nasser might begin to test a bomb and even use it? If President Nasser is going to have a bomb can we deny Israel the right to have one? And where does it end? So long as we, the third Power as it were, say to the world, "We are not ourselves independently going to have or use or test the hydrogen bomb", then I think we have a right to use every possible moral and other means to prevent other people from having and testing these bombs. That seems to me a perfectly logical attitude to take up. But so long as we say that it is necessary for us to have an independent nuclear weapon, I cannot see what right we have to tell any other country that they are not entitled to have it. And if they have it, there has to be a testing of these bombs, which means fall-out, and we also have the risk that someone may press the button and start a nuclear war.
It also, I think, has another result: that is to say, if we give up the idea of the independent nuclear weapon we can put much more into N.A.T.O. than we have been doing. I was very pleased indeed to see in one of the paragraphs (I think I said paragraph 28 before, but I believe I was wrong; I should have said paragraph 5), paragraph 28, where the Government refer to international co-operation. This needs to go very much further than at present. Every year since I have been going to the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Conferences one point the Commander-in-Chief and the various heads of the Services have made, time after time, is that there is nothing like sufficient identity of weapons or equipment. In other words, if they go to war they will have to go to war with sixteen types of three-ton

1045
lorry; they will have to go with sixteen types of this and sixteen types of that. There is nothing like the amount of standardisation of weapons and equipment that is really necessary.
I would suggest that when we have got rid of this idea that one country like the United Kingdom can in these days launch off on its own on a nuclear war, or on any other kind of war, then we can really begin to play our full part in N.A.T.O. We can give that leadership, both to the European countries and to the Commonwealth, that we should be giving. I would point out, too, that the fact that we are not giving the leadership we should, and have not for years been giving the leadership we should, to N.A.T.O. and elsewhere in Europe, has meant that our place is being rapidly taken by West Germany, both in the military and the economic fields, and I myself feel it is very unfortunate, or it will be very unfortunate, if in a very few years to come the leading power in Europe is West Germany and not the United Kingdom.
5.20 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am glad that my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, intervened in this impressive debate. Before I come to the points of difference—and there are very real points of difference—between us on this side and the Government, I am sure that my colleagues, through me, would wish to repeat in the most emphatic way our support for the Fighting Services and the encouragement that we wish to extend to them. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, will be glad for that to be said once again. May I say that if we were to be dispassionate in these things it might quite well be that we should all agree that the outstanding event of the last two days has been the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton himself, which was perhaps to be expected, and I think it duly came about.
It falls to me to draw together what has already been said from this side, and to explain why we intend to divide the House this evening in a vote of strong criticism of Her Majesty's Government in respect of defence. I have certainly no special qualifications, no personal claim in the House in this field. I am the
1046
least of ex-First Lords, not the worthiest, among those who could be called an ex-First Lord; but by the Grace of God and good luck, and the indulgence of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I am one of the predecessors of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Indeed, I can boast of having presided over a Board of Admiralty of which the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, who I am sorry to see is not here at the moment, and the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, were members. So I have just that little reason for intervention.
We are all delighted that the last speech is to come from the present First Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who is, as we all know, most popular in this House and, as I have reason to know, is already greatly respected in the Navy. I understand that, just lately, he had a little trouble when he was mistaken for his private secretary, or his private secretary was mistaken for him—there was a sort of blurring of identity. I do not count that against him. I was never well enough dressed to be mistaken for a private secretary or a properly turned-out official, and I think it is very much to the noble Lord's credit that this little misunderstanding occurred. But I am glad that the noble Lord should be speaking, particularly on this personal ground, and as he is a Service Minister.
I am glad, too, for another reason, arising from the speech, which in so many ways we so greatly admired on these Benches, from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Early on, he used an odd expression and, in a sense, he returned to the point; and I shall return to it later in another connection in these few remarks of mine. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said this: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 221. (No. 50), col. 907.]:
"…. I am convinced that the public is almost, if not quite, as well aware of the significant and relevant data and facts as the average non-defence-based Cabinet Minister."
That seems to me to be a surprising and rather dangerous doctrine. You have Cabinet Ministers defence-based. There cannot be very many of those, I suppose. I am not quite sure who they are. I suppose they are the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence—perhaps only two. Then, presumably, there are some defence-based non-Cabinet Ministers, of

