Sitting of 25 January 1961

Preamble
The House met at Half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRADE AND NAVIGATION
Accounts ordered,
"relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1961."—[Mr. Maudling.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Retired Officers (Pensions)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers who retired before 1958 are in receipt of pensions.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): The number of officers drawing pensions awarded before 4th November, 1958, is 7,366.
    Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that the Government have not proposed a further Pensions (Increase) Bill, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that modern Service men are inclined to judge the value of Government promises by how their predecessors, their grandfathers and fathers, are treated? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the general feeling in the country is that we have done very little and treated these people very shabbily? Therefore, will he make representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order that the right type of men will be attracted to the Service and will not feel that their predecessors are not being properly treated in the Services?
    Mr. Amery: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views on this subject. I am afraid that I am not in a position to add anything to what the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty said last December on this subject.

    Widows (Pensions)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Air how many widows of officers who died before 1958 are in receipt of pensions.
    Mr. J. Amery: The number of widows drawing pensions awarded before 4th November, 1958, is 746.
    Dame Irene Ward: First, may I say thank you to my right hon. Friend for not asking permission to answer my two Questions together?
    May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that a leader in the Daily Telegraph—which is supposed to be the instrument of the Conservative Government—said that the pensions position of retired officers and other ranks was chaotic? If that is the view of the Tory Press, does not my right hon. Friend think it is about time that the Chancellor paid attention to what the Tory Party thinks about the treatment of widows?
    Mr. Amery: I am not sure if my hon. Friend's assumptions about the Daily Telegraph are well-founded. It seems to be more the instrument of her views than those of the Government.

    Chaplains
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the principles on which the political views of clergymen and ministers serving as whole-time or part-time chaplains in the Royal Air Force render them liable to removal from their duties.
    Mr. J. Amery: Like any other officer, a member of the Chaplains' Branch is required by regulation to refrain from taking an active part in the affairs of any political organisation. There are no such hard-and-fast rules or principles for part-time chaplains. There have, however, been two instances in which local ministers resigned their Royal Air Force chaplaincies because they wished to express publicly views which were incompatible with these appointments.
    Mr. Driberg: If one of those two instances is the case of the Free Church minister who resigned under pressure because he was a nuclear disarmer, is it not then being admitted that there is, in fact, political discrimination—and,

    141
    indeed, a political and military Gleichschaltung—of ministers of religion in the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. I do not think so. Every man's private opinion is his own affair, but if he expresses a view in public which is not consistent with his position as a chaplain in a Fighting Service, we cannot ignore it. The part-time chaplain in question, being a man of honour, voluntarily resigned his position.
    Mr. Driberg: Is it not going to be rather difficult to censor all their sermons —at Christmas-time, for instance?
    Mr. Amery: I do not think we are faced with any problem of that kind. When the matter arose in connection with the part-time chaplain to whom the hon. Member has referred, he saw there was an incompatibility and resigned.

    V-Bombers (Ejector Seats)
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Air why ejector seats are not provided for all the crew of V-bombers instead of merely for the two pilots, in view of the fact that ejector seats for all the crew are technically possible in V-bombers and are provided for all the crew in the B47, B52, B58 and the proposed B70 bombers of the United States Air Force.
    Mr. J. Amery: The rear crew members are, of course, provided with an escape hatch. To fit ejector seats for them would involve a large modification programme and the depletion of Bomber Command's front line over a long period.
    Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case that, in the commonest type of emergency, the only way to escape from these bombers is by means of the ejector seats? In view of the unselfishness and high sense of honour which characterise the Royal Air Force, is not the present arrangement most detrimental to the morale of the R.A.F.?
    Mr. Amery: No. I am advised that the greater number of accidents take place al high altitudes, when pilots are able, with their ejector seats, to go on piloting while the rest of the crew escape; they then have the advantage of ejection in the latter phase of the
    142
    accident. When accidents happen at low level, this is not so easy. The hon. Gentleman and I have travelled together in airliners, and in those airliners there were no ejection seats or any other kind of escape apparatus.
    Mr. Mulley: If it is not possible for changes to be made in existing aircraft, will not the Secretary of State give an assurance that this point will be considered in any new designs of aircraft undergoing manufacture at present?
    Mr. Amery: I should not like to give an assurance at the moment, but I will certainly look into it.

    Fighter Command
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the decision to place Fighter Command under the control of the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, as part of a unified air defence system for Europe, involves changes in the size, rôle, composition and deployment of United Kingdom air defences forces; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. Amery: I do not expect that changes will result in our plans for the size, rôle, composition and deployment of our forces; these are matters reserved for national decision.
    Mr. Mulley: I accept that unified air command in Europe is desirable, but does not the Secretary of State agree that the announcement of a decision of such importance should have been made to the House and not left to the last day before Christmas and made by way of a Written Answer?
    Mr. Amery: The elements which the hon. Gentleman mentions in his Question—size, r⊚cle, composition and deployment—are reserved for national decision. The main change. towards which we had been moving before, is the integration of the warning system. I think there would have been general unanimity in the House that it was right to move in that direction.

    Skybolt Missile
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Secretary of State for Air what changes in the future policy of the Royal Air Force are involved as a result of the decision to

    143
    acquire the Skybolt missile; and if he is satisfied with the progress to date of the development of the missile.
    Mr. J. Amery: The answer to the first part of the Question is, None, Sir. As to the second, detailed questions on the progress of development are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, but I can say that all reports I have received show that good progress has been maintained.
    Mr. Mulley: While not endorsing the Government's decision to acquire this weapon, may I ask whether the Secretary of State has seen reports about the progress? Will he give us an asurance that the Skybolt weapon will fit the existing V-bombers without undue expenditure? Will it fit both the Vulcan and the Victor? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us about reports to the contrary which have appeared? Can he also say that there has been no cut-down in the programme for development of Skybolt in the United States?
    Mr. Amery: Obviously, I cannot give assurances about what will happen in the United States. I have seen the Press announcements to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I can report that progress is being maintained satisfactorily in the factory on the production of this weapon. We see no reason to doubt that it will go forward. I should not like to answer off the cuff about fitting the weapon into the Vulcan and the Victor. If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question, I will certainly do my best to answer.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say at this stage which of our bombers is being adapted for this purpose?
    Mr. Amery: I have a good deal of information on this. There is always difficulty when Questions of this nature are asked and one must suddenly try to remember what is on the secret list and what is not. It is very easy to be confused, particularly if one is new at the job. I should like to check on that before I make a reply.

    Thor Base (Accident)
    6a. Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the accident at a Thor base in December; what damage was
    144
    caused; and why the group captain in command of the base has been posted elsewhere.
    Mr. J. Amery: In the course of a periodical fuelling exercise at a Thor site on 7th December, a large quantity of liquid oxygen was released in the launching area. There was no fire or explosion and only very minor damage. A Board of Inquiry concluded that the primary cause was a failure to carry out the correct procedures for controlling the flow of liquid oxygen. This was considered to reflect on the state of efficiency and training at the station, for which the Station Commander is responsible.
    Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. May we be informed what Question the Minister is answering?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes. I am obliged to the hon. Member. The Minister is answering Question No. 6a. It is possible that same hon. Members have not gat the revised form of the Order Paper. Owing to a mistake among the Officers of the House, the star on the right hon. Gentleman's Question was not noticed. The only way to put it right was to reprint in order to prevent injustice.
    Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must, with respect, point out that the un-revised form of the Order Paper was issued at the Vote Office immediately before 2.30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry about that. We have done the best we can to remedy an injustice.
    Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I am absolved from any mistake.
    May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this was not, in fact, a rather serious accident? If it was as minor as he suggests, why was it necessary to post the group captain in command of the base? Was he not a very efficient airman?
    Mr. Amery: I did not categorise the accident as minor. I said that the damage was very minor. The accident could have led to a serious fire. The House and the country are entitled to know that we maintain the highest standard of efficiency in stations of this kind, and when there is any fall-down in efficiency very strict measures have to be taken. Perhaps I should add that

    145
    there had been minor deficiencies—not of an accident character, but of other sorts—in the station before. In the circumstances, the Air Officer Commanding thought that the right decision was to recommend the posting of the officer, and we have seen no reason to take another view.

  ROADS

    Western Avenue Underpass (Hanger Lane)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Transport if he has received the special report on the completion date and final cost of the Western Avenue underpass at Hanger Lane; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): We have now received the special report from the consulting engineers and we expect the surface junction above the underpass to be open to traffic in its final form by the end of May. Pedestrians should be able to use the subways a few weeks later. The final cost of the contract is likely to be about £925,000.
    Mr. Hall: Does not this mean that this underpass is fourteen months late and will cost about £250,000 more than the original estimate? What redress has the Ministry against the contractors?
    Mr. Hay: We are in discussion with the contractors about a number of matters arising out of this. There is a claim which we are told the contractors propose to make, and in the circumstances it would be wiser if I did not comment in answer to my hon. Friend's question. My right hon. Friend and I have taken the very closest interest in this case.

    Andover By-pass
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Minister of Transport when he expects that work will begin on the Andover bypass.
    Mr. Hay: Proposals for the expansion of Andover to take overspill from London may affect the plans for the bypass and the side roads which are being reconsidered in consultation with the agent authority, the Hampshire County
    146
    Council. The draft Orders will be published as soon as possible after the plans have been agreed. In these circumstances, it is too early to say when work will start.
    Mr. Freeth: Will my hon. Friend confirm or deny that agreement has been reached on the plans Which were sent to his Minister by the county surveyor on 23rd November last? Can my hon. Friend state whether or not his Ministry will have given approval to these plans so that a public inquiry on the proposed by-pass can be held early this year at the same time as the expected public inquiry into the new proposed town plan for Andover?
    Mr. Hay: With regard to the second half of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, this is one of the things we have in mind, because we are anxious to save time where we can. On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the current position is that the revised, alternative proposals for the bypass and side roads have been prepared by the county and are being considered by our divisional road engineer in conjunction with the county surveyor. It may be some time before these proposals can be settled and the draft Orders published, but we shall get on with it as quickly as we can.

    Road Junction, Weyhill
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for improving the road junction of A.303 and A.343 at Weyhill, Hampshire.
    Mr. Hay: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the junction of A.303 and A.342 at Weyhill. To improve visibility, a building was demolished and the carriageway realigned at this junction in 1959. We have no further plans for it
    Mr. Freeth: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the typist's error in the Question. Is he aware of the very dangerous situation where the two main roads converge art the western end of the village of Weyhill and of the very strong local opinion that there should be a roundabout at this junction?
    Mr. Hay: No, I was not aware of that. I know the spot to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have not found it

    147
    all that dangerous. In view of the fact that he has brought it to my attention, I will have the matter looked into.

    London-Yorkshire Road
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport what progress is anticipated within the next year in regard to the construction of the Leicestershire portion of the London-Yorkshire road.
    Mr. Wadeasked the Minister of Transport if he can yet state when construction for the extension of the London-Yorkshire Motorway to Doncaster will commence; and what are the latest causes of the delay.
    Mr. Hay: We hope during the next year to publish the draft Orders for alteration to side roads and accesses for the whole route from Crick to Doncaster. These Orders are open to objection for three months. As we have then to consider all the objections received and may have to hold a public inquiry, I cannot forecast at this stage when we shall be able to make the Orders. Land acquisition and detailed engineering design will also go forward during this period, but cannot be completed until the side road orders have actually been made. Until these statutory processes are further advanced, I cannot usefully forecast the date for starting construction.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister telling the House that after having had this matter under consideration for nearly seven years he is only now considering the question of side roads? Has he not investigated that before? Why has he to wait another twelve months before anything can be done? is he aware that there is considerable anxiety and that these delays are costing people fortunes? Will he get on with the job?
    Mr. Hay: On a number of occasions in the past I have crossed swords with the hon. Member on the reasons why this scheme has been so long delayed. Blame does not rest with the Minister of Transport—either my right hon. Friend or his predecessor. All I can say is that we are proceeding as fast as we can within the confines of the statutory process laid down by Parliament. We cannot short-circuit that. We are determined to get on with it as quickly as possible.

    Traffic Islands and Bollards (Accidents)
    Mr. J. Harveyasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents were reported in the Metropolitan Police area during 1960 involving traffic islands or bollards used for traffic control purposes.
    Mr. Hay: I regret that the information asked for is not available.
    Mr. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is ample visual evidence that traffic bollards are frequently involved in accidents and that they may well be a contributory factor in the seriousness of some accidents? Will he look into the possibility of replacing the present type of bollard with something which is potentially less dangerous to traffic?
    Mr. Hay: That is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but I know that the design of the current bollard was reached after many years of experiment and is said to be not dangerous from the point of view which my hon. Friend puts. I will certainly have this looked into, because I was rather surprised to know that the information for which my hon. Friend asked is not available.

    Motorways (Catering Facilities)
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the catering facilities planned on major motorways will be adequate to meet the needs of motorway users; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. Service areas providing catering and other essential facilities are being opened at roughly 25-mile intervals on all major motorways. Two such areas are now in full operation on the M.1. Another will be completed at Strensham to coincide with the opening of the northern section of the Bristol-Birmingham Motorway now under construction.
    We hope to invite tenders next month for the first of the three areas to be opened on the Birmingham-Preston Motorway; and later this year for the other two and for one to be established on the Medway Motor Road.
    Mr. Wilson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the service which is likely to be given by these stations and the

    149
    charges which will be made to the public?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. We have had very little complaint about the way in which these service areas are being conducted. Such complaint as has been made has been that there is not more of them. As I said in my Answer, this is a matter to which we are devoting a great deal of attention.

    M.1 Motorway
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied as to the value of the M.1 motorway, now that it has been in operation for a year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. Traffic on this motorway has recently reached an average of over 15,000 vehicles a day. Journeys are speedier, and safer. Laden goods vehicles using the M.1 save 40 to 50 minutes on the round trip and private cars up to 1½ hours, compared with the time previously taken on the A.5 and A.45 route. The accident rate is half that of the best type of all other roads in the country.
    At the same time, traffic on the A.5 and A.45 alone has been reduced by 5,000 vehicles a day. Delays on this route have been cut by 20 to 25 minutes, and the number of accidents reduced by 60 per cent. Other routes will also have shared in these benefits.
    In terms of economic benefit to the nation, the indications are that the M.1 may well repay the cost of its construction within the next eight years or so.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: In view of the great success of the M.1 and the motorway principle, which some of us have been advocating for this country for about 25 years, will my hon. Friend say whether the Government have plans to press ahead with further motorway developments?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. I can tell my hon. Friend that 120 miles of long-distance motorway have already been built; another 86 miles are under construction; and another 100 miles are expected to be put in hand this year. As my hon. Friend knows, during the next five or six years, we hope substantially to complete the five major projects and to make a start
    150
    on the extension of the M.1 from Crick to Doncaster. My right hon. Friend is appointing Sir Owen Williams and Partners as consulting engineers to complete the preparation of this latter scheme.

    London-South Wales Motorway
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the London-South Wales Motorway, which is urgently required on traffic grounds and is one of his five major projects, has a sufficiently high priority in the road programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. In deciding the priorities of particular schemes, we have to take account of the needs of traffic over the whole country. The South Wales Motorway is being built in stages concentrating first on those parts where the traffic needs are greatest. Construction of the Maidenhead by-pass and the Thames Bridge is already well advanced; we expect work on the Chiswick-SloughMaidenhead section and on the Severn Bridge to begin shortly.
    Mr. Gower: Will account be taken of the fact that this road, when completed, will bring relief to the two alternative routes which now exist and will also bring tremendous economic benefits not only to South Wales but to the southwest of England, too?
    Mr. Hay: I think that my hon. Friend heard the reply which I gave a few moments ago to the Question about the M.1. We are quite confident that, if we get the London-South Wales motorway built, the same sort of results will appear from it in a very short time as have appeared in connection with the M.1.

    Road Junction, Redhill (Traffic Lights)
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for the installation of traffic signals at the junction in Redhill of London Road, Frenches Road and Linkfield Lane.
    Mr. Hay: The Reigate Corporation is planning an improved lay-out of this junction to make it suitable for traffic signal

    151
    control. Meanwhile, the advance warning signs and carriageway markings near the junction are being improved.

    Jermyn Street (Parking Meters)
    Mr. J. Harveyasked the Minister of Transport what considerations he took into account before giving his approval to the proposal to erect parking meters on both sides of Jermyn Street.
    Mr. Hay: Section 85 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, requires my right hon. Friend, when determining what parking places should be designated in a Parking Places Order, to consider both the interests of traffic and those of the owners and occupiers of adjoining property, with particular regard to the need for maintaining the free movement of traffic and reasonable access to premises. These were very carefully considered in relation to Jermyn Street.
    Mr. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that when I wrote to him in 1959 asking whether alternative parking could not be permitted in Jermyn Street on alternate days, he replied, giving very good reasons, that it would be dangerous to relax the waiting restrictions; yet we have since been given parking facilities on both sides, which causes the moss hopeless congestion in Jermyn Street?
    Mr. Hay: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the impression I have, supported by the information available to me and that from the Metropolitan Police, is that the installation of parking meters on this one-way street has enormously increased the flow of traffic and has made it much easier for vehicles to park and to obtain access to premises.