1047
whom the noble Lord is one; and the great majority of the Cabinet are non-defence-based and know little more than the general public. That is what I have to conclude from the remarks of the noble Viscount yesterday.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Then the noble Lord has drawn a wrong conclusion. I intended to convey that the public are kept very well informed of the significant data.
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not think there is any other Member of the House who believes that. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, believes it. No doubt he has been trying to find it out. It is immensely secret. But in all seriousness I do make this point, because many of us were disturbed, in studying the history of this affair, to find that there appeared the growth of a small crop—I do not know whether they were defence-based or what they were based on, except a general sense of unreality at that time, but at any rate, there was this little crop—which was "in the know", while the others were not. We seem to be facing that situation again—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Let me assure the noble Lord that be is entirely mistaken. Having held the position of First Lord of the Admiralty, he must know as well as anybody else that, with the immense complications of major Departments of State, although the Cabinet remain responsible for policy, the individual Minister has at his hand a much greater wealth of detail than any other member of the Government can have. What I said, and what I say again, is that the truth about this matter is that the really important decisions which this nation has to take are based not upon this wealth of detail, and sometimes very highly secret information, but upon things which everybody knows, even those Cabinet Ministers who are not in possession of the immense detail of a Defence Department. I really think that the noble Lord is, in a way, seeking to pretend that there was some sinister significance in a remark of mine which was made without any sense that it was other than a platitude which everybody, I should have thought, would accept.
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not think it will be accepted by anyone in this country, in this House or, indeed, any-
1048
where else; because, if I may say so, it is so far removed from fact to say that the leading members of the Cabinet have no more material for making a judgment on these great issues than the rest of us. As I say, I am not going to be provocative, because I have some nice things to say about the noble Viscount, with one or two other little aspects thrown in.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, that it is most difficult for us here, and for the general public, however closely we try to follow these things, to form a fair estimate of the purposes of the Government. It may be that we are being unduly critical in our attitude towards them, but we can only discharge our duty as public men. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, whom I have always followed so closely, but perhaps most closely of all on defence matters, said he recognised that we felt we had a duty—I think he said "a sort of duty"—to perform in regard to this matter; but still there was an underlying unity, he believed. I think there is an underlying unity between us all in wishing the defence of this country well. But when we are performing this duty we do it because we consider that the Government, over a period, have proved themselves incompetent in this field. We think that it is our duty to say so, and that we should be failing in our duty if we did not make that claim in the Division Lobby.
However, here is the programme. This is a free country, and we are entitled to study it in our own way. There is this increase in expenditure that I think must give us cause straight away. It would not be possible—and it would not come well, perhaps, from some of us who were in the Labour Government—to say that it must always be wrong to increase expenditure in peace time. We were responsible for a large increase at the time of the Korean War, when it looked as if we might be involved in major hostilities. But I think that an increase in expenditure at a time when international relations are supposed to be so much better must require a great deal of justification. It is generally conceded that the tension has much relaxed. In fact, that was claimed by Her Majesty's Government in a fairly recent foreign affairs debate. Yet they now come and

1049
say that, for various reasons, the bill has been increased.
I will not take up the words of the noble and learned Viscount for I do not want to be awkward, but I felt that that part of his speech, when he tried to justify defence expenditure, was most exiguous. He said, in effect, that a lot of it goes on pay—and I am sure that all of us on this side agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and others who applauded that. Some of the expenditure, we were told, goes on production; a lot on research and so on, and it would be impossible to cut down on any of those aspects without weakening the Forces. All I will say is that from our position of relative ignorance we have yet to see the justification, in a time of improving international relations, for this increase in what is already colossal expenditure.
I turn now to the White Paper. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said that it was not prodigal of information, and I believe we should all agree with that. My noble friend Lord Shackleton called it "coy" and most of us feel that it is somewhat evasive. A leading article in The Times last Thursday—a week ago—said that:
"The Government … were conducting a retreat from some of the untenable positions they inherited from Mr. Sandys".
The article referred to the Blue Streak ballistic missile and the strength of the Rhine Army, and to the fact that Mr. Sandys had asserted that peace depended largely upon
"the deterrent fear of nuclear retaliation,"
and that Mr. Watkinson believed that the deterrent comprised the whole and not just the nuclear part of our defence effort. The article pointed out, finally, that
"no Minister had made any reference to the notorious threat in the 1958 White Paper"—
on which I need not dwell now. Various speakers on this side of the House have said, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton said this afternoon, that Her Majesty's Government appear to be altering the policy; but they do not admit that. I suppose the general public are to be hoisted in without being told. We have not been told by the noble and learned Viscount. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who is a defence-based Minister, will be able to throw any more light upon that and say whether the recent changes which are supposed to have occurred are, in fact,
1050
accepted by Her Majesty's Government as, at any rate a new emphasis.
Be that as it may, we are faced with this programme for increased expenditure without any clear justification and also without much attempt in the White Paper itself to justify the increase. We listened with great care to what was said yesterday by the noble and learned Viscount—and may I say how pleased all his old friends and admirers are to see him right back at the top of his form, which gives us all great satisfaction. There were, in his speech, things as profound as were likely to fall from any public man on any side in this country. There were, of course, annoying parts of the speech, but they were fairly brief, and I do not think the noble and learned Viscount took them too seriously. Perhaps he thought his old friends in the Conservative Central Office would want to know what had come over him if he did not stick in some Party points. I thought they were tame and I did not think his heart was in them. But perhaps he will forgive my saying (although I have every reason) that while no one is a doughtier or more successful Party fighter than the noble and learned Viscount—and there we applaud him—to be lectured from some supra-Party elevation on our duty to keep Party politics out of politics is something we cannot take: and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not expect us to do so very readily.
I think it is conceded that the noble and learned Viscount did not say much about the White Paper, not being defence-based, and apparently almost excluded by his colleagues from the inner "know". So we must ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to reply more fully on most of the points that have been raised. I do not wish to labour criticisms. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, made a speech with a very sharp edge to it. Just at the end he said that he would vote for the Government because their thoughts appeared to be moving in the right direction. I am interested in penal reform and the after-care of delinquents, and I hope that the noble Lord will join me in that work. But it is not generally regarded as sufficient for someone who has been guilty of some grave delinquency to indicate, or create the impression, that his thoughts are moving in the