    North Wales (Communications)
    Mr. Birchasked the Minister of Transport what is being done to improve trunk road communications in North Wales.
    Mr. Hay: Work on the Queensferry bypass, which will remove the chief bottleneck on the main access route to North Wales, commenced last July. Consulting engineers have been appointed to prepare a scheme for a flyover at Llandudno Junction. Work has lately been completed on the improvements between
    152
    Portmadoc and Trawsfynydd. This road gives access to the nuclear power station, and also serves tourist and other traffic in the area. Work is in progress on nineteen smaller schemes at a total cost of £340,000, and further improvements are in preparation.

    Great North Road (Dual Carriageway)
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Transport how many miles of dual carriageway are now open to traffic on the Great North Road between London and Newcastle; and how many are at present under construction.
    Mr. Hay: There are 91 miles of dual carriageway now open to traffic between London and Newcastle. This is over one third of the total distance. Another 70 miles of dual carriageway are at present being constructed.
    Mr. Woodburn: Are there to be any motorways on the Great North Road, or are all the plans to be confined to dual carriageways?
    Mr. Hay: This is a little difficult, Mr. Speaker. The position is that some of the by-passes will be constructed to motorway standards, and for all practical purposes, except for the type of traffic that may use them, they will be motorway. Other stretches will be ordinary all-purpose dual carriageway. But there will be no motorway as such.

    Swanley By-pass
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates that work can commence on the by-pass at Swanley on the A.20.
    Mr. Hay: I hope that work on this by-pass will commence next year.
    Mr. Irving: While thanking the Minister for his Answer, may I ask whether he will give an assurance, in view of the very serious accident rate on this road, and the fact that it is one of the five worst bottlenecks in the country, that whatever economies may be necessary this year this project will not be among them?
    Mr. Hay: This is not a problem of economy, but is another reflection of the problem I mentioned in reply to an

    153
    earlier Question: that we are obliged by Parliament to go through certain statutory processes which inevitably take time to complete.

    A.2 Diversion, Dartford
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Minister of Transport when he expects to publish the draft orders for the diversion of the A.2 at Dartford.
    Mr. Hay: We deferred publishing a draft Order so that we could consider proposals put forward by the Dartford Rural District Council. We hope to complete consultations and publish draft proposals by the spring of this year.

    Improvement Schemes (Llantrisant)
    Mr. A. Pearsonasked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to authorise the diversion of Route A.4119 from Mwyndy to the Ely Valley Road so as to open up a new route to the Rhondda Valley avoiding the present narrow, constricted and dangerous hills south of Llantrisant Town.
    Mr. Hay: Whilst I recognise the need for the Llantrisant by-pass, there are many other schemes which have even greater priority. I regret that I cannot say when we shall be able to authorise it.
    Mr. Pearson: Can the Minister give us sufficient reason why the traffic needs of the Valley regions are ignored in the execution of these schemes?
    Mr. Hay: I do not think that that is really fair. We are not ignoring the needs of any part of the country. There may be argument as to whether or not we are doing enough at a particular time but, as I said in my reply, we recognise the need for this scheme and will do it when we can; but there are so many demands from all over the country that have to be reconciled that some order of priority has to be established.
    Mr. A. Pearsonasked the Minister of Transport if he will now sanction the carrying out of the road improvement schemes at Primrose Hill, Llantrisant, A.473, and at Newbridge Road and Brynteg Hill, Llantrisant, B.4270, in view of the fact that approval has been withheld from these major improvement schemes for several years.
    Mr. Hay: Whether these three small schemes can be included in the grant programme for 1961–62 will depend upon the priority which they are accorded by the highway authority, and on the funds available for works of this kind.

    Pink Zone Scheme
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport what were the results of the operation of the Pink Zone during the recent period; and what lessons have been learnt from it.
    Mr. Hay: Traffic volumes were 7 per cent. greater than in 1959 but the arrangements worked satisfactorily. Within the zone, traffic moved faster than in the previous weeks; and London Transport reported a notable improvement on the access routes, which were given special attention this year.
    Of the particular measures, we have been impressed by parking meter control and "yellow line" loading bans at key points. The results are still being studied in detail.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Despite the rude things said by the Press about the Pink Zone, will my hon. Friend agree that it freed traffic during the Christmas period? Will he also agree that its success is entirely dependent upon having parking space available in the parks to take the overflow of cars?
    Mr. Hay: I think this has undoubtedly been a valuable experiment, not least in ensuring that we were not completely overwhelmed by the increased traffic which has been experienced this year as compared with last year.
    As to the question about further car parking in the parks, that is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, but I hope to introduce a Bill later this afternoon which will go some way, we hope, towards solving that problem.

    Road Accidents (Christmas Period)
    Sir R. Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport whether he has analysed the road accidents over the Christmas period in order to show what were the most prevalent errors either by drivers or pedestrians: and what has been the result.
    Mr. Hay: The police reports on all accidents occurring at Christmas, 1960,

    155
    are being analysed and we shall publish a statement shortly. The police reports give a great deal of useful information but do not enable us to say what were the most prevalent errors by drivers or pedestrians.
    Sir R. Pilkington: Should they not, in fact, give this information? Would it not be desirable to give all the publicity possible to the errors which are made?
    Mr. Hay: The police prepare their accident reports on the basis of what happened, and not who was responsible. It is, therefore, difficult in some cases to say what was the particular error which caused the accident. Nevertheless, what they do give us provides us with very valuable information.

    Swansea East Approach Road
    Mr. Reesasked the Minister of Transport when the Swansea East Side approach road will be completed; what will be the cost; and what will be the Government's contribution towards it.
    Mr. Hay: The scheme is due for completion by March, 1963. The total cost will be some £2,431,000 of which the Government contribution will be £1,708,000.
    Mr. Rees: Is my hon. Friend aware that when this scheme is completed it will give greatly improved facilities for access to Swansea Docks and that the people of Swansea, while appreciative of this work, will be glad if my hon. Friend will bring it along a little more quickly?
    Mr. Hay: We are very glad to hear that compliment from my hon. Friend. About three miles of the total of four and a half miles of this road are completed and in use. Most of the remainder should be completed by the end of this year.

    South-West Region (Traffic Congestion)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take to deal with the growing congestion on the roads in the south-west of England.
    Mr. Hay: We authorised works in Devon and Cornwall in 1959–60 involving Government expenditure of over £1 million; and in the present year the figure will be about £1½ million.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the highway authorities in the South-West are still very concerned about the inadequacy of trunk roads and classified roads? Will he take that into consideration when making the next allocations?
    Mr. Hay: Those highway authorities are not unique. Practically every highway authority would like to do more, and so would we, but we have to limit what we can do because of money and other considerations. We certainly get on as best we can.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Is the position about money for this development being revised, in view of the statement which the Minister of Transport made, that these roads pay for themselves in eight years?
    Mr. Hay: We always believed, and are pretty confident, that the motorways would prove to be a great economic benefit to the nation. That is one of Dile considerations we had in mind in allocating money for the road programme. The progressive increase in the total for the road programme is another example of how our minds are working on this matter.

  TRANSPORT

    British Transport Commission (Timber Supplies)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to consult the Forestry Commission as to the availability of home-grown supplies before the placing of large orders for imported timber either directly or through contractors.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. I understand that substantial sample orders have been placed for home-grown supplies as a result of consultation between the British Transport Commission and the home timber trade.
    Mr. Digby: Is it not important that home producers should have an equal chance with producers of imported timber? Is my hon. Friend aware that this does not always happen?
    Mr. Hay: Of course, they should have an equal chance, provided the wood is comparable with imported timber for the needs for which the Commission requires it. In his Question, my hon. Friend asks for a general direction. I am advised that this is not a suitable subject for a general direction, but the Commission is placing sample orders and has the wood under test.

    Mobile Cranes and Projecting Loads
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the proposals submitted to him by the Transport Committee of the Leicester City Council and other organisations for legislation to be introduced to deal with the increasing danger to road users caused by mobile cranes; and, in view of public concern at the increase of accidents involving such cranes, what action he proposes to take to deal with the matter.
    Mr. J. Silvermanasked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce regulations controlling the use of vehicles with projecting loads and mobile cranes with projecting jibs.
    Mr. Popplewellasked the Minister of Transport when the statutory regulations covering the movement on highways of mobile cranes with overhanging jibs will be completed and introduced.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Minister of Transport if he will state the nature of 'his reply to a letter dated 4th January from the town clerk of Nottingham asking for an early implementation of the draft regulations he has prepared for providing more control over mobile cranes with projecting jibs and vehicles with abnormal overhanging loads.
    Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend has received and is considering representations received from organisations and bodies affected by the proposed regulations on long, wide and projecting loads and mobile cranes. He is arranging for discussions with those principally concerned before deciding finally what should be embodied in these regulations, and he is replying to the Town Clerk of Nottingham accordingly.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that, or 9th December, he stated that he shared the concern felt by the Leicester City Council's Transport Committee about the danger likely to be
    158
    caused to other road users by these vehicles? Surely he has had an opportunity by this time to examine the proposals which are being put forward. In view of the fact that the same letter states that it is for the Minister to give a decision, why has not a decision been given already?
    Mr. Hay: The answer is quite simple. We circulated proposals on 11th August and particularly asked for replies and comments to be made by 21st October. A number of organisations did not reply by that date, and we have only just received the last replies. We are now looking into the representations which have been made, and we shall announce a decision as soon as we can.
    Mr. Popplewell: These talks have been taking place for nearly three years. This time-lag in this important matter is unpardonable. Is the Minister aware that, during the last two years, there have been seven accidents in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, involving trolley buses, with these overhanging jibs? Will the Minister see—now that he is getting a move on—that he arrives at a decision and introduces these regulations during this Session of Parliament?
    Mr. Hay: We are well aware of the dangers, and I have no doubt that we shall be able to announce proposals within a very short time. I must defend my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport from any accusations that we have been in any way dilatory about this. We acted as quickly as we could as soon as the problem became acute, and we are now on the point of announcing our decision.
    Mr. Silverman: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that since he has received communications from the Association of Municipal Corporations there have been a number of fatal accidents and that the longer this matter is delayed the greater is the danger to human life? Will he treat this as a matter of great importance?
    Mr. Hay: That is absolutely implicit in what I have told the House.
    Lieut.-Colonel CordeauxIs my hon. Friend aware that we in Nottingham first made these representations three years ago after two very serious accidents had occurred during the course of

    159
    six months, one of which proved fatal? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, urge upon the Minister to bring these regulations into force as soon as he possibly can?
    Mr. Hay: Hon. Members know the great interest which my right hon. Friend and his Department have in road safety matters and I can assure them that he needs no urging.

    Motor Car Design (Passenger Safety)
    Sir R. Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with motor manufacturers designed to ensure that the interiors of motor cars are such that, if an accident should occur, the drivers and passengers are as fully protected as possible.
    Mr. Hay: We are constantly in touch with the motor manufacturing industry on this and all other aspects of vehicle safety. A great deal of attention has been given in recent years to vehicle design, including interior design, in relation to road safety.
    Sir R. Pilkington: Does my hon. Friend know how many hon. Members have fitted safety belts in their cars? Would not that be a very good example?
    Mr. Hay: I do not know how many have done so. I know that my right hon. Friend has in his car; I have in mine, and my noble colleague in another place has done so in his car. I hope that we are setting a good example.
    Mr. Strauss: Should not the question of the design of the interior of motor cars for safety purposes be examined by the Road Research Laboratory in great detail? Is that not an essential first step before making progress in this matter?
    Mr. Hay: In fact, that is done. A number of organisations devote a great deal of time and money to this investigation, including the Road Research Laboratory, M.I.R.A.—the Motor Industry Research Association—and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

    Motor Vehicles (Testing)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport, what progress is being made in the compulsory 10-year-old car tests; in what respect it has been found neces-
    160
    sary to amend the regulations; how many cars he estimates will be required to undergo the test; how many testing stations are available for the purpose; and what the prospects are of completing the operation by 15th May.
    Mr. Hay: The test will be made compulsory for vehicles of various ages over ten years in accordance with the programme my right hon. Friend gave on 21st December in reply to Questions by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson). The necessary Order will be made this week; it has not been necessary to amend the regulations: about 1½ million vehicles will be required to undergo the test, and latest returns indicate that about ¼ million of these have already been submitted. There are now 14,348 testing stations available in Great Britain. Given the co-operation of the owners of vehicles coming within:the scheme, I see no reason to suppose that the operation will not have been completed by 15th May.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the conflicting views in garages as to what the regulations require to be done, and that some garages are claiming that they have been told to ignore the regulation regarding the size and position of rear lights? In view of the costly experiences of some motorists, can garages be told that the scheme is not an excuse merely to extort money unnecessarily from motorists?
    Mr. Hay: I say quite sincerely that I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that information to my notice. I shall have it examined.

  RAILWAYS

    Superannuitants
    Mr. Wattsasked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to increase the superannuation allowances of all retired members of the clerical and supervisory staff of British Railways by the same method as that operated for civil servants under the Pensions (Increase) Acts.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. The British Transport Commission already has powers to increase pensions of superannuitants of British Railways.
    Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend at least consider the case of people who retired before 1948 and were exempted from contributing to the National Insurance Fund, and therefore do not receive National Insurance? Will he also consider the case of very aged people who retired before 1946 and whose £70 a year war bonus was not taken into account in assessing their income? Does my hon. Friend consider that the income of people in Class 3 under the super-annuitants' pension arrangements, whereby a retired person receives £178 a year and no National Assistance, which is less than £247 a year on National Assistance, is enough?
    Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend asked if my right hon. Friend would introduce legislation to increase the superannuation allowances of these grades. I have answered the Question on the Order Paper by saying that the Commission already has the power, if it wishes, to increase the pensions. There have been increases on a number of occasions in the past. The possibility of further supplementation is under discussion with the B.T.C. at the moment.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is a very strong moral claim? Whatever the financial difficulties of implementing it, will he do his best to help the British Transport Commission to do something for these men?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, we have never been in any doubt as to the moral claim of many of these pensioners. It has been largely a question of finance. As the House knows, the finances of the British Transport Commission have recently been widely reviewed and we are to debate these matters next Monday. I hope that hon. Members will be prepared to leave the matter there far this afternoon.

    Stedeford Committee
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Transport which organisations have asked him to make the Stedeford Committee Report public; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hay: We are aware of none, Sir. As my right hon. Friend made clear when the Special Advisory Group waft set up and in subsequent statements, it
    162
    is not intended to publish the Group's recommendations.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members will be in a far stronger position to debate the Government's White Paper within the next two days if this Committee's report is made available to the House?
    Mr. Hay: As has been stated before, the Government take full responsibility for the proposals in the White Paper, which is really the point with which the House is concerned. The process by which we have reached the conclusions presented in the White Paper is, in our view, something which we are quite entitled to keep to ourselves, particularly as all the way through the story we made it perfectly clear that the advice of the group would be confidential to the Government.
    Mr. Mellish: Whilst recognising that some of the evidence may be very private and confidential to the Government, surely the House is entitled to have the main Stedeford recommendations? Let us have those in detail and, at any rate, let the House know what were the final conclusions of that Committee?
    Mr. Hay: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap of saying that this was a committee, as though it were a committee of inquiry. It was not. It was a special group of four advisers, with particular knowledge and experience, reporting jointly both to the Minister and the British Transport Commission.

    Railway Stations
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Transport what capital expenditure he has authorised for the building of new railway stations during the last five years.
    Mr. Hay: Until February, 1960, individual projects of the British Transport Commission were not submitted to us for consideration. As my right hon. Friend said in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) on 21st December last, he had since February last agreed to major station works involving total expenditure of about £5¼m.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to prevent the Transport Commission from building any more railway stations such as the one they have just completed at Macclesfield? Is he aware that this station is regarded as a public disgrace and a sheer waste of public money? Will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Hay: There are likely to be quite a number of opinions about any railway station, and I hesitate to take part in a discussion of that kind. All I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend is that, as the House knows, my right hon. Friend now oversees all projects by the Commission costing more than £250,000, and this sort of matter could possibly be looked at in that context.