1051
right direction for him to be at once exonerated and allowed to go his way uncriticised. We cannot all hope to rise to those heights of charity represented by the noble Lord.
LORD HARDING OF PETHERTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, I did add that some real progress has been made.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am grateful for the correction. I felt that before the noble Lord said that he paused and said it was just about true.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships at this stage, but if we take the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, at his most impressive, and the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd, Lord Winster and Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, I believe it will be found that most of the criticisms they made, particularly with regard to delivery of the missile, Transport Command and the organisation of N.A.T.O. (to mention only three points which have been running through this debate) were, in one way or another, strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, who does, so far as we can expect anyone in this House to do so, rise above Party considerations. I do not need to rub in those points, but I should have liked to repeat what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winster. As he has left us, however, I will write and tell him that I would have repeated what he said. I felt that in many ways his criticism was the most searching of all.
I was particularly glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Saye and Sele (who has also left us), speaking from the Liberal Benches. He was extremely severe on those parts of the White Paper dealing with civil defence. That reminds me of an old story told of a Professor Sidgwick, I believe it was, though someone may correct me. An essay on some philosophical subject was being marked and he was asked: "What do you think of this essay?" He said, "It's nonsense, of course, but is it the right kind of nonsense?" I gathered from the noble Lord, Lord Saye and Sele, that he not only thought that these passages on civil defence were nonsense but that they were the wrong kind of
1052
nonsense—and I believe he carried the House with him when he was speaking.
It is difficult for us to accept the record of noble Lords opposite on defence—and no one is impugning their patriotism or their desire to help their country. It is difficult for us to believe that they have administered their trust very well. If we go back to Suez, the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, felt that my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, had gone a bit far in saying that we were totally unprepared. The impression left after the noble Lord had been speaking was that my noble Leader would have done better to say we were almost totally unprepared. The noble Lord shakes his head. At any rate, we were far from properly prepared and the preparations made were most inadequate and unworthy.
When I think of Suez, and of our arrangements—without dealing at all with the ethical and diplomatic aspects, but dealing simply with the military aspects—I remember a visit I paid to the War Office to discuss the use of skilled men in the Army, when I was a henchman of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who spoke so well to-day. The noble Lord was asked by someone now a noble Lord, and most respected in this House: "What do you think, Sir William, of our arrangements for the use of skilled manpower in the Service?" The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge (as he now is), smiled, as he is smiling now, and said: "A miserable show, a miserable show!" That is what we said in those days. To do the Army credit, they put it right; so perhaps the same will happen on this occasion.
That was the situation in the eyes of many of us at the time of Suez. Are we to suppose that some great and beneficent change comes over our fortunes when some new Minister of Defence appears on the scene? Most of us thought that the Minister of Defence at that time was one of the best we had had, before or since the war; and looking through Sir Anthony Eden's Memoirs I see a sentence about Mr. Antony Head:
"I have no doubt he would have proved to be the best Minister of Defence the country has had since the end of the war had he been continued in office after I resigned."

1053
So in the eyes of Sir Anthony Eden there was not likely to be an improvement by a change of Defence Minister after Suez. Without reference to personalities, in spite of what the noble Viscount said, we have not the means of judging exactly. We have not been behind the scenes. But when the defences of this country were tested a few years ago they were then found to be in a very faulty condition, and on the testimony that has come our way from here and there we do not find it easy to suppose that our affairs have been better administered since. Therefore, on technical grounds we feel that we are right to go, and would be doing less than our duty if we did not go, into the Lobby against the noble Lords.
But there is a wider aspect. Here I pay a tribute, though from one point of view a guarded tribute, to one of the finest passages in yesterday's speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. It was quoted earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who spoke with such great effect. The noble Viscount said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 221 (No. 50), col. 912]:
"… as I contemplate the hideous weapons on both sides, which even in my partially informed state I know to have been invented—and here I speak only for myself—I regard either a world authority or total disarmament, in the long run, as the only rational objectives; and of the two I must say that I have regarded the first as the more rational."
Well, I am full of admiration for that speech, and of more admiration for the noble Viscount, because it may be that he had to take a certain risk in making that pronouncement. But from the point of view of the country, and indeed the world, we want to know whether the noble Viscount is speaking entirely for himself when he proclaims these lofty ideals. Yesterday he was speaking for himself; but why was he speaking for himself? Is it because his colleagues are not with him?
I recall a debate of last year on world government, initiated by my noble friend Lord Silk in, in which my noble friend Lord Attlee participated. The reply last year was found to be totally disappointing by my noble friend Lord Silkin, as will be seen by your Lordships who care to look it up in Hansard. Has there been some great change? It is a matter literally of life and death, because I believe entirely, and I think everybody behind me believes entirely, what has
1054
been said on this point from the Liberal Benches in particular: that this world will be annihilated, whether in our time or in the time of our children, unless a World Authority comes about. And if I may say so with great respect, it is not quite sufficient to be told by the noble Viscount that he is speaking for himself in support of a World Authority. Can the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and can the Government, now or later, say something more concrete or definite?—because the whole future of the world depends on it.
We feel that the Government, deeply imbued as we know they are with a desire to support the Services and to promote peace, have shown themselves incapable in administration, confused and dilatory in their defence policy; and, above all, they have not yet given us any clear indications that collectively, whatever may be the case with individuals, they have realised that the peace of the world can be obtained only by something that rises high above national defence—namely, world government.
5.44 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, we are now at the end of two days of debate, which I think, all your Lordships will agree, has included a number of stimulating and thoughtful speeches—notably this afternoon from my noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, and from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, opposite; and yesterday from my noble friends Lord Bridgeman and Lord Teynham. As is always the case in defence debates, we have discussed large issues and small issues, and sometimes, if I may say so, we have wandered a little from the topic we are supposed to be discussing. The Government have received a great deal of advice, much of it conflicting.
I must confess that I feel a little that this is where I came in. The last time I replied to this debate in your Lordships' House was almost exactly four years ago. It was opened by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who ranged, if I recollect rightly, from the anniversary of the martyrdom of the Archbishop Cranmer to the protection round the gun mounting of a "County" class cruiser. It was

1055
closed by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, as it has been to-day. I have a pleasant and happy feeling of continuity and familiarity. I hope it will be many years before the team opposite is removed from those Benches.
On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, told the House that he did not intend to divide "owing to the special circumstances of this House". Well, it seems that the circumstances have changed, and I make no complaint about that. Indeed, I should like at the outset to congratulate the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, on his courage in placing his Amendment on the Order Paper. It takes a brave man, after the debacle in another place the other night, to introduce an Amendment of the same character into your Lordships' House; and I was waiting with interest to see which of the many lines advocated by the Opposition in another place the noble Viscount would follow. As I might have expected—I did him an injustice—the noble Viscount followed his own line; and I hope he will forgive me if I tell him that I do not think he made nearly as good a speech yesterday as he did four years ago. Of course, he always makes a good speech, but on this occasion I thought the content was woefully thin.
The noble Viscount was moving a Motion of censure, a Motion of no confidence in the Government's policy. His speech was emphatic, indignant and reproving; but, on re-reading it this morning in Hansard, I found very little in it of substance. Yesterday the noble Viscount roared; to-day he turns out to be a paper tiger. His charges come to this: first, that the Government were in confusion about the means of delivery of the nuclear weapon; and, secondly, that there are inexcusable delays in the re-equipping of our forces with modern weapons and making them more mobile. I shall deal with both these charges in the course of my remarks.
As to the other speakers from the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, I can think of nobody in the House I would rather listen to than the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, however dressed, whether badly or well, and I must confess that I thought his speech was very funny; but as a winding-up
1056
speech on a Motion of censure it left, in my view, a little bit to be desired. I think that some of your Lordships, certainly on this side of the House, will be very surprised if the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, persists in his Amendment this evening.
The background against which we review our defence effort would seem to me to involve acceptance of three very important facts. First of all comes acceptance of the fact that we must play our part with our Allies in deterring war, and that all our defence forces contribute to its deterrence. We must continue to make our contribution to the strategic nuclear forces of the West and, at the same time, provide forces to prevent, or help in checking, outbreaks of violence which could lead to major trouble. We must also be ready to undertake certain specific responsibilities to assist those with whom we have treaties. Secondly, it involves acceptance of the fact that none of the three Services can stand alone. We are each of us dependent on the other, and we recognise this in the regular meetings of the Chiefs of Staff, the Service Ministers, the Defence Committee; and in our joint planning, our joint exercises and our joint staff colleges. Thirdly, it involves acceptance of the fact that the total defence budget is necessarily limited. None of the three Services has all the money it would like to have. Although, in terms of cash, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said, it has never been higher, it is considerably lower in real terms than it was at the time of the Korean War expenditure and immediately afterwards. We accept that there has to be constant scrutiny, care and review of projects to make sure we get value for money.
This, then, is the background to the review of our defence effort, which, as the Minister of Defence told another place, the Government have set in train. We must not keep on digging up the beans to see whether they are growing, but we must look at the garden to make sure we are growing the right things in the right way in the right place.
Some doubts have been thrown on the very basis of our nuclear deterrent policy. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, questions whether we should retain nuclear weapons at all, as does the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. The noble Earl,