    Glasgow Suburban Electric Trains (Report)
    Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the inquiry into the failure of the newly-electrified lines round Glasgow.
    Mr. Wadeasked the Minister of Transport what was the cause of the recent breakdown of newly designed electric trains; and to what extent the cost of re-designing and re-making will be borne by the manufacturers of the parts found to be faulty.
    Mr. Hay: The Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways has now made an interim report to my right hon. Friend on the accidents which occurred on 13th and 17th December, 1960, in the Glasgow suburban electric trains. This report was published on 18th January and a copy is available in the Library. A further report covering all factors affecting these accidents and all other matters relevant to them will be made as soon as possible. This will take account also of certain other failures on newly electrified services. The cost of re-designing and re-making any faulty equipment is a matter between the Commission and the manufacturers.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, because of resultant delay, may I ask whether he will urge all those responsible to expedite the other modernisation
    164
    services, particularly the placing of contracts for the new diesel electric locomotives? Will he appreciate that the tenders are now out of date and that "omnibus" competitors can tender unrealistic costs? Will he therefore advise that the contract for the 88 diesel locomotives Mark IV authorised and for use in Scotland be placed with the North British Locomotive Company? Will he encourage this, since a very large grant from public funds was made to this company just before the election?
    Mr. Hay: I will take note of what my hon. Friend says and will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the Minister give us any idea when this work is likely to be completed and the new locomotives reinstated on the line? It is a great tragedy for British engineering that this mishap has taken place. We should like to know when the electric trains will be back.
    Mr. Hay: It was, of course, a great disappointment to all of us that this happened, and particularly that it happened when it did. In any event, I cannot forecast the exact date when the service will be completely resumed, because we have still not received the final report of my right hon. Friend's Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways. The Commission wishes to get the service back again as quickly as it can.

    Victoria-Walthamstow Underground Line
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now reached a decision about the construction of the Victoria-Walithamstow underground line.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the proposed Victoria underground line.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Transport why he has refused to finance the cost of the Victoria Line extension to the London Underground Railway.
    Mr. Hay: The British Transport Commission has sent us a further memorandum, with up-to-date estimates, on the construction of the Victoria-Walthamstow underground line. This is now

    165
    under discussion between the Commission, the London Transport Executive and ourselves.
    Mr. Strauss: May we have an assurance that there will not be a further delay of years before some decision is made on this all-important project? Is it not a fact that the matter has been before the Government for a very long time and that decisions have always been postponed? Will that happen again, or shall we have a final decision on the matter in the next month or two?
    Mr. Hay: Obviously, I cannot without notice give any date for a decision on this matter. My right hon. Friend is most anxious to get a decision on the matter as soon as he can—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman understands what I mean.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Member aware that the Minister of Transport himself said that the restriction on private motoring in Central London would lead to more passengers being carried on public transport? That is what he said to the T.U.C. deputation the other day. If that is the Government's policy, surely it ought to be a Government decision to finance the cost of this Victoria line extension, otherwise it will never come to pass.
    Mr. Hay: I was present when my right hon. Friend saw the members of the T.U.C. deputation and, from my own recollection, I know that he made no such statement. The second part of the question, therefore, does not seem to arise.
    Mr. Strauss: Does the Minister's reply to me mean that the Minister of Transport is in favour of this proposal and that the Treasury is against it?
    Mr. Hay: "In vain is the net spread in sight of the bird."

    Euston-Crewe Electrification Scheme
    Mr. Collickasked the Minister of Transport if he has now made his decision about the Euston to Crewe electrification scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hay: I have nothing at present to add to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson)
    166
    on 14th December last. My right hon. Friend expects, however, to be able to announce a decision shortly.
    Mr. Collick: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is a shocking reply? The announcement by the Minister to hold up this scheme was made long before the House rose for the Christmas Recess. Surely there has been ample time to make a decision in this matter?
    Mr. Hay: No time has been lost by my right hon. Friend or his colleagues in considering this matter. As I said, he hopes to be able to announce a decision shortly, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await that.
    Mr. Collick: How long is "shortly"?
    Mr. Popplewell: Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that, as far as he is concerned, he is going to press forward in this matter? Is he aware that according to the evidence given to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, if the scheme is not proceeded with the British Transport Commission will have to spend £75 million on repairs to existing arrangements which are not nearly so efficient as a modernisation scheme would be?
    Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman had better await the announcement which my right hon. Friend intends to make.
    Mr. Strauss: Is this another example of a most desirable scheme being held up by the Treasury? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the damage done to the electrical industry by the hold-up of orders? Is this another example of the way in which the Government have been dithering about and damaging the railways' prospects?
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. I entirely repudiate that suggestion. That is quite untrue. We have not been dithering at all. We have asked for detailed information about the scheme and we have obtained it from the British Transport Commission. Our officials and theirs have entered into lengthy discussions to obtain the full information that we wanted. We are now in a position where, I think, we shall shortly be able to announce a decision. There has been no dilatoriness on the part of the Government.

  SHIPPING

    Shipping and Shipbuilding Industries
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the administrative arrangements far overseeing the shipping and shipbuilding industries.
    Mr. Hay: We are always glad to consider possible improvements. The General Council of British Shipping in its recent report made certain suggestions which my right hon. Friend will discuss with the General Council.
    Mr. Mellish: Is the Parliamentary Secretary really telling the House that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is still capable of looking after shipping, shipbuilding and what have you in view of the new commitments that he is to undertake in relation to the reorganisation of the railways? Is he to be chairman of the new board, to run the railways, and at the same time still to deal with shipping and shipbuilding?
    Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the White Paper with the assiduity we expect of him, If he reads the White Paper, he will see that my right hon. Friend is not taking on any fresh powers; indeed, far from running the railways, he is hiving off that responsibility to an independent body having that as its single-minded purpose.
    Mr. P. Williams: Does my hon. Friend remember that when we debated the transfer of functions about a year ago his right hon. Friend said that if he found the load of his office too heavy in relation to shipping and shipbuilding he would go to the Prime Minister and recommend a transfer? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a very considerable body of opinion that believes that the Ministry of Transport is now too big? Can I ask him specifically whether any consideration has been given to the establishment of a separate Ministry of Ship- ping to look after the maritime policy of our maritime nation?
    Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend has shown no difficulty in carrying the heavy weight of his office in the last twelve months, and I can assure the House that his absence today is only temporary. The
    168
    other matter raised by my hon. Friend ought not to be dealt with at my level. Perhaps he will address it to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    General Council of British Shipping (Report)
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport whether he has studied the report sent to him by the General Council of British Shipping regarding British shipping policy; and what reply he has made.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Transport if he has concluded his examination of the proposals sent to him by the Chamber of Shipping regarding British shipping policy; and what reply he has made.
    Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend is studying the report. He will consider it with his colleagues and discuss it with the General Council.
    Mr. Williams: If his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is carrying his burden with such élan, can my hon. Friend tell me what his right hon. Friend has managed to achieve in the matter of flag discrimination and the advancement of this policy by the American Government?
    Mr. Hay: That does not appear to arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Shinwell: But is not that the crux of the problem that affects our shipping industry at the present time? What do the Government intend to do about it? Are they merely to look at this report and then have meetings and then tell us that there are difficulties which stand in the way of coming to a decision? And what is to happen to the shipping industry in the meantime?
    Mr. Hay: The first job we had to do was to find out the facts of the matter and get the views of the industry. That we have now done, and the way is now open for us to reconsider our whole policy on the subject and announce our proposals to Parliament in due course.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to bear in mind that he has always said: "If the shipping industry will tell me, the Minister, what it wants, I will be able

    169
    to act"? Am I to understand that now he has received information of what the industry wants he will carry out that pledge?
    Mr. Hay: That would be the implication.
    Mr. McMaster: Is the Minister aware that unless the Government soon adopt a constructive policy aimed at assisting shipping and shipbuilding there will be very heavy unemployment and a consequent loss to the economy and to our export trade, both visible and invisible?
    Mr. Hay: We are in no doubt whatever as to the importance to our economy of the shipping and shipbuilding industries.
    Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Minister whether, in considering the general shipping problem, it is also intended to produce a policy for coastwise shipping, where the tonnage has fallen off by one-third in the last four years? Can we expect to have an early statement of Government policy on that section of the industry?
    Mr. Hay: The problem of coastwise sipping is, as the hon. Gentleman says, indeed difficult, and a most important section of the General Council's document is devoted to it. We are giving as much consideration to that part as we are to the remainder.

    Flags of Convenience
    Mr. Collickasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the continuing harmful effects on British shipping caused by ships sailing under flags of convenience; and if he will make representations to the Government of the United States of America in regard to this matter.
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir; we are aware, of course, of this problem, although it is not exclusively a question of the policy of the United States. It is one of the problems which my right hon. Friend is examining in the light of the Survey sent to him recently by the General Council of British Shipping.
    Mr. Collick: Why are we again examining this matter? Surely this question has been receiving the Government's attention for long enough to enable them
    170
    to make a decision? Everybody knows that the United States shipping interests are the bugbear in this matter, and surely it is time the Government did something about it.
    Mr. Hay: The hon. Member will remember that my right hon. Friend, when in America last year, made personal representations to the United States Government about it. Since then we have been in touch with them, in conjunction with our friends and allies in other parts of the world who have an equal interest in this matter. It is really a question to which I do not think there is a short or simple answer, and I hope that when my right hon. Friend is in a position to make a statement to the House about shipping generally he will be able to introduce matter on this particular point.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the general impression that there is now a more liberal-minded Administration in the United States, would it be desirable for Her Majesty's Government to make further representations to that Government with a view to removing what is undoubtedly a very serious problem for the maritime interests of Britain and other countries?
    Mr. Hay: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the new Administration in the United States has been in office for only a few days. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition chose to raise this matter when he saw President Kennedy. We have really not had time to ask for their views on a matter of this kind.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to ask the Prime Minister whether he will raise the question with the new President when he goes there?
    Mr. Hay: I will bring that to the attention of both my right hon. Friends

  CONGO (FAMINE, SOUTH KASAI)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  Mr. W. HAMILTON: To ask the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware of the continued and increasing starvation in the Congo, especially among children;

  171
  and what additional measures are contemplated by the United Nations in view of the urgency of the matter.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Question No. 67.
  Her Majesty's Government are, naturally, concerned about famine conditions in South Kasai. These have been caused by the movement into the Bakwanga area of large numbers of Baluba tribesmen as a result of the tribal conflicts in their own area.
  Emergency action has been taken both by the United Nations Civil Administration in the Congo and also by the Food and Agriculture Organisation. The United Nations Civil Administration has at its disposal the Secretary-General's Special Fund for the Congo, to which Her Majesty's Government have already promised a total of the equivalent in sterling of 5 million dollars.
  Of this, 3 million dollars has already been paid over, and the remaining 2 million dollars will be made available later if it is needed, provided that others do their share, and subject, of course, to Parliamentary approval. Our contribution of 5 million dollars forms a very substantial proportion of the funds promised to the Secretary-General which. at present, total about 15 million dollars. I understand that some of this money has already been used for famine relief.
  On 29th December, the Food and Agriculture Organisation issued an urgent appeal for food and seed for which Her Majesty's Government at once gave £5,000. I am informed that the programme for the supply of seeds and agricultural implements for which Her Majesty's Government's contribution was used has now been completed. According to the latest information, this aspect of United Nations emergency action is fast becoming effective and stands a good chance of success if planting can be completed before the heavy rains begin in the middle of February. Her Majesty's Government have also provided 150 12-man tents, and these are being flown in from Kenya.
  I am assured that the United Nations is in a position to carry out the operation of transporting food to the area and there is a continuous airlift of flour from Leopoldville. Groundnuts are being
  172
  brought from Nigeria and a considerable amount of maize seed and maize flour has come from Rhodesia. There are still some shortages, particularly in rice and in dried fish. Some fish is being brought in from Uganda and there may be some available in Nyasaland. I am making further inquiries about this.
  Her Majesty's Ambassador at Leopoldville, who wished to send a member of his staff to visit the area last week to see conditions, was told, understandably, that it would not be easy to receive visitors at that time. I have now heard that a member of the staff of the Embassy is visiting the famine area today, accompanied by a representative of the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. We shall receive a report from him in due course.
  Mr. Hamilton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I wonder whether it would have been given had the Question not been put on the Order Paper. Does he not agree that the original response of Her Majesty's Government led the people of this country unanimously to feel thoroughly ashamed of our Government's response, and that it was only the force of public opinion generally, and through the Press and television, which brought the Government to a real appreciation of the size of the problem?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to rest content with what the Government have done now, but to give a much better lead even yet in the solution of what is probably one of the most poignant problems of the present day?
  Mr. Heath: The famine situation is being dealt with from two sources. The first is the Special Fund. Her Majesty's Government were, I think, the first to respond to the Secretary-General's appeal for the Special Fund. The total contribution paid and promised of 5 million dollars is one-third of the total amount so far promised, which is a very substantial proportion.
  The appeal of the Food and Agriculture Organisation for food and seed, also, was answered at once. We intended it to be supplied in kind, as it was requested, and we intended to hand over the seed ourselves. It was then found, after consultation, that the kind of seed available was not suitable. Therefore, the contribution was turned

  173
  into finance, the £5,000, which has been used by the F.A.O. to purchase seed and farming implements. That response was made at once.
  Although members of the public may not have understood the total contribution which is being made by Her Majesty's Government, the response has been immediate on the request being made. Naturally, of course, we shall watch the matter very carefully.
  To put the matter into perspective, I should add that these quite large sums are in addition to the 4,1 million dollars which Her Majesty's Government are contributing towards the cost of military operations in the Congo up to the end of 1960.
  Sir J. Duncan: I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the prompt action they have taken and the welcome news which my right hon. Friend has given today, but I should like to know how much British food has been sent. I gather from what my right hon. Friend has said that some of it comes from the Colonies, and it may well be that the rest comes from America. Cannot Britain make a contribution in kind as well as in cash?
  Mr. Heath: As I have said, we shall continue to watch this most carefully. The food is being sent from many countries all over the world. The instances I gave were from our own Commonwealth and some of the Colonial Dependencies. We are in consultation with Uganda and Nyasaland about what provision they can make; they are, after all, the nearest countries which have suitable food, namely, dried fish.
  The other shortage of the moment is rice, in which our own particular territories nearby are not, apparently, able to help. Other countries, including Sweden, the United Arab Republic and the United States—I have a list of them here—have all provided in kind that amount of suitable food which they had available.
  Mr. Healey: Is not the Special Fund, to which, I agree, our contribution is adequate, intended for long-term rehabilitation in the Congo? We on this side of the House are concerned about Her Majesty's Government's contribution to
  174
  the emergency appeal of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, which estimated its needs at about £2 million over the next six months. Does not the completely derisory contribution of £5,000 entirely fail to represent the deep feelings which the people of this country have for the suffering of the people of South Kasai?
  Mr. Heath: I must reject that approach to this matter. The Special Fund, to which we have contributed, as the hon. Gentleman says, a large amount, is not only available for, but is being used for, famine relief in the Congo. Its purpose was for all internal relief in the Congo apart from the actual military operations, for which there is a separate fund. The original appeal of the F.A.O. was for food and seed in kind. In fact, there still remains the main problem of finding food of the appropriate kind and then transporting it to the Congo. In that respect, we are endeavouring to do all we can.
  Mr. Healey: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated its requirements at £2 million, and is he telling the House that he regards the contribution of £5,000 by Her Majesty's Government as adequate in the circumstances?
  Mr. Heath: I first saw the figure of £2 million mentioned in the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made in the country. We ourselves have not seen the appeal in terms of finance. It was an appeal for food in kind. If it is calculated at £2 million, then, obviously, it is for a considerable period, and the matter must be considered as circumstances develop.
  Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend make an early statement to the House about what is being done to replace the withdrawn United Nations security forces in the Congo? Without their presence, is it not a fact that it is impossible to distribute adequately and fairly these large additional supplies of food which are being freely given? Can my right hon. Friend say, next week, who is to replace, for example, the Swedish forces, the Indonesian forces and the United Arab Republic forces, and the remainder of the forces which are now withdrawn, or under threat of withdrawal?
  Mr. Heath: I recognise that there is a close connection between these two things. This famine has arisen because of tribal disputes which have grown up between the Baluba and the Lulua. The Lulua have driven the Baluba into this area. Therefore, if the position had been different in respect of the United Nations forces we might not have had this situation. As it is such a wide question, however, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to answer it when an opportunity occurs next week.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Lord Privy Seal direct special attention to the problem of getting seed to this area in time to be planted before the heavy rains come? Otherwise, from the information available to some of us, there will be an appalling situation within the next six or twelve months. Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that Her Majesty's Government and all the others should direct their special attention to getting both food and seed transported to this area—which is a very difficult and inaccessible area—in time? May I further ask him to realise, from one who has had great pleasure in making an appeal to the public, that the people of this country will applaud the contribution made by the Government to the people of the Congo?
  Mr. Heath: The Government are endeavouring to live up to the expectations of the people. I should like to pay my tribute to the voluntary efforts which have raised various amounts of money, handled through the Red Cross and the Oxford Famine Relief, and in other ways. As for the programme, as I said in my original statement we are informed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation that the programme of supplying seed and implements, and getting them there, has been completed. We are also told that the whole scheme stands a very good chance of success if planting can be completed. There are difficulties about planting, again very largely because of the tribal situation in the area. It is the object of those there to complete planting before the heavy rains come, in the middle of next month.
  Mr. Wade: In expressing his appreciation of the efforts which have been made, will the right hon. Gentleman
  176
  include those individuals in the Congo who have been endeavouring to deal with this extremely difficult situation, and trying to relieve starvation under extremely awkward and severe circum stances? Secondly, will he clarify an expression he used, namely, "so long as others do likewise", or words to that effect? Does this mean that if Her Majesty's Government have money available, and if the machinery is still there for granting relief, and the need still exists, Her Majesty's Government will withhold the money if other Governments are not prepared to contribute?
  Mr. Heath: I gladly join with the hon. Member and other hon. Members in paying tribute to those on the ground in the Congo who are carrying out this work.
  As for my statement about the payment of the remaining 2 million dollars, I repeat what I said in my original statement to the House, which implies that the United Nations is a world organisation and that in a situation like that which exists in the Congo we are entitled to look to a large number of countries in the world to make their contribution.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Government's Power Policy
  Mr. Eden: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 3rd February, I shall call attention to a certain aspect of the Government's power policy, and move a Resolution.
  Pneumoconiosis (Diagnosis)
  Mr. Spriggs: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 3rd February, I shall call attention to the need to review the procedure for the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis, and move a Resolution.
  Housing for the Elderly
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 3rd February, I shall call attention to the problems of housing for the elderly, and move a Resolution.
BILLS PRESENTED
  HYDE PARK (UNDERGROUND PARKING)
  Bill to enable the Minister of Transport to secure the provision of parking facilities under Hyde Park; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Ernest Marples; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Henry Brooke, Lord John Hope, and Mr. John Hay; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Bill to continue, and amend, the Army Act, 1955, and the Air Force Act, 1955; to amend the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act, 1951; to validate the employment of British protected 'persons in certain military and air forces; and far purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Profumo; supported by Mr. Harold Watkinson, Mr. Julian Amery, Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing; read a First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  POST OFFICE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have it, Sir, in Command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places Her prerogative and interests, so far as concerns the matters dealt with by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.
  I think I owe it to the House to explain, very briefly, why the consent of Her Majesty the Queen is required for the Bill. The revenues of the Post Office from the posts—and, by extension, from remittance services—have formed part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown ever since they were vested in James II and his successors. That is going back some time—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let there be a little less noise, please.
  Mr. Bevins: That is going back some time—in fact, to 1685. It has been the custom for these revenues to be surrendered to Parliament at each accession since 1760, for the duration of the reign, in return for the Civil List. Because the Bill sets up the Post Office Fund on a permanent basis it constitutes an obstacle to the resumption of any revenues of the Post Office by the Crown at the beginning of a reign, and, accordingly, the consent of Her Majesty became necessary.
  When the business for this week was announced by my right hon. Friend before we rose for the Christmas Recess, the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition described it as "singularly dull". I disagree with him. All Parliamentary Bills are as dull as ditch-water, but what matters is not what they say, but what they lead to, and I can assure the House, right at the start, that what this Bill will lead to, within the Post Office and for the British public, will be very far from dull.
  Hon. Members may recall that it was public dissatisfaction with the telephone service that led to the setting up of the

  179
  Bridgeman Committee in 1932. That Committee accepted the principle that the Post Office should cease to be a purely fiscal instrument and should become financially self-contained. For various reasons that principle has never been fully realised. In 1955, however, a fresh start was made, when the Government agreed that the Post Office ought to be responsible for balancing its income and expenditure, and should conduct its business more commercially. So far as those charges went, they were good. The trouble was that they did not go anything like far enough.
  May I, at this stage, say that my two predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, have contributed a great deal to the continuing evolution of the Post Office and I am grateful to them. Being a modest man, I have had a little bit to do with it, but I do not want to dwell upon that.
  Most Government Departments are financed by the compulsory levies of taxation. The Post Office is not. We are financed by what our customers choose to spend on our services. It is really quite ridiculous to treat Post Office expenditure as if it were being met out of taxation or, indeed, to treat the Post Office, in the words of Whitaker's Almanack, as:
  " one of the great revenue collecting departments ".
  The heart of the Bill lies in Clause 1, which marks the new status and greater independence of the Post Office by the establishment of the Post Office Fund. This is exclusively a Post Office account. It has nothing whatever to do with the Consolidated Fund. The significance of this lies less in the formal machinery change which we are making in the Bill than in the underlying intention to give practical recognition to the commercial character of the Post Office.
  Although this reform is statutory, it makes no attempt to sketch out the future course of Post Office policy. As I say, the real significance lies in the severance of the Post Office finances from the Consolidated Fund and, flowing from that, the psychological challenge to the Post Office to live up to commercial standards, certainly at least
  180
  in so far as it ought to live up to them. It is on this, the real theme of the Bill, that the House would expect me to say something today.
  This reform will lead—indeed, it is already leading—to a more questioning and a more critical approach to our affairs within the Post Office. What is good within the Post Office—and a great deal is good—I want, and, I am sure, hon. Members on both sides want, to conserve. But just because the garden has been cultivated in a certain way in the past does not mean that everything in the garden is lovely. In an organisation which employs about 350,000 men and women—we are probably the biggest employer of labour in Great Britain—an organisation which has capital assets of about £1,000 million and which has an astronomical turnover of nearly £6,000 million a year, there will always be room for radical and imaginative improvements in the interests of the public.
  One of the big practical difficulties which is inherent in State ownership of any kind is to decide how far an industry should be conducted as a social service and how far it should be conducted commercially. As hon. Members know, these two conceptions are often not only different, but in conflict as well. This has nothing to do with any argument about Clause Four, which is essentially a doctrinaire argument. I am referring to the Opposition's Clause Four and not to Clause 4 of the Bill.
  This is a severely practical question and to me, therefore, a much more interesting one. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the difference?"] The doctrinal controversy does not keep me awake at night, because I am an empiricist. I hope that hon. Members will not hold that against me. The Post Office certainly has to consider its social obligations to the public. There is nothing in the Bill which derogates from that, or which weakens our sense of social responsibility. I want to say categorically that we shall continue to honour these obligations.
  But, in the main, the Post Office is not a vast, amorphous social service paying out benefits and services financed by the taxpayer. It is very largely a business and I believe that only if it is conducted mainly as a business shall we succeed in giving the public the best value for

  181
  money. What does this mean? First, it means that we must be quite clear in our minds about our financial policy. Clause 6 of the Bill requires us, taking one year with another, to cover our expenses and to make proper allocation to the General Reserve. That is all right as far as it goes. Naturally, we shall do that. In doing so, however, we must ensure that the capital employed in the Post Office gets an adequate return.
  During the last three years, our results have been good. The return on net assets has averaged rather more than 8 per cent. and has resulted in about two-thirds of our capital being provided from within the Post Office. In the same period, the level of tariffs and prices has been stable, and, indeed, there were some reductions which I announced in July last year. That stability in prices has been partly due to a relative price and wage stability throughout the country and within the Post Office and partly due to the buoyancy of trade and of the economy.
  In recent times, however, we have made substantial concessions in pay and in hours and in the next full financial year, these and other concessions may cost us as much as £20 million. In these circumstances, it will not be easy to keep all our tariffs at their present level. We may well have to look at the services which are falling short of an adequate return and we shall certainly have to take a critical look at those services on which we are losing money and which, in effect, are being subsidised by other and more profitable services.
  Having said that, however, I believe that it is a profound mistake to think that price increases, although sometimes necessary, are the only way, or, for that matter, even the best way for the Post Office to maintain its financial position. For example, we can do that by improving our methods of working. We can earn more simply by promoting profitable custom, by doing more business. That goes both for posts and for telephones. It is, I think, a fact that, at present. the public is curiously ill-informed about many of our facilities and services.
  How many people, for example, know about the availability of coloured telephones or the telephone information services, about the range of stamp books,
  182
  or, perhaps more important still, about high-value postal orders. My guess is that very few know about these things. We need much more publicity and much better public information. I am determined to exploit the publicity value not only of our post offices, but also of our transport fleet of nearly 40,000 vehicles. I say it in sorrow that the Post Office is probably the only retail organisation in Britain whose shop windows are just one glorious blank.
  All this is linked with our programme, which is now well under way, to modernise more and more of our offices so that the public find them more attractive to patronise. It is also linked to the new system of counter service whereby men and women behind Crown post office counters dispense all services. I am quite confident that this will lead to speedier and more efficient service and to a 'happier spirit between the two sides of the counter. With the full co-operation of our staff, which I very gladly acknowledge, we shall have this new system in operation in most of our Crown post offices by 'the middle of this year.
  This is not pie in the sky. I regard this as probably one of the most important working reforms in the Post Office since the end of the war. Twelve months ago, when my hon. Friend and I came to the Post Office, we made it quite clear that we had made up our minds to get rid of queuing in Crown post offices, and if we do nothing else in our tenure of office than this we shall have done something well worth while, although we shall do a good deal more besides. If the public know about our services, if they are encouraged to use them, if post offices are contemporary and the service is good, we can, I believe, look forward to a continuing growth in our business.
  There are innumerable ways in which the more commercial and businesslike attitude implied in Clause 1 of the Bill will help the public and the Post Office. Let me give the House a very simple but what I believe to be a very telling example of where 'this new thinking takes us in a very small sphere. Last year, about 10,000 million items of mail were posted on which postage had to be paid. Now, the sale of 18 separate 3d. stamps costs the Post Office 3d., whereas the cost of selling the same stamp values in a book is precisely¼d. In other words,

  183
  the costs to the Post Office are one-twelfth in the second case, and so the sale of stamps by books is good business to the Post Office. What we want to do is to produce economies in selling and, at the same time, to make the buying of stamps more convenient to the public.
  What we are now doing is to concert a number of measures.clause 25 refers to the formalities connected with licences for the selling of stamps. This is a bit of Victoriana which ought to be chucked out of the window by the House, and, I am sure, will be. Again, since I announced the loosening up of the arrangements for the sale of stamps by shopkeepers last year, and despite the scepticism of one or two of the newspapers, the number has risen to 22,000, and I am now about to provide them with attractive notices which publicise this service to the public.
  We are also about to extend our range of stamp books and stimulate their sales so as to cut dawn the number of counter transactions. Up to date stamp machines are now coming forward from the manufacturers, and this year we shall have them in all Crown post offices and at other strategic points like main railway stations. Then, again, there is the franking machine used so extensively in business. Here, we aim to make things easier for our customers by reducing the frequency of returns which these users have to make and by improving facilities for metered mail. These are just some of the ideas we shall be putting into practice. Of course, we have plenty more.
  Again, in the next month or two we shall be getting two what I hope will be very valuable reports, both of which stem from the intention of Clause 1 of the Bill. The first will make recommendations for the more efficient transport of mails, and there, I believe, there is very considerable scope for more efficient working. The second will make recommendations for making better use of the buildings and freeholds in the possession of the Post Office. I believe that those buildings and freeholds con-fain very large unexploited values.
  I think that I am lucky in all these ventures in that I enjoy the enthusiastic support both of my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, whose
  184
  help I value so much, and, more often than not, of my admirable permanent advisers at the Post Office.
  But I should not like the House to think that because of this shift in our thinking the Post Office will degenerate into a soulless, hard-faced organisation. We have no such intention. On the contrary, although we mean to be efficient and businesslike we also want to be warm and human in our relations both with our customers and with all those who work for us.
  I have always felt myself that in the Post Office there are so many things which need to be done, some of which may seem to be trivial, but which, taken together, make a very real impression on the public and on the staff alike. Obviously, there ought to be chairs and tables in most of our post offices for elderly customers who patronise us. As telephone bills are usually painful to the recipients, at least they ought to be polite. I recently had my sight tested, and the only print I was unable to read was that in a provincial telephone directory. These are trivialities, but they are of tremendous importance to the public and they affect the reputation of the Post Office in public esteem.
  So much for the general underlying significance of Clause 1. Now I should like to say something about some of the important elements in the Bill other than that relating to the new status and severance from the Consolidated Fund. They are Parliamentary control, staff pensions, and borrowing powers.
  First, Parliamentary control. Once the Bill becomes law the annual Parliamentary expenditure through Estimates will come to an end, except, of course, for Minister's salaries, pensions—I mean staff pensions, not Ministers' pensions—and, of course, broadcasting. There will still, however, be effective Parliamentary control gas it was sketched out in the White Paper of last year. My hon. Friend and I will still be answerable to Parliament, who, I hope, will vote our salaries. Then again, under Clause 5, there must be an annual Resolution of the House before drawing from the Fund in the ensuing year. That is an important Parliamentary control.
  Again, Clauses 16 and 17 provide that our regulations about charges will now be laid before Parliament and subject

  185
  to annulment by either House. That, too, is important, I think. Fourthly, Clause 12 provides that I shall lay before Parliament each year copies of the Report and Accounts with the Auditor-General's report. I think my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General may later like to sketch out the sequence of these opportunities we shall enjoy in future for Parliamentary discussion.
  Next, I turn to staff and pensions. Our staff, of course, will remain civil servants. Clause 15 makes sure that the pension rights of our staff under the Superannuation Acts are in no way prejudiced by the Bill. The security of Post Office pensions will continue to be State Security, not Post Office security. That, I think, is right. Pension payments will continue to be voted by the House. Of course, we shall finance the pensions by making payment to the Exchequer, just as though we were a private employer making contributions into a private insurance or pensions fund.
  Now I should like to turn to Clauses 8, 9 and 10, which refer to borrowing powers. Clause 8 makes it clear that, subject to a limit of £30 million, we shall be entitled to borrow temporarily from the Post Office bankers, the Bank of England, for our short-term needs. I emphasise, our short-term needs. Our experience shows that our working balances may fluctuate by as much as £20 million or so at times and that sudden rises in expenditure may sometimes have to be met before compensatory action can be taken.
  Clause 9 provides for Exchequer advances to meet our longer term needs for the purposes of either fixed capital or of working capital. Borrowings will be repayable after a set term of years, a term which would normally correspond to the average life of the assets to be financed. At present we have a period of twenty-five years in mind, but advances for working capital might be for a shorter period.
  Clause 10 defines the limits for Exchequer advances in terms of a maximum debt which may be outstanding at any time, whether in respect of past borrowings or of sums advanced under the Bill. The debt at the date of severance from the Treasury is likely to be
  186
  about £800 million, so that the lower limit, referred to in Clause 10, of £880 million will effectively authorise additional borrowings of about £80 million. Again, the upper limit of £960 million, which may be authorised by a resolution of the House, would allow a further £80 million to he borrowed.
  The initial sum of £80 million, to which I have referred, would, I think, provide probably for about two years' needs, and the second amount of £80 million for about a further two years. Capital expenditure in the period which we are envisaging—a period of about four years—including some increase in working capital, might well came to about £500 million. It is probably fair to assume that at least two-thirds of that figure will be provided from our awn income, and that means that about £340 million out of about £500 million will be self-financed, leaving about £160 million to be borrowed from the Exchequer.
  How will this capital be used? As the House knows, it is the telephone which needs the lion's share of capital investment in the Post Office. About 88 per cent. of our capital goes on telephone development as compared with about 8 per cent. for posts and about 4 per cent. for telegraphs.
  I should like to say something about telephone developments which lie ahead. Last year, we put in about 450,000 new telephones throughout the country-13 per cent. more than in the previous year. At the same time, the rate of demand for telephones is higher today than ever before in the history of this country. I am determined to prevent the number of those waiting for new exchanges or more cables—at present, about 50,000—from rising, and I want to reach the position where those unfortunate enough to have to wait can be within sight of service within twelve months, and where straightforward cases can be provided with a service right away. I stress that that is our minimum aim. I am even less complacent about the telephone waiting list than the Post Office Engineering Union and the Daily Express, and I hope that we shall be able to do better.
  Much of the capital expenditure on telephones and telegraphs goes on mechanisation. This is going ahead very