1057
Lord Lucan, asks whether the present V-bomber force is effective; and I will deal first, if I may, with these points. I thought that my noble friend Lord Hailsham, in his very striking speech, largely answered the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, before they were asked.
There is not one of your Lordships who, along with the noble Lord, would not like to eliminate nuclear weapons, and to spend the money saved on social needs; but I am certainly not being cynical when I say that I believe that this country makes a most important contribution to peace by the part it plays in strengthening the nuclear power of the West. Our contribution is by no means so insignificant as some would make out: it is indeed substantial. I was very glad to see the support which the Leader of the Opposition in another place gave to the Government's policy when he argued for the retention of an independently controlled contribution to the nuclear deterrent. Many of those who shout loudest for peace do not seem to me to understand that it is the fear of nuclear war that has preserved the world from a major war. The power of what my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, called "the equaliser" is an essential factor for peace. Until we are in sight of our aim of comprehensive disarmament under proper controls, we are determined to continue to share in deterring aggression by maintaining up-to-date nuclear forces under our own control.
I think the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, will go with me so far; and it therefore seems to me all the more contradictory that he disagrees with what we are doing to keep our deterrent forces effective. He says that the Government are in a dither, but are they dithering to take account of scientific and technical advances—some of which are very rapid? I think that most of your Lordships would welcome some "dithering" on our pant if that meant that we were making quite sure that our plans are the right plans for the task in front of us. New means of delivery, such as the airborne ballistic missile, Skybolt, reach the development stage; and it would be indefensible not to consider them. The Russians carry forward their rocket programmes; and we cannot shut our eyes to what they have achieved. This
1058
is not "dithering": it is common sense. It would be nonsense for 'us to try to base an effective deterrent system upon weapons and means of delivery which have become obsolete and ineffective. Perhaps I might say in passing, in answer to a question put to me by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that when the West is considering whether or not there is a sufficiency of obliterating power it must reckon not only with the nuclear weapons themselves, but also with the capacity for delivering them.
My Lords, it is this aspect of delivery that has occupied so many of your Lordships in this debate. At present, we have the V-bombers, and improved engines, and the Blue Steel stand-off bomb will extend the capability of the Mark II Vulcans and Victors which are coining into service. Some noble Lords have suggested that they will not be an effective deterrent, either because they would fail to get off the ground or because they would not penetrate the Soviet defences. I do not minimise the threat that may develop from ballistic missiles, but I would say this: the Royal Air Force has developed techniques that can get four bombers into the air from one airfield in under four minutes, and this time is being improved upon. No one could count on destroying at one go our V-bomber force; and armed with the Blue Steel stand-off bomb, our bombers will be capable of hitting enemy targets for a number of years yet. The effectiveness of our part in the deterrent will continue. The noble Viscount has suggested that there will be a gap. This is not so. It is towards the end of this decade that we foresee the need to replace the V-bomber. That is why we are considering several possible alternatives.
The words of the 1959 Defence White Paper were these
"On present knowledge, Blue Streak is the type of missile hest suited to British needs".
My Lords, I think that we should have been failing in our duty if we had not devoted considerable effort to it and to associated matters of ballistic missile technology. But knowledge has a way of growing, and we should be equally wrong not to consider most carefully other developments in this sphere. For example, several noble Lords have pressed the claims of the solid-fuel

1059
missile, Polaris. The first of the United States submarines for which this rocket is being developed is already in commission and it is obvious that there is a tremendous strategic potential in a Polaris submarine, which has longer endurance, a high degree of immunity against attack, and is able to take up station unobtrusively in almost any part of the world. It is equally obvious that the possibility of having submarines of this kind—which are about twice as large and twice as expensive as the nuclear submarines we are now developing—presents difficult technical and financial problems. Before we embarked upon a project of this size, which would be rather outside the present rôle of the Navy, we should have to be very certain that we should get real value from it. The United States are giving us the fullest information, both about the weapon and about the submarine. I would assure my noble friend Lord Swinton that, in all these matters—guided weapons and ballistic missiles—we have the fullest possible co-operation and collaboration with the Americans.
As to Skybolt, here too we are closely associated with the United States development programme. As the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, pointed out, the time scale of the production programme is one of the most important factors in considering a new project of this kind. I do assure your Lordships that, as soon as I am in a position to do so, I shall certainly tell the House more about these matters. But I should like to say this, and to say it most emphatically. At the present time, we have the most effective means of delivery with the V-bomber force, and until the latter part of the 1960's we are certain of making a powerful and independent contribution to the deterrent power of the West. Again, I can assure my noble friend Lord Swinton that of course we retain full control of our own nuclear weapons. The problem we have to tackle is what we are to have at the end of the decade, and beyond, and this is what our current review is designed to solve.
My Lords, some of your Lordships—the noble Lord, Lord Winster, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge—have referred to the possibility of a N.A.T.O. deterrent system. In addition to what General Norstad has
1060
himself said, there has been some publicity to which my noble friend Lord Jellicoe referred, as a result of an interesting new book by Mr. Alastair Buchan, which I have read and recommend to your Lordships. These are all interesting proposals, and we must of course consider them carefully, but they do bring with them, as the noble Lord recognised, some very complicated problems. For example, there is the question of political control over the launching of a N.A.T.O. deterrent force. There would also be the problem of relating a European nuclear force to the existing elements of the long-range nuclear forces in this country and the U.S.A. I am afraid that there are no ready answers that I can give at this moment.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition criticised some of the things which General Norstad has been saying, and also the fact that he had been saying them. I should like to say something about this, and about what we mean when we talk about N.A.T.O. authorities. As my right honourable friend explained in another place, the N.A.T.O. military authorities are considering arrangements which would allow units in Europe belonging to certain N.A.T.O. Powers, and already assigned to N.A.T.O., to operate together in an emergency. Detailed planning has not yet been completed. This certainly seems a sensible idea, and I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Goschen said in his speech. It is completely in accord with the authority given to S.H.A.P.E. to initiate planning with the object of making the most efficient use of the forces made available to N.A.T.O. in S.H.A.P.E.'s command. Of course, there are a considerable number of different authorities in N.A.T.O., military and political. For instance, there is the Standing Group, the Military Committee, the N.A.T.O. Council and so on. The use of the terms "N.A.T.O. authorities" or "N.A.T.O. military authorities" is usually only a shorthand way of referring to the particular authorities concerned. I assure the noble Viscount that there is nothing sinister in it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have complained not merely this year but in other years of the fact that in the interpretation of the views of these authorities far