  187
  well indeed at present. There are now fewer than 900 local manual exchanges and we plan to complete the conversion of these to automatic by 1970. Again, the programme for subscriber trunk dialling is now gaining momentum quite rapidly. By March next we shall have about 250,000 subscribers connected to 69 exchanges on S.T.D. During the coming year we shall be opening S.T.D. at different exchanges throughout the country at the rate of five exchanges a week. By March next year the number of new subscribers with this new service will have increased to about 1¼ million.
  I should like to stress that wherever this system has been introduced it has been successful. There can be no question about that. It is quicker—and that is the great thing for subscribers—and the cost of most calls, both trunk and local, is cheaper. That it is popular is demonstrated by the fact that it leads to greater use of the telephone and to more calls, and on top of that it cuts out masses of paper work and simplifies accounting. I am convinced that none of the minor criticisms of the system—and there have been some recently—invalidate its major virtues.
  And yet I constantly remind myself that it is what the public wants that matters and not what I want the public to want. There is no doubt that some people dislike timed local calls from their homes, especially the elderly, the lonely, and also, perhaps, the lovelorn. There was a wise and temperate letter in The Guardian about this from a lady on Monday. I should very much like to meet this criticism of S.T.D. and we are at present considering whether it might not be possible to extend the 2d. local call from six minutes to 12 minutes during the evenings and weekends. Perhaps this would go a long way towards allaying this particular criticism.
  Having said that, let me again emphasise that, although there may be fringe criticisms of the system, in the main it is a vast improvement on the existing system. It is cheaper and quicker, and that is what the public wants.
  There is a major programme for the mechanisation of the inland telex service, a system by which subscribers can exchange printed messages. This eliminates the human operator from the connection
  188
  and enables an office-to-office connection to be established entirely automatically. At present, we have about 6,000 customers. Not only can they communicate with each other, but also with subscribers in about 40 other countries. Inland automatic telex has paved the way towards international customer dialling. An automatic service to Germany will start next May, and by the end of 1961 businessmen should be able to dial most of their telex calls to the whole of Western Europe.
  Capital expenditure on the development of the trunk and junction network will have to be increased to cope with the rapid growth we have had in trunk traffic. Fourteen major schemes, costing about £6 million, have been started in the last two years, and the bulk of the expenditure for this will fall within the next two years. A further seven schemes, costing about £3 million, will be started in the next financial year. We shall also double the capacity of many of our existing coaxial cable systems by providing additional terminal equipment and intermediate amplifiers.
  I hope that I have said sufficient to indicate not only that the Bill is soundly conceived, but, what is more important, that the spirit behind it is already colouring our thinking within the Post Office. But of course, thinking is easy; it is action which is the more difficult. But I assure the House that my hon. Friend and I will do the action as well as the thinking so long as we remain in our present assignments.
  It is because I believe that the Bill will help to shape the Post Office into a more vigorous and progressive organisation, more conscious than ever before to serve our 50 million customers as they would wish to be served, that I commend it with confidence to the House.
  Mr. A. E. Hunter: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, could he say something about the Post Office Savings Bank? Is there to be an alteration in that service?
  Mr. Bevins: The Post Office Savings Bank, which celebrates a certain anniversary in the near future, will carry on very much on its present basis.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am sure that the House would wish to congratulate the Minister on the wide

  189
  range of information which he has given about future developments and activities of the Post Office. I suppose that in the atmosphere of commercial and trading activity which has been generated by his speech we ought to call this an extraordinary general meeting convened to pass resolutions which will fundamentally alter the status and financial arrangements of this gigantic organisation. We in the House do not own all the shares, but we do hold all the proxies, and I have no doubt that the Whips have seen to it that the right hon. Gentleman will have the majority of them in his pocket.
  It is a mistake to over-emphasise—and, I would say, exaggerate—the commercial character of the Post Office. I was glad to notice that the right hon. Gentleman stressed the social service of the Post Office and asked how far it was to be a social service and how far a commercial service. We must not lose sight of the fact that the Post Office is mainly the provider of services which, by Statute, are reserved exclusively to the Post Office—letter-carriers, telephones and telegraphs are services which Parliament has entrusted exclusively to the Post Office. It has a monopoly. While those activities of the Post Office can be described as commercial, nevertheless they are essentially public services.
  The Post Office owes a great deal of its success and the esteem in which it is held by the public—which I believe to be high at present—to the sense of public service which has been built up in the Post Office over many years. This is not entirely unfamiliar ground to me. If I may be permitted a personal reference, I began my working life in the Post Office as a temporary, registered boy clerk at 15s. a week. I helped to sustain the Accountant-General in his onerous duties of dealing with the accounts of the Post Office in those far-off days. I was a contemporary of Field Marshal Lord Harding, who started his working life in the same Department and in the same capacity. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place the noble Lord, Field Marshal Harding, will turn up and say a good word for his old Department. I am very glad to do so myself this afternoon.
  I think that this sense of public service has shown itself in staff relationships
  190
  in the Post Office—in the Whitley Council system and in the whole spirit of the Post Office staff. That is what we wish to preserve and to over-emphasise the commercial or business character of the Post Office will not do anything to maintain it.
  I notice that in the White Paper published in March, last year, and entitled The Status of the Post Office, there were no fewer than thirteen references to the commercial nature of the Post Office—"commercial activities", "immense national trading organisation", "trading activities", "commercial freedom", self-contained business "business mind". After 300 years of the Post Office, we are told:
  "If, after allowing for its social responsibilities, it fails to approach the problems of management and organisation with a business mind it will quickly become inefficient."
  The Postmaster-General told us that he wanted the Post Office to live up to commercial standards. I am not sure that all commercial standards are something which anyone ought to live up to. The Minister should have stressed the high standard of public service which we wish the Post Office to continue to live up to.
  The Post Office is not selling washing machines or detergents. I do not know what the Postmaster-General has in mind when he speaks of the future development of trading activities of the Post Office outside the interesting range which he mentioned. However, so far as I know, the Post Office does not propose to manufacture convenient tables to put telephones on, or convenient chairs in which to hold these 6-minute or 12-minute conversations in the evening in the new system. So far as I understand it, the trading activities will continue to be strictly within the reasonable definition of the functions of the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman will soon hear about it if he treads on the corns of other commercial concerns, other organisations, other trading activities.
  If it comes to the point, I would say that in this year of the celebration of the centenary of the Post Office Savings Bank there is no section of the public service which as been more cramped and confined by commercial jealousy and restriction than the Post Office in its savings and annuity business. The right

  191
  hon. Gentleman will find that he will be confronted with some very strong rivals if he goes outside the framework of traditional Post Office activity.
  In Clause 2, we find an interesting, but quite unnecessary, charade, presumably mounted in the interests of maintaining the new commercial character of the Post Office. The Post Office is now to pay Income Tax and Profits Tax. Has the House ever heard of such nonsense? Why on earth should the State tax itself in this way? I call it window-dressing. At best, it is a book-keeping entry and it may be a form of indirect taxation of the Post Office user which could amount to nothing more than the Post Office user paying taxes to himself as a taxpayer. A highly skilled principal inspector of taxes is no doubt to be drawn from duties much more remunerative and much more urgent in stopping tax evasion activities and other irregularities so that he can arrive at a notional assessment of the tax liability of the Post Office.
  What if the Postmaster-General and the Treasury do not agree about what that tax liability should be? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a right of appeal to the Commissioners of Income Tax for the City of London, or is the Post Office to be the only taxpayer in the country without a right of appeal? It is a strange introduction of this new freedom that the Postmaster-General is apparently to saddle himself with a tax liability without any right of appeal against an assessment which he might dispute.
  However, the heart of the Bill is the creation of the new Post Office Fund. What the Minister told us about future activities of the Post Office was not dependent on its new status. I am not saying that the new status is not desirable. I do not say for a moment that the new status will not be advantageous. But nothing the right hon. Gentleman said, and none of the range of additional activities and expansion of existing services which he mentioned, would be cramped if the financial structure of the Post Office remained what it is. At any rate, he did not convey to the House the sense of urgency and indispensability of the new structure to the expansion of the services that he was describing.
  But having said that, I do not deny that this new status will be of great
  192
  convenience to the Post Office. It will introduce a great deal more elasticity and flexibility internally. The right hon. Gentleman will not be hidebound by the items in the Estimates, as he is at present. There will not be the difficulty of transferring expenditure saved on one item to desirable expenditure on another item; of transferring it from one subhead of the Estimates to another, all of which we understand are tiresome hindrances to the work and expenditure of the Post Office.
  Is it really necessary to have an annual resolution before the Postmaster-General can begin to spend out of the Post Office Fund in each year? It does not seem to me to be a very striking blow for commercial freedom if the Postmaster-General has to get a resolution from the House each year before he can continue his business. I thought that we had scrapped the ancient tradition whereby Her Majesty could not keep a standing Army unless this House annually voted the necessary sum to maintain it. Now, apparently, an annual resolution of this House will be necessary to save the Postmaster-General from going out of business.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that his hon. Friend would tell the House something about the occasions for discussion of Post Office business at, or very near to, the time of the annual resolution. Shall we have the Post Office accounts available when the resolution is brought before the House for debate? Or will it be one of those things taken literally on the nod at about a quarter to twelve one night and a debate on the Post Office Report saved for another occasion? I do not think that we have so far lost control over the Leader of the House, or he over the House, that we have to impose this severe discipline on ourselves and pass a resolution each year before the Postmaster-General can carry on his business.
  Clause 9 deals with the borrowing powers of the Post Office. The House will notice that when the Postmaster-General wishes to borrow from the Treasury—and that is the only place from which he can borrow on a longterm basis—it is the Treasury alone which will fix the terms on which he can borrow. There is commercial freedom for you! The Treasury will decide the

  193
  rate of interest. The Treasury will decide the conditions under which the money will be lent. It will decide the terms of repayment, and the period of repayment. It will decide everything.
  Mr. William Shepherd: Would not the hon. Gentleman regard it as add if the borrowing terms were left to the Post Office to decide?
  Mr. Houghton: I will not comment on that. I am not suggesting that the Post Office should look elsewhere for its capital requirements when it comes to borrowing, but it is strange that, while in other parts of the Bill, certain things are subject to agreement between the Postmaster-General and other authorities, when it is a matter in which the Treasury is interested the Treasury will determine all the conditions under which the Post Office shall borrow from it.
  Another point which we hoped the right hon. Gentleman would deal with was the limit of indebtedness provided for in Clause 10. We wish to be certain that the Post Office will be able, without unnecessary difficulties, to get capital requirements from the Treasury in addition to the capital it will generate from its own activities, because, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said, there is no sign in the Bill that the Post Office will get any more money under the Bill than it would have got otherwise.
  There seems to be nothing in the Bill. and nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's expectations, which leads us to believe that the Post Office will use more capital, or, indeed, get it to use. The expansion of its services will surely require that. If Post Office queues are to be abolished, if the waiting list for telephones is to be abolished, and if the expansion of other services is to go ahead as the right hon. Gentleman hopes, considerable additional capital will be needed.
  What has been wrong with the Post Office over the years has been a lack of capital. It has been starved of capital. It has taken a secondary place to a good deal of other capital development. That could lead one to an economic argument, whether the services provided by the Post Office were more important than Governments of the day from time to time
  194
  decided. The Post Office has been badly treated in the matter of capital provision in the last ten years, and there is no sign that under the Bill it will be treated better.
  If we are to assume that the indebtedness of the Post Office at the present is approximately £800 million, with the maximum indebtedness of £880 million which is permitted under Clause 10, subject to a further extension by resolution of the House, it will have a capital provision of less than the amount it requires per annum now from borrowing to give it the total capital provision which it requires. There seems to be nothing there which gives us any confidence that the Post Office will have a new burst of activity.
  I also think that the time limits provided in Clause 10 are unnecessarily severe; perhaps not so much the time limits as the maximum sum, the £880 million to which the Post Office can go without fresh authority from the House. To go beyond £880 million to £960 million will require a resolution of the House and the Bill provides for nothing more than about four years' capital provision from borrowing. Could not a more satisfactory statutory provision be made for borrowings over a longer period? I ask that because the Minister says that these capital resources are likely to be taken up in the next four or five years. It would not be unreasonable to provide for a longer period.
  There is a reference in Clause 12—this is perhaps a facetious point—to the accounts of the Post Office being in accord with the best commercial standards. What an extraordinary provision to put in a Bill, that the accounts
  " shall conform to the best commercial standards."
  Mr. Charles Pannell: That is not saying much.
  Mr. Houghton: I thought that one of the weaknesses of "best commercial standards" was that they seemed to conceal more than they revealed to the shareholders and other interested parties.
  Should not the wording be "the best accountancy standards"? We have had one Royal Commission on company law, and there is now another sitting. One of the purposes of Royal Commissions is to ensure that the best commercial standards are made even [better. Perhaps the

  195
  Postmaster-General might write into the Bill a rather boastful phrase—" shall conform to the best Post Office standards ". That might help the right hon. Gentleman a little.
  I should examine for a moment the all-important question of what the Post Office owes. Here I come back to the £800 million. This is a very important point. This is the amount which the Post Office must repay by 25 yearly instalments. The Postmaster-General described what was in his mind about repayment, but he did not draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is not in the Bill. His intentions and plans are not written into the Bill. One must look at the Financial Memorandum to see what is intended under Clause 13.
  Why should it be provided that the Post Office must repay all this indebtedness which it has had for so long? Is it essential to saddle the Post Office with the whole of this indebtedness, especially bearing in mind that in the years since I became a boy clerk in the Post Office the Exchequer has grabbed well over £525 million in surpluses, has lent the money back to the Post Office and it is now written into its indebtedness of £800 million. Now the Treasury insists on a one-twenty-fifth repayment each year. If the Post Office wishes to reborrow the loan it must do so at current rates of interest. Commercial freedom forsooth! This is literally a swindle.
  The Postmaster-General has given away far too much as a financial hostage to the Treasury having regard to the Treasury's shameful behaviour to the Post Office throughout the last thirty or forty years. Why twenty-five years and why one-twenty-fifth each year? It is assumed that that is the life of the assets concerned, but surely a good deal of the indebtedness of the Post Office is in fixed assets which have a life very much longer than twenty-five years. This is not really a repayment scheme at all. It is a sort of debenture device to ensure that as the years go by the Post Office will have to pay the current rate of interest for the use of its capital.
  Another point in connection with the capital liabilities of the Post Office which has not been cleared up concerns the £533 million which has been advanced to the Post Office under the Money Acts.
  196
  As I understand it, Clause 14 provides that the Post Office will be relieved of the liability to pay interest and repayment of capital on money advanced to it under the Money Acts. In future, those loans will be serviced by the Treasury. Presumably, the £533 million is part of the £800 million, the total indebtedness of the Post Office, which must now be repaid on the basis described by the Postmaster-General. We should like to be clear abqut the relationship between those two very large sums.
  During the past year the Post Office repaid £27 million in principal and £22 million in interest on the loans made under the Money Acts. It will be relieved of £49 million, but presumably that liability will be replaced by the new ones which the Postmaster-General will assume under the Clause. We estimate that the liability of the Post Office for capital repayment and interest will be increased from £49 million to about £67 million inclusive of the amount to be repaid on capital account under the plan outlined by the Postmaster-General.
  I now come to the yield on the total capital employed in the Post Office. The Postmaster-General said that at present the Postmaster-General is getting a net yield of about 8 per cent. on the total capital employed after providing for interest and other charges against Post Office revenue and, presumably, taking into account the addition to capital account provided from internal sources. The basis of the 8 per cent, is not certain. I believe that it has been said that it is about half (of the percentage yield on the capital employed in private industry. I think that it is suggested that perhaps the lower figure in the Post Office takes account of the social service element in its activities.
  That brings me to the next point. What is to be the basis of charging other Government Departments for services under Clause 19? The Bill provides that the basis of these charges is to be agreed between the several Ministers concerned and the Postmaster-General. Suppose they cannot reach agreement. These services are to be provided by the Post Office to a number of other Government Departments under Statute. As far as I know, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance cannot ask Little-woods Pools to pay retirement pensions.

  197
  If must go to the Post Office. This is an essential service which the Postmaster-General renders, and all we see in the Bill is that it shall be paid for by "such amounts as may be" agreed between us. Will a referee be called in to decide the matter in the event of disagreement?
  I am seeking to protect the Postmaster-General, because I believe that in charging for these services he ought not only to charge the cost of the services themselves but a proportion of depreciation and of interest on capital and, indeed, a contribution to the yield on the total capital employed. After all, if the Post Office is to be a business organisation, business is business even when dealing with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. There is no reason why other Government Departments should get their services for less than an adequate payment if a hidden subsidy means that the Post Office user is being indirectly taxed to provide services at less than cost to other Government Departments.
  In Clause 18 there is a dash for freedom, because we are to repeal Section 5 (2) of the Post Office Act, 1953, which, apparently provides that
  "the inland letter rate shall not be less than one penny."
  At least, we can say that the Bill will give the Post Office freedom to introduce a ½d. inland letter rate and that, I think, is something to look forward to.
  The Postmaster-General has told us many of the things which the Post Office hope and intends to do when the Bill becomes law. The Post Office was intending to do them anyway, but the Bill will give greater freedom to get on with the job, as I am sure the House will concede. We can let businessmen call it a business if they like, but hon. Members on these benches wish the Post Office to continue to render the maximum public service in all directions. Public service is not confined just to paying pensions. It can be imaginative. It can be bold and show initiative, especially when it has a monopoly; indeed, then that is a duty, because it is not under commercial competition. The services about which the Postmaster-General told us are quite exciting. After repudiating the definition of the Post Office in Whitaker's Almanack the Minister turned over the pages of Old
  198
  Moore's Almanack, and we found that a very agreeable part of his speech.
  The commercial freedom gained by the Post Office will not be great, but it will be free of the crudest commercial instincts in an acquisitive society. There will be no inflated salaries. Post Office staffs will be paid under Civil Service conditions, which we believe to be right. That will save a good deal of difficulty while still maintaining the present harmonious relations between the Postmaster-General and the Post Office staff. There will be no expense accounts; there will be no misuse of the Post Office monopoly as commercial monopolies can be misused. There will not be high dividends and bonus shares for shareholders. The resources will go back into improved services after whatever rapacity the Treasury shows in its dealings with the Postmaster-General on the money which is lent to him has been satisfied.
  The only new freedom which the Post Office has, which is perhaps an undesirable one in my view, is a temptation to "fiddle" its Income Tax liability. That is a new freedom, but I am sure that it is one which the Post Office will not use. I should like to see that feature taken out of the Bill. This so-called "business mind" which is referred to in the White Paper has, in fact, been present all the time. A business mind in its most acceptable sense to those of us on these benches is an imaginative mind which reveals a desire to do better and not one which believes that no man will do anything unless he can get something out of it for personal reward or gain.
  We hope to see drive and imagination in the Post Office in the future based on its traditions of public service. While I do not think that the Minister told the House anything which proved the indispensability of the Bill to his plans for future expansion, we recognise that it will add a great deal to his room for manoeuvre and will facilitate the work of his Department. I think that that should give a rewarding return for the freedom which he is asking the House to give. Anyhow, I am sure that it is the hope of the whole House—certainly, it is the hope of my right hon. and hon. Friends—that the Postmaster-General will make full use of this opportunity; that he will have the whole-hearted and

  199
  enthusiastic support of the staff, and then I am quite sure that the people of Britain will be even prouder of their Post Office than they are today.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Edwin Taylor: I was delighted to listen to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and his explanation of the Bill, which is an ambitious Measure. Certainly, it is not a dull one. The fact that Post Office operations will be more modern and efficient has been stressed and that, of course, is a very fine thing.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned the new mechanisation of the telephone system. I have a personal interest in this matter, because in Bolton this wonderful new installation has been constructed. I saw the foundations laid and as I watched its progress through the window of the mayor's parlour in the town hall I little thought that this afternoon I should be in a position to express my thanks in this House. I was present when the change-over took place and when the Postmaster-General pulled a cord which set this fine installation in operation. I am not a technician and I do not understand the mechanism of this new system, but I know that the operation was carried out in such a way that the only time that the telephone service was out of commission in Bolton was for 49 seconds, during the changeover from one building to another.
  We thought there might have been a good deal of teething trouble, but we are not experiencing that. We find that the S.T.D. certainly works. It has many advantages. It is simple to operate and time is saved. At the outset, over 10,000 subscribers were able to dial their own calls to 535 exchanges, which is a great thing for our town, where we have suffered a little in the past from an out-of-date manual system. That is why we appreciate this change. It gives dialling facilities for over 2½ million telephones throughout the country.
  But there is another side to this matter. I have noticed a great change of attitude at Bolton, where the Post Office staged two exhibitions which have been well attended; over 600 people have visited them each day. Visitors have been treated with great courtesy and a
  200
  tribute is due to the staff. There seems to be a great human feeling and a desire to help. I detected an urge to discover what the customer wants, which is a great thing, and the whole approach is businesslike and efficient.
  As I said at the outset, we in Bolton seem to have the full benefit of this system. Much has been done in this sphere, but much has still to be done and I feel sure that the Postmaster-General, with all the facilities at his disposal, will prove big enough for the task. Many changes will have to be made, but I am quite sure that the Post Office may look forward to a very promising future.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Brown: I wish, first, to extend My congratulations to the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor) upon his maiden speech. One thing among many for which I admire him is his brevity. He has done very well, and I think that the whole House congratulates him on a very effective maiden speech, delivered with clarity and with a profound confidence which, I am sure, is born of the fact that he had a long experience as an alderman of the Bolton Town Council. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not keep us waiting too long before he makes his next contribution to the House.
  I also want to congratulate the Postmaster-General not so much on the Bill as on the very effective White Paper published in March last year. I have often complained about White Papers being confusing, confounding and perplexing, but on this occasion there is a vastly different story to tell. This White Paper, which has been in our possession since March, 1960, is concise and full of clear exposition of what the Bill seeks to do. In the past I have often condemned Government Departments for presenting White Papers which we were at a loss to understand, but on this occasion the Postmaster-General and his Department receive my compliments and my gratitude.
  I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Assistant Postmaster-General are two happy persons today in that they have been provided with an opportunity of presenting to the House a Bill which, to a very large extent,

  201
  liberates the Department from the shackles of the Treasury that have bound it for very many years. That is what I like about the Bill. If there is one Department that I like to help it is the Post Office, because it does so much to help people, to clarify lots of things which they do not understand until they consult the Post Office. In my opinion, no other Government Department does as much to help people to understand the many problems with which they are confronted.
  It is quite true to say that the Post Office brings us good news and bad news. It brings us cheques and it brings us bills for the payment of which we can use those cheques. All sorts of facilities come through the medium of the Post Office. I was particularly struck by the first paragraph of the White Paper. It gives the public some idea of what the Post Office does. It states:
  " The Post Office is an immense national trading organisation. The public spend more than £400 million annually on its postal, telephone and telegraph services. But more than twelve times that amount passes over its counters; indeed, the other facilities it offers—for the remittance of money, for savings, the payment of pensions, and a host of public transactions—involve the handling of more than £5,000 million year by year."
  The Post Office is a colossal undertaking which is successfully run despite the shackles of the Treasury. It is run in such a manner that it commands the gratitude, with few exceptions, of all members of the public.
  In my judgment—I may be wrong—the Bill now before us is fifty years too late. Despite the cabin'd cribb'd and confin'd atmosphere in which the Post Office has been working for 120 years, it has still made progress, progress which it would take me all the afternoon to relate. It has made this progress because it has won the confidence of the public. I hope that when the Bill reaches the Statute Book the confidence which has been manifested by the public in the Post Office will become intensified. There is no reason why it should not.
  I said a moment or two ago that the Bill is fifty years too late, but in my judgment it is never too late to seek to secure legislation which will improve a Government Department. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) indicated, the Bill does
  202
  not give the Postmaster-General 100 per cent. freedom because, according to Cmnd. 989 from which I have just quoted, the Treasury maintains some responsibility, to which I do not take exception. Treasury responsibility is confined to three points set out on the last page of the White Paper, as follows:

  "(a) pay, grading and conditions of service of staff;

  (b) investment control, including control of borrowing for the purpose of financing it (as for the public sector generally);

  (c) foreign exchange control."

  I have no quarrel with that, but, transcending it all, the postal worker will retain his status as a civil servant. That is what I want to continue. If the Treasury, with the limited powers which it now has under the Bill, begins to overstep the boundary or the confines in which it has been placed there will be trouble, and it will be trouble made by hon. and right hon. Members of the House. We shall have to say to the Treasury, "Thus far and no farther must you go." A certain amount of liberty must be given to the Postmaster-General and to his Department which hitherto has been denied to them. They have been shackled by the hand of the Treasury. I have always maintained—sometimes supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) —that the Treasury is the nigger in the woodpile. I hope that the Bill will relieve the Treasury of this designation and that the Treasury will not overstep the province or the boundary in which the Bill places it.
  If one takes the trouble to read the history of the Post Office one realises how remarkable it is. As a boy of 12—that is going back a long time—I was captivated when I read the history of the introduction of the ld. post in 1840. The pioneer of the ld. post was Rowland Hill, who eventually became Sir Rowland Hill. That was in 1840, when the first Post Office reform was placed on the Statute Book.
  History also records that, after he had published his first postal reform pamphlet in 1837, he became a Member of this House. He promoted the Bill of 1840 and worked for its passing. Then he was found a job in the Treasury, which was a rather remarkable thing.

  203
  As was only likely, being a man possessed of enthusiasm for improved postal facilities, he continued to work for them in that Department. In two years' time, so strong and persistent was his advocacy of improved postal services, the Treasury kicked him out. There was a great wave of public indignation from one end of the country to the other because the Treasury sacked a man who was trying to improve postal facilities for the people.
  They expressed their feeling for this man by raising a public testimonial, which amounted to £13,000, and presented it to Sir Rowland Hill for his services in trying to reform the Post Office—and, incidentally, trying to reform the Treasury. Then the Government of the day, feeling that an injustice had been done, gave him a pension of £2,000 a year. So he did not do so badly. The most significant thing, which has always appealed to me as a student of social history, is that the man who wanted to help a Department of the Government and help the people should be treated in such a manner because of his ardent advocacy and persistence in trying to improve the postal system.
  By this Bill the Post Office will be removed from the shackles of the Treasury to a large extent. I hope that the Post Office will make good use of the Bill. Many things urgently require to be done to reform the postal services. I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not blaming the postal worker. I am not blaming the Postmaster-General. Ninety-nine per cent. of responsibility for things that have been neglected is due to lack of foresight, enthusiasm and business initiative by the Treasury. It has withheld from the Postmaster-General and his Department money required to carry out reforms.
  I want to make it perfectly clear that I have great admiration, as I know many in this Chamber have, for the village postmaster. I have a great admiration for those people in post offices who respond so well to the difficult questions put to them. They perform their job with a profound desire to help and not to retard the general public in dealing with problems which confront them. Better facilities ought to be provided in sub-post offices. Anyone who goes into sub-
  204
  post offices in the countryside will find that many desirable changes are necessary. I hope that some improvement will be made and that this will be a first priority for the Postmaster-General.
  Again, I do not want to be misunderstood. Some of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses do their very best, but many of them work in premises which are occupied by other businesses. That makes it extremely difficult for these business people, who are part-time sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. It is difficult for them to find money in order to raise the standard of their premises to that essential for a Government Department such as a general post office. I could not advocate with any justification a Crown post office in every village. That would be foolish, but I shall continue to be an ardent advocate of improved sub-post offices throughout the land. Some of them do exceedingly well and some are fortunate because their business premises are adaptable for postal business.
  I went into a sub-post office a few days ago and in my mind's eye I measured the size of the aperture of the desk upon which old-age pensioners have to sign their forms. It was half a yard wide and 9 inches deep. Imagine an old-age pensioner with difficulty in being able to read having to sign a form on an aperture of that kind. When one talks to sub-postmasters one gets the reply, "This is a grocery business"—or it is a mixed business—" and the customer has to be considered ". Some of the facilities provided in sub-post offices are far from adequate to meet ordinary standards. I hope that the Postmaster-General will pay some attention to that aspect of the problem.
  Urgent attention should be given to the building of Crown post offices. It is that factor which has brought me to my feet in considering what to my mind is a grave injustice in one or two places in my constituency. In Ashton-in-Makerfield thirty years ago a piece of land was bought in Gerard Street for the erection of a Crown post office. It was determined that the Crown post office should be built there, but thirty years have gone by since that piece of land was purchased and it is still not built. I agree that there have been two world wars; but, when application was made for the

  205
  money required for the building, the Treasury refused. The public of that township, which has a population of more than 20,000, have waited thirty years.
  I have discussed this matter with the hon. Lady the Assistant Postmaster-General. I have discussed it with the region and with the Postmaster of Wigan under whose control this comes. Every time the reply has been, "I agree that a Crown post office is essential, but we cannot get the money to provide the facilities." Those facilities should be provided for the ordinary public whose revenues assist the postal service.
  I was talking to a postmaster on Sunday night. We discussed the problems with which he is confronted. I asked him what his turnover of postal business was. That was a fair question. He told me that it was £5.000 a week, which is a quarter of a million pounds a year. It is of paramount importance that proper facilities should be provided in sub-offices. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give attention to that aspect.
  I ask him also to provide better facilities in those Crown offices where facilities can be improved. In some post offices, despite the fact that the counter space is allocated to various branches of business, there are still long queues, particularly on certain days. Some improvement could be made there.
  Delving back into history I found that the Crown post office in Wallgate, Wigan, was started in 1874. There has been very little improvement. It is dull, dreary, dark and dismal—not because the people behind the counter are dull, dark, dreary and dismal, but because the building is. Post office buildings need brightening up. They should be made cheerful and attractive so that people will enjoy doing postal business or drawing their pensions in them.
  In 1959 I had the pleasure of attending the opening of a new sorting office. It is a wonderful place. The postmaster there decided that, coupled with the improved postal facilities, there should be improved canteen arrangements. A very fine canteen was built. The postal workers there are very appreciative of that action by the postmaster, Mr. Fleming.
  206
  During the Christmas Recess I took the opportunity of going to watch Christmas mail being sorted there. I stood in the new sorting office in well ventilated, spacious surroundings. Everything was attractive. My mind went back to the previous year when everything was cramped and confined. I could not help wondering how the officials managed to perform the wonderful service they did back in 1874 and even earlier. There has been a remarkable transformation.
  My grouse is that the head postmaster and his predecessor constantly had to prod the General Post Office, which in turn constantly had to prod the Treasury to give it the brass to do the job. In this enlightened age, when it is claimed that standards have been raised to a high level—wages, living conditions, etc.—it should not be necessary for the Postmaster-General to go cap in hand to the Treasury and ask for money to do something which should be done without any prodding. The right hon. Gentleman now has a great opportunity, which I hope he will seize with both hands.
  If any workers deserve a pat on the back, it is the post office workers. For too long we have treated them in this manner. For too long they have been cinderellas. Now we should bring them to the forefront, where they are entitled to be, because they perform a very useful service. It is no use introducing new machines and better facilities at counters unless at the same time amenities for the workers are improved. The two things must go together. The Postmaster-General now has an opportunity to take action in that direction.
  I want to refer to another part of my constituency, namely, Up Holland. It is not a Crown office that we want there, but better sub-office facilities. This matter has been discussed between myself, the postmaster at Wigan, the Assistant Postmaster-General, and the regional officer. All the facts that I could get hold of have been brought out in an effort to bring about some improvement in facilities for old people.
  Anyone who knows the district of Up Holland knows that in the main it lies in the valley. Development during the post-war period has been at the top of the plain on a plateau. About 500 new

  207
  houses have been built there. The road up to where the housing estates are on the hill, strangely enough, is called Parliament Street. It is as far from Parliament consideration as I am from the moon. The gradient is 1 in 7. It is a climb of one and a half miles. The sub-office is at the bottom of the hill. I have tried to have the sub-office brought nearer to the people that live on the new council estates on the plateau. I have failed. This is an opportunity for the Postmaster-General to do something about it in the months that lie head.
  I have explained the problems with which I am confronted, but other hon. Members may be faced with similar problems. I hope that improvements will be made. Where Crown offices have been neglected or their building has been delayed, immediate action should be taken. Improvements should be made in sub-offices wherever possible. If the Postmaster-General and his Department attach the same importance to the Bill as I do, as I am sure they do, in the near future we shall see a remarkable advance in the standard of postal facilities for our people.
  The public is entitled to the Bill. We on this side will help, because that is our duty. Never let it be said that we put the business or commercial side of the Post Office before the social side. The two things must go together, not one at the expense of the other. I wish the right hon. Gentleman and his Department good luck in getting the Bill on to the Statute Book and carrying on with the work which he has been desirous of doing for many years.
  All over the country people are crying out for improved postal facilities. Between now and when the Bill becomes an Act the regions should make a survey of the worst offices, and they should be given priority. Good luck to the Bill and to the Post Office. May their efforts be rewarded by improved postal facilities in the very near future for the people of this country.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. J. A. Stodart: Like every other hon. Member who has spoken so far, I hope that my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend, will find their new freedoms stimulating. In my
  208
  experience of the Post Office in the past I have found that it has spared no effort to try to meet the convenience of the public. I particularly refer to the provision of sub-offices in the new housing schemes. I have met with the greatest possible co-operation. I pay tribute to the Post Office for its efforts in the past to meet the convenience of the public in that way.
  I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend's speech when he said, among other things, that there must be a more practical approach to things in the Post Office in the future. I have toured the General Post Office in Edinburgh and, like everybody else who has visited it, I was remarkably impressed with what I saw, particularly at the rush times when mail deliveries are at their peak. One sees there a quite remarkable machine which, more or less, automatically sorts letters. One appreciates the inconvenience, and I dare say delays, caused by wrongly or badly addressed letters.
  I have come to the conclusion as a result of these visits to the Post Office that what might be described as the internal arrangements within the General Post Office are remarkably good. Once the letters reach the General Post Office in, for instance, Edinburgh, they do not spend a very long time there. It seems that it is between the centres of distribution that the trouble begins.
  The Postmaster-General said that the additional wage costs, allied with possibly shorter hours, might mean a bill of extra costs amounting to £20 million. I do not think the public would grudge that provided that they got first-class service in return.
  I feel that the expeditious delivery of mails is what would most impress the public. To give one example, it should be exceptional for mail posted at 4 p.m. or 5 p.m. in London not to reach Edinburgh the following morning. As it is, very genuine and appreciable dislocation is caused to business firms in the capital city of Scotland through their being unable to rely on a prompt and rapid mail connection between London and Edinburgh.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), in the course of his speech, said that the Postmaster-General would now have room to manoeuvre and the