1061
too little use is made of the properly elected Governments of the countries concerned. A large section of the people of this country complain because these announcements are made by military authorities and not by elected Governments.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, speaking for myself, I would say that I have no objection to the example which I have given and the noble Viscount himself gave. It seems to me perfectly proper that General Norstad should make announcements on matters over which he has full control and authority.
To come now to the question of bases in Spain. I think that the facts about this matter are well known to your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne has made the Government's position clear. The most important facts at the present time are that the Federal Government have undertaken that there will be no negotiations on this matter except with the full agreement of N.A.T.O. These assurances were repeated at the N.A.T.O. Council last week; and the general question of N.A.T.O. logistics is to be considered by the N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers when they meet at the end of the month.
The noble Viscount went on to refer to the revised Brussels Treaty, which is still, of course, completely valid. That Treaty contains a voluntary declaration by the Federal German Government that they will not manufacture certain weapons within the Federal territory. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne dealt with this point on February 29, but perhaps I may just say this. When the noble Viscount spoke of "a legal quibble" and "German arrogance", I had the impression that he was under a misapprehension. He seemed to be addressing his words to a situation in which the German Government had discovered a loophole in the Treaty and had announced their intention of taking full advantage of it. The facts are exactly contrary. The Federal Government have on many occasions declared that they have no intention whatever of manufacturing these weapons, and that remains the position. There was no question of a German Government manufacturing such weapons outside the Federal Republic at the time of the revision of the Brussels Treaty; nor is there now.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I deal with that point? Surely that does not really fit in with the facts as we know them. The noble Lord has referred to the assurances which have now been given by Dr. Adenauer. The Foreign Secretary's explanation in another place seemed to say to Parliament that the very proposals which Germany had already had talks about in Spain were contrary to the spirit of the Argeement. If that is so, how much has been yet said on behalf of Germany that we can trust?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I really think that the noble Viscount has misinterpreted this. What my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said was that the Federal Government had accepted that the manufacture of nuclear weapons would be contrary to the spirit of the. Brussels Treaty. I think that it would be much better to look at the matter as it stands at present in the light of the assurances given by the German Federal Chancellor.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I think he said that when the Brussels Pact was revised Germany had given a voluntary undertaking not to produce atomic weapons not only in German territory but also in any other territory. The point to which we are trying to get an answer is why was not that included in the voluntary undertaking at that time, because if they have the legal right to make them outside they can go outside the Brussels Treaty; but if the undertaking had been brought into this Treaty it would be of Treaty value.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not want to get into a long discussion about this at the present time. We are having a defence debate. But I repeat again that the German Government have said that they have no intention of making these weapons and we have no reason whatever to doubt their words.
The second charge the Opposition have made against the Government has been, the delay in the re-equipment of our forces. I think that here there is a real difficulty. A large number of noble Lords in this debate have asked for more information about our Defence Services so that they could judge more accurately what is happening and what it is proposed

1063
should happen. I very much sympathise with this view, and I think that it our duty to give as much information as possible. But a great deal of information is contained in the Defence White Paper and in the Explanatory Memoranda of the three Services. Weapons are mentioned at a very early stage of their development, and naturally these weapons are mentioned over a period of years before they actually come into service. The noble Viscount will know as well as I do how long it takes to develop a modern ship, or produce an aircraft or a guided weapon, because he himself was Minister of Defence some ten years ago; and he will readily understand that, particularly in the last ten years the complication and elaboration of these weapons have increased enormously. It really is not a bit of good asking for information at an early stage and then being critical when weapons are not in service a year or two after they are first mentioned.
The noble Viscount made some specific charges about certain weapons; but he really knows better than to say what he said yesterday. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 221, col. 927]:
"… there has been Defence Paper after Defence Paper from this Government where particular vehicles, aircraft or weapons are mentioned again and again; but it will take years and years after suggested production orders are placed before there is any delivery."
Let us see what the position is. The noble Viscount said that the NA.39 was hopelessly delayed. He is entirely wrong and completely misinformed. The NA.39 has had a good record, indeed an unusually good record, in meeting its dates so far. In due course it will replace the Scimitar, itself a modern, sophisticated and efficient aircraft with a nuclear capability. The Sea Vixen, the first all-weather fighter has appeared in the Navy Estimates statements on a number of occasions: the first squadron joins the "Ark Royal" this month.
Mobility has been criticised by noble Lords. That of the Navy has been strengthened by the commissioning of the first Commando Carrier, H.M.S. "Bulwark," which I shall be going to see at Plymouth next Monday, when 42 Commando embark. We have recently overhauled and air-conditioned the Amphibious Warfare Squadron, to which the noble Lords, Lord Lucan and
1064
Lord Harding of Petherton, referred. Of course, the ships of this squadron will not last indefinitely, but we have given them a considerable and valuable lease of life and are working hard on new designs for up-to-date ships. Of the 1960 Fleet, all the carriers, 2 of the 5 cruisers, 22 of the 34 frigates and all 37 minesweepers have come into service within the last ten years. Over the same period, of the ships on trials and training or in Operational Reserve 140 minesweepers, 30 coastal craft, and 12 destroyers or frigates have been completed. These are conventional ships. As the noble Viscount knows, the "Dreadnought" will be launched this year, and we are proposing to order the first all-British-made nuclear submarine.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, how many of that very comprehensive list of ships are on plans made before 1951? There have still been very great delays and I could mention a number of them. Look at the case of the "Tiger."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not got figures for the number of ships thought of in the noble Viscount's time. I am not trying to take anything away from his time as Minister of Defence. I think that we can discuss all these matters more fully in the debate on the Navy Estimates. I would just point out, however, to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that my Explanatory Statement is not at all coy about giving details of our growing anti-submarine capability, and I recommend him to read paragraphs 23, 31 to 33 and 38.
As regards the Army it was announced last year that infantry units in B.A.O.R. were being equipped with the F.N. rifle, the Stirling sub-machine gun, and the Mobat anti-tank gun. This has now been done. In addition, almost the whole of the long-term garrison in Germany has been equipped with a new range of regimental wireless sets. This year and next year will see a very big step forward towards the completion of the current programme for re-equipping Army units. The Saladin armoured car, the Ferret scout car and the armoured one-ton wheeled vehicle will all be fully in service and add greatly to the strength and mobility of front-line units.

1065
As regards the Royal Air Force, many noble Lords have mentioned Transport Command and have criticised the slowness of its equipment. In looking up the debate of four years ago to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, I noticed that I said at that time that we were giving high priority to providing aircraft for Transport Command. My words were these:
"It is proposed to provide the Command with Beverleys, Comets and, in due course, Britannias."
Four years later this has been done.
The Britannia can carry two or three times as many troops as the Hastings, and its speed is much greater. The high-speed element of the Command is provided by a squadron of Comet Hs, and we intend to replace this aircraft, when its life is over, with a British aircraft already being developed for civil purposes. Design and development work continue on the strategic freighter, the Britannic. Over shorter distances we shall be supplementing the Beverley aircraft, and those Hastings made available by the arrival of the Britannias, with the A.W.660, of which 20 are on order. I would say to the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, that the airlift available this year is about 150 million passenger miles a month in normal times and nearly 300 million passenger miles in an emergency. This is nearly three times what it was in 1956.
My Lords, to give some indication of the capability of Transport Command, I should like to draw your attention to the joint Army/R.A.F. exercise "Starlight I" which is taking place in North Africa this month. Aircraft of Transport Command will lift 4,000 fully equipped troops and 130 vehicles of the First Guards Brigade and ancillary units of both the Army and the R.A.F. a distance of nearly 2,000 miles. Some helicopters are also being flown out for use in this exercise. I think that this gives your Lordships a practical example of our capacity for moving our forces rapidly wherever they may be needed.
The essence of the Government's policy is that all three Services should have the maximum all-round ability, and should be equipped with the most modern weapons, so that they can move rapidly and act effectively in any emergency.
1066
Of course, things do not always go as fast as we should like, and there have been some setbacks. It would be astonishing if there had not been. But from what I have told your Lordships it will be apparent that it simply is not true to say that equipment is not coming into service.
I have said a lot to-day, and a lot has been said in the debate, about new kinds of weapons—and I sometimes think that these catch too much of the headlines. Men are what matter, and in the defence sphere nothing is more important than the strength and conditions of our officers and men. In the highly technical services of to-day the human factor is more, not less, important. By the end of this year the last National Serviceman will have joined up, and by the end of 1962 the Services will be on an all-Regular basis for the first time in more than twenty years. I should say here that we continue to attach great importance to recruiting for the Women's Services. There are many jobs in technical and administrative units which women can do as well as, if not better than, men; and the more we can get, the more men can be released for more active duties.
There has been no criticism by your Lordships of the new pay code or of conditions of service; and I think that one of the best features of the Government's defence policy has been the institution of the regular biennial reviews recommended by the Grigg Committee. We believe that we shall in this way be able to hold our own against the rival attractions of industry. I hope perhaps that in the Service Estimates debates, we may pursue the human side of the Services at rather greater length than I am able to do this evening.
I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Saye and Sele, and also my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, had to say about civil defence—a subject on which both of them have a great deal of experience. The noble Lord referred to the statement in the Defence White Paper of 1957 to the effect that there was no means of providing protection for people in this country against attacks by nuclear weapons. This is still the case but it does not mean that much could not be done to mitigate the effects of nuclear attack on the population as a whole; and that is the object of civil defence