  209
  Postmaster-General himself said that he hoped to have something to say about a more efficient means of transporting mail. There should be more room to mance vre and there should be flexible arrangements for sending mail to the North. At a time when the railways are engaged in a vast programmeof modernisation on the west coast route it seems to me that there should be enough mancruvreability, even temporarily, to move he mail train from the west coast route 10 the east.
  I do not blame the railways for the fact that the trains between Carlisle and London are running late. It seems quite inevitable that they should do so when electrification of the line is going on and the passage of trains is continuing. While this work is going on, is it impossible for the mail train to the North to run from King's Cross to Edinburgh and, if necessary, straight through to Glasgow? Glasgow is 45 or 50 minutes further on and it is a straight run from Edinburgh. The times of departure from London are remarkably similar. The mail train leaves Euston at about 8.30 p.m. and the train from King's Cross—upon which some mail but, curiously enough, not the Edinburgh mail, travels—leaves at 8.20 p.m. Therefore, it will not cause much dislocation so far as sorting is concerned.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I find it difficult to bring his argument within the scope of the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Stodart: I am sorry. I was venturing to comment hopefully on what the Postmaster-General said in the course of his speech concerning improvements in the means of transporting mail. I will leave that with the comment that I hope we shall have the more efficient means of transport to which the Postmaster-General referred. The possibility of an airmail service should not be forgotten. It works remarkably well in the northern part of the British Isles—from Edinburgh to the Shetland Islands—and I can see no reason why as efficient an airmail service from London to the North should not operate as well.
  The only other question upon which I wish to comment is that of the telephone service. That was mentioned by the Minister, too. In these days of automation and the automatic making
  210
  up of telephone accounts—which is increasing all the time with the introduction of most remarkable accounting machines—I hope that the Post Office will be tolerant in examining the complaints of people when they receive their telephone accounts. Even the best machines can make mistakes. I found that out with my own telephone account. About six months ago I was rendered an account for two calls, totalling 30s., from a cottage with a telephone in it but which had been unoccupied at the time the calls were made. It was not until I pointed that out and gave evidence of the emptiness of the cottage, that I was allowed release from my obligation to pay the bill.
  Having said that, I join with other hon. Members in saying good luck to the Post Office. May its future be much brighter than its past.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Randall: I suppose that hon. Members will appreciate the invitation which has been given to voice some of their complaints against the Post Office.
  While I do not propose to deal at any length with the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) on the delays and the occasions on which letters posted in the evening are not delivered the following morning, may I put the facts to the hon. Member. The afternoon collection produces hundreds of millions of letters. Nearly all those are delivered by the first delivery the following morning. But that is not news. It is news only when a few hundred or a few thousand fail to make that connection on the first delivery. Those are the facts.
  On New Year's Eve I posted some correspondence, and after I had put it in the letter box I remembered that the next morning I was to appear at a place at which one of the letters was due to be delivered. I was travelling overnight. I had posted the letter at 4 p.m. on Sunday and about 8 p.m. I started on the same journey as that which the letter had to make. I arrived in Gateshead the following morning at the same time as the letter was delivered. I reckon that that is excellent service, because it was on New Year's Eve, at a time of considerable pressure on the Post Office. It

  211
  arrived on time, and it is worth while remembering the general excellence of the service which is given when things sometimes go awry and there are difficulties here and there. We should not exaggerate the difficulties. In the main, an excellent service is given.
  The hon. Member referred to the new freedoms which the Postmaster-General will have and expressed the hope that they would be stimulating. As I go through the Bill I will deal with one or two things which I feel will not give the Postmaster-General all the freedom which I think he ought to have. It is true that we are to get rid of an irksome burden and almost of the dead hand of the Treasury which we have had for so many years, but I am not at all sure that the Postmaster-General will be without any limitations or that he will have freedom without the hurdles and the toll gates being set up. I am not at all sure that in the course of the years following the passage of the Bill he will not find some rather severe limitations on the work which the Postmaster-General undertakes.
  The Postmaster-General made it clear today that he was unable to indicate what will be his future policy arising from the Bill. Of course not. All that he could tell us this afternoon was of plans which have already been made and clearly set down over a period of three or four years. Beyond that, he was unable to give any clear indication of a policy moving towards greater services and the other improvements which are necessary. It is quite impossible, and I am one of those who believe that he will be inhibited a good deal in the course of his work in the years that lie ahead because of some restrictions which are inevitable.
  It is a major Bill, and undoubtedly it deals with one of the country's oldest nationalised industries. Hon. Members have wanted to pay their compliments to the Post Office staff and the administration this afternoon. When I was reading the commercial accounts for 1959–60 I saw under "Publications", a reference to a booklet which was called "Our Post Office". I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and asked him whether he would be good enough to let me have a copy.
  212
  It is a very interesting booklet, which I believe was written for school children to encourage them to take an interest in this nationalised industry. It is written in narrative form, and I will quote presently words which are supposed to have been spoken by an imaginary postman. As I am certain that the publication has the full authority of the Postmaster-General, although it is an imaginary postman who is speaking these words, I am sure that the Postmaster-General will underline them.
  On page 56 we read:
  " You may believe now that the Post Office is one of the biggest businesses in the world. It has always looked after the country's trade and communications, and for three hundred years has tried to improve them. The Second World War made its task difficult, but since then it has gone ahead quickly, and is still doing so."
  The postman, answering a question from one of the children, then says, talking about the keenness of Post Office workers:
  " You see, the keen ones have a sense of tradition—that is, they want to carry on and improve the work that others have started. We are proud to belong to a team. I'm sure that the Post Office has more to do with just ordinary folk, like you and me, than any other branch of the Civil Service …And its great aim is to serve the public as well, and with as little expense, as possible."
  I am sure that the Postmaster-General will underline those words. Of course, the Post Office has made a great contribution to commerce and the community. Of course, it faced difficulties from the war, and, of course, if has gone quickly ahead.
  If I must declare an interest, it is that I was a postman for a number of years and I am a great enthusiast for the Post Office and its administration. There is nothing like it in the country. I go as far as to say—and I hope that it is not an exaggeration—that there is nothing like it in the world. Last April in a letter to one of the Joint Advisory Committees, the Postmaster-General came very near to how I feel about the Post Office, because he wrote:
  "Too few people reflect on the skills and the organisation deployed to keep this ' public face' of the Post Office a pleasing face. But the skills and organisation behind it all are as progressive and up to date as they are in any section of private enterprise."

  213
  These are the Postmaster-General's own words. He continued:
  " They call for, and reflect, a keen commercial sense, keen commercial practice, readiness to adopt modern ideas and good human relations."
  When I read that I asked myself immediately, why the Bill? Of course, I looked at the Bill and immediately looked at the White Paper—and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the excellence of the White Paper which was issued, because there I found why the Bill was being introduced. Presently. I will say that I think that it has nothing to do with commercialism and commercial enterprise. All that happens under the Bill—and this is brought out in the White Paper—is that it seeks to make the Post Office a self-contained business which will trade as nearly as possible like any other commercial enterprise, but it will remain a Government Department and its staff will remain civil servants.
  There is nothing very new in that, because from Bridgeman, in 1932, the Post Office organisation became, in a sense, commercial. It was recognised by Bridgeman himself, and the adoption of that Report went towards it. Of course, the war broke out and there was a halt to the developments which might have taken place from Bridgeman, but the fact is that nearly thirty years ago the idea was accepted of the Post Office as a commercial organisation. At least that idea was recognised, but thirty years have been lost through not developing the Post Office's control over its own finances.
  Until 1939 we had a sort of emasculated Post Office Fund, but the fixed contribution then imposed on it was far too large, and my researches show that the then Assistant Postmaster-General, Sir Walter Womersley, agreed that the fixed contribution to the Exchequer was too high. He is reported in the Nottingham Evening Post of 12th April, 1939, as saying:
  " Next year we shall have a chance of an adjustment with the Treasury about certain contributions from the Post Office to the national Exchequer, and I am hoping we shall be able to make a much better bargain than we made five years ago. If we do, it means that many of the restrictions will come off, and there will he a much better chance to get on with the work we are all so keen to see perfected."
  214
  That was in 1939. Then the Second World War came and the Fund was terminated. That meant a great loss of surpluses to the Post Office, and adds point to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). The loss of those surpluses ought to be taken into account when discussing the assets and liabilities of the Post Office as at 31st March, 1961.
  It could be argued that the additional revenue was required for the war effort, but that is only partially true. When the war was over, that Fund was not reinstituted, and the Post Office, as was the case with many industries, was burdened by restrictions on development and by not being able to raise its charges sufficiently early to meet the new costs, which was a serious disability. The need to export equipment abroad also deprived the Post Office of a good deal. Having those points in mind, we shall have to be extremely careful when we look at the assets and liabilities of the Post Office.
  The really significant point that the Bill introduces is the treatment of the Post Office revenue. This Measure provides for a statutory trading fund. That will be established under the control of the Postmaster-General and the Treasury will have no authority over it at all, although it is true that there will be a contribution to the Treasury in lieu of taxation, as well as a contribution in respect of certain other miscellaneous items.
  As I see it, all the changes merely add up to a matter of financial change and adjustment, and I am not too much influenced by the blandishments of such terms as "commercial basis", "commercial footing", and "greater commercial freedom." I believe those to be quite extravagant terms, and probably represent a sop by the right hon. Gentleman to his back benchers. I do not for a moment believe that the setting up of this trading fund has anything whatsoever to do with commercialism, and I certainly reject any implication that the financial adjustments now proposed reflect an inefficient and unimaginative approach in the past, or that the Post Office has failed through not having commercial status.
  There is continuing reference in the White Paper to the new status and to

  215
  commercial freedom. All the emphasis is on the commercial aspect, but that must not be allowed to detract from the obligations of the Post Office to the community. We have already heard of some of the social responsibilities that rest upon the Post Office, but it is abundantly clear that its future financial arrangements are to be linked, as the White Paper says, with
  …those that apply generally to nationalised industries."
  It seems to me that the whole thing has been mapped out on the basis of, "Never mind the Post Office's social functions; we are in future expecting a return of something not dissimilar from the returns generally to be found in the nationalised industries." It looks very much as though the Post Office has in mind that as outside industry can get a return on its capital of about 16 per cent., the Post Office should expect a return of 8 per cent. There is the underlying suggestion that perhaps 50 per cent. of the Post Office services are social obligations, but that the rest are strictly commercial, and I feel that we will drive a very hard bargain in the Post Office.
  When we look at the returns of some of the nationalised industries for 1958 and 1959 we find that not one comes up to as much as 8 per cent.; electricity returned 6 per cent.; gas, 3½ per cent.; coal, 2½ per cent.; and British Transport only 2 per cent. Together with the continual stress on commercialism there seems to emerge from this Bill an emphasis on commercial practice much stronger than the Post Office can possibly bear.
  The very nature of the all-embracing services of the Post Office makes it quite impossible to rule out these social services from consideration. We all know what those services are. One is the delivery of letters in the rural areas. Those deliveries do not pay, and they never will pay. Perhaps some hon. Members do not know that in some parts of the country the person who is to receive the letter is paid for "delivering" it to himself—the allowance delivery. A man 'way out in the Highlands will collect his own letters down the road from his farm and be paid for doing so, because it is cheaper to do that than it would be for the Post Office to provide its own delivery service. That is a social obligation.
  216
  There is a loss on most telephone call offices, and the telegraph service is not economically sound. However, I want to direct attention to another service to whose economies I am sure the public give very little thought but, at the same time, would never give up. I refer to the first delivery, about which I spoke a little earlier. That first delivery is traditional. We all expect to have our letters on the breakfast table.
  There is something more than tradition involved. That delivery is of vital interest to our business and commercial life. I was a postman in the City of London, and I know how much it meant to London businessmen to get their letters at 8.30 or 9 o'clock in the morning. The whole office machinery was geared to it; the opening of the letters, their attachment to the previous correspondence, the filing, the dictation and typing of replies, the signing of the letters, the addressing and sealing of the envelopes for despatch by the later afternoon collection.
  The whole thing is most important to the commercial life of London, and it is equally important to the rest of our towns. Nevertheless, that is a very costly service. How many hon. Members appreciate that the early morning delivery and the late afternoon collection represent the Post Office's two peaks—the maximum staffing in the morning and the maximum staffing late in the afternoon? In other words, a period less than eight hours is involved.
  The middle of the day is the plateau when there is perhaps not a great deal to do. Problems of staffing arise. In the old days it was easy to deal with the problem. Postmen were given split attendances. I remember the time when there were five attendances a day. There is a park just outside St. Martin's-leGrand known as "Postmen's park". It got its name because of the split attendances that the postmen got in the City of London. They were off duty for an hour, or an hour and a half; they could not go home in the time available, and so they went into the park which is known to this day as "Postmen's park".
  We have got rid of that system of split attendances, and nobody wants to see it back again. It would be simple to look at this matter commercially and introduce a later first delivery. This might

  217
  save some money. Incidentally, we could improve the attendances of the staff. But there would be an outcry throughout the country if that were done.
  When we talk of these social obligations of the Post Office, and decide whether they can be measured in terms of a percentage, I should not be surprised if the social obligations of the Post Office were found to be greater than the commercial business that it undertakes. Certainly, if I am fortunate enough to serve on the Committee when this Bill goes to its Committee stage, I shall look at it in that way. In looking at the Post Office from a commercial point of view, we must be very careful indeed not to interfere with these social obligations which are so important. I urge that every effort should be made to ensure that nothing is done to interfere with the social benefits which the Post Office provides to the community, especially in the form of communications.
  I now want to come to the question of Parliamentary control. I am extremely pleased to see that Parliamentary control is to continue. It seems to me that it is likely to be very effective, and certainly not less effective than it has been over the years. It would probably be true to say that there will be greater discussion in this House of Post Office affairs as a result of the Bill, a fact which I welcome very much. Parliament will be more informed and will not be so confused by all the old accounting procedures.
  However, I still urge that the Postmaster-General should make another effort to see that the commercial accounts are more clear. Because of my service in the Post Office I am able to find my way about the various departments; I think I have an understanding of the administrative set-up of the Post Office, but I still find difficulties on the financial side, and I should like a special effort made to secure more clarity in Post Office finances. Even the 1959–60 commercial accounts that have been issued are a mystery. In the interests of the House, they ought to be comprehensible.
  I notice the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) in his place. I know that he directed the attention of the House to this matter, I believe in 1955, and I join with him in urging the desirability
  218
  of having these accounts presented as clearly and as comprehensibly as possible. This would be all to the good of the Post Office and would add to the understanding of Post Office matters in the House. It would lead to an informed House on matters connected with this great nationalised industry.
  I now come to the status of the staff. As I understand, the staff are to retain their full status as civil servants. In this connection, Treasury control will be retained. I should like to be assured that this has been discussed with the associations concerned and that acceptable assurances have been given to the staff associations. I raise this question because to some extent a contradiction appears to be revealed in the new system. On the one hand, the Post Office is free to be commercially-minded so far as services are concerned, but, on the other hand, it remains tied to the Government on questions of pay.
  Whilst this arrangement has the advantage of ensuring that any wage increases which current negotiating machinery reveals to be appropriate are not withheld because of the state of Post Office finances, it has the disadvantage that, whilst management and customers will benefit from future surpluses, Treasury control over pay would preclude the possibility of incentives being given in the field of earnings.
  That is a weakness which ought to be studied. I do no more than make the point. I know of the negotiating machinery in the Post Office; I am aware of the excellence of the representations that are made by the trade unions. I know how much Whitleyism has been developed. I am sure that on the staff side there will be every willingness to discuss this matter. But I want the staff to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
  It may well be that, enjoying Civil Service status, something can be done in the way of increased welfare and training facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has referred to Post Office buildings, and, believe me, many are in a sad state. But for the war —and let us remember the surpluses that were paid into the Treasury—many post offices and sorting offices throughout the country would have been rebuilt. It is necessary that the conditions under which the staff operate should be improved.