1067
planning. This has been stated clearly in successive White Papers. The Government would certainly like to see more people come forward for civil defence training, but I cannot agree with the noble Lord's view that the voluntary system is unsatisfactory. On average, nearly 50,000 recruits have joined each year over the last three years, and a good many of these are younger people. The Government are paying particular attention to the system for training these recruits. I can assure my noble friend that the Government will look carefully at his advice on educating young people in the need for civil defence.
My Lords, I am well aware that I have not answered all the questions that have been put to me. If I were to try to do so, it would take much too long and I should speak to your Lordships at interminable length. I hope, therefore, that I shall be acquitted of discourtesy: I assure noble Lords that I will answer their questions in writing as soon as I can. The main framework of the Government's defence policy is unchanged, and it is interesting to note that the speech I made four years ago could well have been made to your Lordships' House tonight without important alteration. I am very glad indeed that the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, has said that he will support the Government because I remember that in those days he was the C.I.G.S. and had a great responsibility for what was done.
Our task is simply to keep the peace until we can see our way to achieve disarmament. Until that time we have to maintain our defences in three ways. First, by our independently controlled contribution to the nuclear pattern—and the House will be told in due course what emerges from our examination of the best way of doing this after the middle of the 1960's. Secondly, by our close collaboration with our Allies in the Commonwealth, in N.A.T.O., in C.E.N.T.O. and in S.E.A.T.O. All of us in the free world are inter-dependent, and it is our policy to foster inter-dependence wherever we can. Thirdly, by having our forces, either in overseas garrisons or mobile in ships at sea, ready to act in order to prevent a small spark setting
off a larger blaze. For these purposes, and within the strength of our economy we are pressing on as quickly as we can with re-equipping all three Services and, perhaps just as important, we are maintaining Services which are satisfied with their pay and with their conditions. The Serviceman to-day is as well rewarded as a man in a civilian job.
I maintain, and I think that the majority of your Lordships will agree with me, that the policy which Her Majesty's Government are pursuing is the right one. The Opposition in the last two days have made no real case for a critical Amendment or a censure Motion. Indeed, if anyone were asked to recite the official Opposition policy on defence, I have no doubt that it would be quite remarkably similar to the one which the Government are pursuing. No sound alternatives have been put forward; no criticisms of principle have been made; and I am confident that your Lordships will give the Government your approval of the proposals in the Defence White Paper of 1960.
6.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I would first of all congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on his first main speech since he returned here, because one sees so many different faces and one always likes to see an old colleague in the House doing well. But I must say that he has not convinced me, by any means, that we can depart from the Amendment which has been put down on behalf of the Opposition. We have had no clarification as to who is going to be responsible for defence, whether it is to be Mr. Watkinson or Mr. Duncan Sandys; and we have had no explanation of the perhaps camouflaged but undoubted retreat from the policy of the Paper of 1957. It is because we have no confidence yet in the way in which the Government are proceeding towards their maybe very good objective in the future that we will continue our intention to vote for the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 84.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Amwell, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Citrine, L.

Lucan, E.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Silkin, L.

Dalton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stansgate, V.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stonham, L.

Granville-West, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Taylor, L.

Greenhill, L.

Pakenham, L.

Winster, L.

Henderson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Wise, L.

Kershaw, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Latham, L.

Rusholme, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Devonport, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Abinger, L.

Digby, L.

Melchett, L.

Addington, L.

Dorchester, L.

Milverton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Dovercourt, L.

Morley, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dowding, L.

Northesk, E.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Ashbourne, L.

Dynevor, L.

Palmer, L.

Ashburton, L.

Ebury, L.

Perth, E.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Remnant, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Freyberg, L.

Robins, L.

Bathurst, E.

Furness, V.

Rochdale, V.

Blackford, L.

Goschen, V.

Rockley, L.

Bossom, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bradford, E.

Gridley, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Salter, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hampton, L.

Somers, L.

Carrick, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Soulbury, V.

Carrington, L.

Hastings, L.

Spens, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hawke, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Coleraine, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Colgrain, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Swinton, E.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Tenby, V.

Congleton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Teviot, L.

Craigton, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Teynham, L.

Croft, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Torrington, V.

Crookshank, V.

Leconfield, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Davidson, V.

Luke, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Derwent, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, original Motion agreed to.

  READING BRIDGE
  READING BRIDGE