  219
  The Postmaster-General is well aware of the back log in this respect, and the result is frustrating to the staff as well as to the public.
  I know that a lot of effort has been made to overtake the arrears. I am not being critical; I am not unaware of the efforts that have been made, but what worries me is whether there is enough in the trading fund. The Postmaster-General is surely aware of the vast amount of money that is required to develop the building and rebuilding programmes. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the problem contributes a great deal to the discomfort experienced by the staff; it impairs the economy of the services and gives annoyance to the customers.
  The right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Transport, when he was Postmaster-General, spoke at a meeting of the Design and Industries Association in London on 21st April, 1958, and he said:
  " The recent Post Office buildings, designed forty or fifty years ago, resemble idle, gloomy warehouses, or brown-tiled public lavatories."
  There is a lot of truth in that. There will have to be a great deal of money spent to give our people the conditions to which they are entitled.
  I apologise for having taken the time I have. Because of my interest in the Post Office, I am extremely anxious that we should have as full a picture as possible of this great industry.
  The Bill deals with a number of matters to which I have not referred—methods of fixing tariffs, payments to the Treasury, agency services, how the surplus is to be spent, capital investment, borrowing, the repayment of loans, and so on.
  My hon. Friends and and colleagues of ours outside the House, too, are, I know, very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) is working from the Opposition Front Bench. I understand that he is to wind up the debate for us tonight, and I am particularly proud that a colleague whom I have known well and with whom I have worked for many years has been given by his hon. Friends on this side of the House an opportunity to speak from the front bench.
  My attitude and approach to the Bill, like that of my hon. Friend, comes from
  220
  a background of experience and knowledge of the Post Office. More than anything else, we desire to see emerge from this Measure every opportunity to permit the Post Office to develop its services and usefulness to the community and commerce. It has ambitious plans, some of which are to be put into effect, involving automation and mechanisation on a large scale, and, as I have said, its building programme is very large indeed.
  I am not at all sure, however, that it is right to say, as one newspaper did the other day, that the Post Office is going into big business free from Whitehall's purse-strings. I do not believe that there will be all that amount of freedom for the Postmaster-General. It would be quite wrong to read into the Bill that, with the hand of the Treasury removed, an unrestrained Postmaster-GeneralI am paraphrasing the White Paper—will be
  "free to make quick decisions …free to use the criteria applied in the world of commerce for gauging efficiency …free to innovate and develop his business, seeking to meet and anticipate his customers' demands."
  The Bill contains limitations which will prevent the Post Office from having that freedom.
  Most of us believe that, if the Post Office is in need of an injection of new spirit, a renewed spur to enterprise, then some of the measures projected in the Bill could make a contribution to that end. Others, on the other hand, are restrictive. I shall support the Bill. I wish it well. When we reach the Committee stage, however, we shall wish to examine and analyse some of the restrictions here provided with a view to giving the Postmaster-General an opportunity to have the freedom which I think he desires.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I suppose there is room for the argument that the Bill will not make so profound a change in the structure and outlook of the Post Office as some hon. Members have contended. Indeed, I believe that some people have expected too much of it, like the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who thought that he would get that Crown post office built after thirty years. It will probably be still surrounded by a hoarding in another twenty years. The hon. Member for

  221
  Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), on the other hand, adopted a surprisingly churlish attitude towards the Bill. In my view, we have reason to congratulate ourselves upon having made the change, and I propose now to examine the matter in perhaps, a more objective fashion.
  No enterprise is really free unless it can have access to capital. The real security of the Post Office in ordering its own affairs is the prospect, mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech, that at least two-thirds of the capital would come from its own resources. It may well be possible, by prudent management, by reducing costs and, perhaps, by adjusting certain charges, to raise a higher proportion of the capital needed for the Post Office from indigenous resources. If this were so, the Post Office would indeed enjoy the kind of untrammelled freedom which so many of its enthusiastic supporters would like to see. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) might have his satellite programme launched at very short notice, without any consent on the part of the Treasury.
  This is for me a welcome day. I have been pushing this idea for years. I first started by trying to push Mr. Attlee, as he then was, to do it. It was very difficult to push Mr. Attlee, because he said either "Yes" or "No"—usually "No". He certainly said "No" to me on several occasions. I am very gratified that, at long last, after fifteen years as far as I am concerned at least, we now see being established what I have thought to be the logical plan of Post Office organisation.
  Mr. Houghton: When the hon. Member was trying to push Mr. Attlee, was that when Mr. Attlee was Postmaster-General or when he was Prime Minister?
  Mr. Shepherd: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would know that I meant when he was Prime Minister. I tried to push him to accept the full implications of the Bridgeman Report, and he gave answers as evasive as Prime Ministers usually give when they are pressed to do something against which they have no particular case but which, for reasons best known to themselves, they do not want to do.
  Several hon. Members opposite have entirely mistaken what my right hon. Friend meant by his use of the word
  222
  " commercial ". I do not think that the hon. Member for Sowerby really mistook it. He is terrified by anything commercial. The thought of anything commercial horrifies the hon. Gentleman; he always thinks he is back in the tax office with all the wicked industrialists and businessmen on the other side of the fence. He really must take himself out of the tax office and realise that all businessmen are not to be looked at through the eyes of the tax collector. Probably, that is the worst possible vision of businessmen that one can have.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not mean what several hon. Members said they thought he meant, that the Post Office would abandon social services in order to become more commercial. My right hon. Friend did not intend that to be conveyed in any way at all. I think that the Post Office is, in a sense, too inclined to give social services where they are not necessary. The hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) talked about a letter being carted 400 or 500 miles up to Scotland and then having to be carried half a mile up the farm drive to be delivered through the door.
  That is really absolute nonsense in 1961, with labour costs as they are. I would make people have boxes at the end of their drives. I would not deliver the letters up to the letter boxes in those circumstances. If there is any complaint against the Post Office, it is really that it persists in rendering social services which are not strictly necessary and which are not really justifiable in present economic circumstances.
  No one in the House is a greater enthusiast for the British Post Office than I am. In my view, a business which can be highly systematised and which is a monopoly is a natural business for State organisation, and I think that the British Post Office is without doubt the best Post Office in the world. Moreover, despite all shortcomings—and labour problems are not easy for the Post Office today—I believe that the British postman is easily the best kind of postal servant in the whole world. I hope that the occasional comment will not persuade anybody to believe that any other country in the world has a better postal service, or better postmen, than we have. I happen

  223
  to have conducted some mail order business in various countries, and I have real reasons for believing that Britain has the best service.
  The Post Office must run on a basic concept of public service. That is its mainspring. It is not a mere phrase, or a figure of speech, when a postman talks about "going on duty". He really means that he is going on duty. But it is not enough for the Post Office to be motivated entirely by a sense of public service; it needs some other kind of stimulus, especially as a monopoly. The Post Office has made tremendous strides in my lifetime. As a boy I was frightened to go into a post 'office, because I knew that the wretched women behind the counter would be rude and miserable to me. Now men are mixed up with them, natural harmony is restored and a much more agreeable state of affairs is created.
  The Post Office has made tremendous progress, but in a monopoly there is always a danger of things getting rather slack and it is highly desirable for a commercial element to be injected. The Post Office telephone service is a good service, but how much better it would be, and how much more it would be on its toes, if its members were out selling it—if, instead of having to tell people, "We cannot supply you with a telephone", they were out trying to get business. That would alter the whole outlook of those engaged in the service.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: What purpose is there in trying to sell goods that cannot be delivered?
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member is not taking my point. I am saying that one reason why I want to see this change is that it will give the Post Office freedom, on the capital side, not only to provide a telephone service to those who need it now, and ask for it, but also to try to induce people to take it although they do not want it now. If we can inject that attitude into the Post Office it will be a good stimulus to all those working in it. That is what I mean —and what I am sure my right hon. Friend means—by being commercial. It does not mean abandoning the essential social service aspects of Post Office work. It means going out and getting business, inducing more people to come
  224
  into post offices, and making them more welcome when they do come in. It means thinking out new means of making the Post Office service more acceptable to the public.
  Those concepts of commercialism are very loathsome to the hon. Member for Sowerby, but to most of us they represent the kind of sound concepts on which a business should be run.
  Mr. Houghton: The hon. Member first described my speech, or parts of it, as churlish. Now he is speaking about something which he says must be loathsome to me. I must repudiate both those charges. What he has just been talking about is not loathsome to me. I merely make the point that what he has said, and a good deal more, could well be done without over-exaggerating the commercial nature of the Post Office.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am sure that the hon. Member did not intend his speech to sound as churlish as it did. I suppose he has to put up a show when speaking at the Dispatch Box, and when a Member is put in a position of having to oppose something that he is not really against he is driven to say things that he regrets when he reads them in HANSARD. But his attitude to my right hon. Friend's proposals were a litle less kind than would have been acceptable.
  I repeat that he looks upon commercialism with the greatest possible suspicion. I, on the other hand, although realising that public service must be the foundation of Post Office operations, want to see a strong sense of progressive commercialism in the Post Office. I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about making post office windows do some work for the Post Office. The fact that we have had Post Office vans running around for years with no Post Office advertising on them is a grave reflection upon all those who have been running the service for so long. We should be pursuing all these possibilities of making the service better known and accepted, and I believe that we can give the Post Office yet another fillip by doing so.
  It has had a few fillips since the war, and it is a vastly improved service, despite all difficulties involved in recruiting labour. It is easy to get men to work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. but it is

  225
  very difficult to get them to work all night, at weekends and on Bank Holidays. In those circumstances, I believe that what my right hon. Friend is now attempting, although long overdue, is most welcome, and that it will be one more milestone in the honourable progress of the British Post Office.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Having relegated myself to the back benches I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), who has taken my place. I wish him as much joy and pleasure in looking after Post Office matters as I had.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has, I believe, taken part in every Post Office debate that we have had as far back as I can remember, which is for at least the last twelve years. Like him, I welcome the Bill. It is the end of a road and the beginning of a new chapter. I had not been Postmaster-General for very long before I had a long talk with one of the most able trade union secretaries that I have ever met —Charles Geddes, now Lord Geddes—about things in the Post Office. He described what ought to be done and what he thought were the things that should have priority.
  This was one of them. I said, "Where are we to get the money? We have none; the Treasury has taken the lot". He wanted changed conditions for typists, which would have cost money, and a number of other things. I asked whether he thought it would be right to take the Post Office completely away from Treasury control, and free it in exactly the same way as any other nationalised industry. He said that he did not mind that so long as Post Office workers retained their Civil Service status. I came to the conclusion that that was a very difficult anomaly to justify.
  Reference has been made to Lord Attlee. I discussed with him the question of how far the Post Office could work for itself instead of for the Treasury, so as to enable it to give some reward to its own organisation for the initiative it showed. Unfortunately, we had a General Election. We were out,
  226
  and my official responsibility for the Post Office ended. I had to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box instead of from the Government one.
  The first speech I made in 1952 was a speech in which I attacked the Treasury for treating the Post Office as a milch cow. That is what has happened. We have to recognise the tremendous change which has taken place. At every Budget period, under the old arrangements, as the Minister knows, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would send the Financial Secretary across to the Post Office, or ask the Postmaster-General to come to the Treasury so that he could tell him how much he wanted from the Post Office to help make up his Budget. The charges very often had to be increased, not for serving the purposes of the Post Office, but to bolster the Budget. All the time there have been these conflicts between the Treasury and the Post Office. Thus, the charges in the old days consisted of two elements, a charge for the service and an element of taxation imposed by the Treasury. I could never understand why that situation was accepted by everybody whilst the Post Office workers were some of the lowest paid people in the country.
  This struggle between the Post Office and the Treasury, between the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, went on ever since the beginning of the war. As an indication, to add to the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), from 1945 to 1955, when we had some change, the Treasury took £100 million which had been earned by the Post Office. Then, in 1955, after many attacks from this side of the House, and by the hon. Member for Cheadle, too, we managed to get a change of attitude on the part of the Government. The then Postmaster-General brought in the White Paper dealing with the finances of the Post Office. There, we had the establishment of the new Post Office Fund. We had the obligation imposed upon the Post Office to pay £5 million a year to the Treasury in lieu of taxation. I take it that the provisions in the present Bill are in lieu of the old provision of the payment of £5 million a year in lieu of taxation.
  Mr. Bevins Mr. Bevins indicated assent.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: At the same time, there was imposed upon the Post Office the obligation to change its form of depreciation. Instead of having depreciation on the historic cost, it was to be on the replacement cost, which meant a difference of £14 million a year in the revenue that the Post Office had to earn. The amazing thing was that for the previous ten years, the Treasury had taken the earnings of the capital that had to be replaced to the tune of £100 million. The capital that had entered into that £100 million had to be found again by replacement costs by the Post Office charges. That was supposed to be the basis for those tremendous, swingeing increases in telephone charges that the Postmaster-General then introduced. The Postmaster-General got some freedom, however, but all his money still went to the Treasury. That was the situation as it was left in 1955.
  Now, we have had the new White Paper. It seems as if the draft of the White Paper must have been done by the Minister's predecessor. It does not sound like the modest approach that one associates with the right hon. Gentleman. Whether it was done to placate his hon. Friends behind him, I do not know, but I should have thought it would have been far better had the emphasis been not upon commercialism, but upon efficiency. Efficiency and social service are not enemies. Unless an institution is efficient, it cannot serve a social purpose to the maximum. It would have been far better if entirely new nomenclature had been used in this regard. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), I think that the use of the term "commercialism" was very much overdone and does not come up to the standards of address that we usually get from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Now, we have the Bill. I regard it as the end of the road. Once and for all, it relieves the Post Office of the obligation or duty to consult the Treasury as to the rate of charges to be made for Post Office services. It lays down that in the charges for Post Office services, there will be no elements of taxation. Therefore, the whole of the proceeds that the Postmaster-General is able to earn by the services rendered by the Post Office will remain with the Post Office. I welcome that very much. It
  228
  means that at last the Treasury will not be able at Budget time to come to the Postmaster-General and say, Instead of having a 2d. stamp postal rate, let us make it 3d. Increase the telephone charges." All that has gone by the board. In that sense, the Bill is very much to be welcomed.
  Even, now, however, the Treasury cannot let the Post Office go with decency. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby has raised the question of repayment of capital. This mean needs close examination. Is it the repayment of the unpaid capital, as shown in the commercial accounts, something like £300 million—I fancy that that is somewhere about the figure—rather than the £800 million? Whichever it is, I hope that this will be cleared up. There is, however, something more significant in this. We are told in the White Paper that the Post Office is now to be treated like any other nationalised industry. Is the rate of depreciation to be the same? Is the coal mining industry to have the basis of historic cost, but the Post Office that of replacement cost?
  Let us take the matter one step further. Is the repayment over twenty-five years in accordince with the practice in the other nationalised industries? The shorter the period over which the money is to be repaid, the higher have to be the charges inside the Post Office. I understand that in the case of coal mining, repayment is on a sixty years' basis. Why is it twenty-five years for the Posit Office? If my hon. Friend's figures are right, this means that 'the Post Office must find £32 million a year for the Treasury for the next twenty-five years.
  Has the Postmaster-General really got his teeth into the problem? Here is a financial burden that he ought not to be bearing. Has he purchased his freedom at too high a price? This is what has happened with the Treasury, which has extorted a price for every step taken away from it. If this is right, it means that for the next twenty-five years the right hon. Gentleman and his successors must bear this burden.
  We are entitled to know much more about this. I hope that, in Committee, my hon. Friends will pay close attention to this side of the matter, because it is extremely important. The greater the

  229
  amount: of fat in the Post Office, the more decently it can proceed with its capital investment.
  Mr. Shepherd: It is true that the annual repayment of capital would be larger if the period were short, but is not the right hon. Gentleman ignoring that if the Post Office were required to carry this liability and to pay it back over sixty years, its burden in terms of interest would be very much higher? If the revenue capacity of the Post Office is sufficient to repay this capital liability in twenty-five years, it is surely in the interest of the Post Office to do so.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: It ought to be considered that it would be necessary for the Post Office to get new capital in respect of the capital lost for which repayment is now being made.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I quite agree, but if the point of the hon. Member for Cheadle is right, that it is better to do it over a shorter period, why twenty-five years? Why not five? Why not twelve months?
  Mr. Shepherd: It cannot afford it.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: All right. The longer the period is stretched the lighter is the burden. Anybody who has bought a house on hire purchase knows that.
  There are two other points I want to make. One is on the question of Parliamentary accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West expressed his pleasure that the Parliamentary accountability of the Post Office is not to be less than it has been. Quite frankly, there are different views on both sides of, the House about this matter. My own view is that, apart from Question Time, the amount of Parliamentary accountability by the Post Office is far too small. Indeed, I take the view that this House ought to be exercising far more supervision over the nationalised industries, including the Post Office, than it now exercises.
  I do not think that we have had a debate on the Post Office for two years. The provision of an annual report does not necessarily mean the provision of an annual debate, and an annual debate very often is not the right form which supervision of Post Office administration should take. It becomes a time when
  230
  hon. Members talk about their corn plaints—about a sub-post office here, a sub-post office there; hon. Gentlemen on this side taking the Postmaster-General for a walk up the hill. That is not supervising the administration; that is not accountability.
  We must look at this again, and I hope that my hon. Friends, in Committee on the Bill, will see how far we can improve the methods whereby the House shall be more fully informed of what takes place in the Post Office, and may create better opportunities for the Postmaster-General to inform Members of what is taking place, and in that way bring to bear that supervision of the administration which is the only check against abuse outside the House.
  There is one other thing I would refer to, and that is this problem of Civil Service status, which is to be preserved. It is quite possible, as a result of these new arrangements, that the Post Office will be able to build up a very substantial surplus. During the last ten years of its experience it earned a surplus, as I said, of over £100 million to its credit. The people who are working in the Post Office could say to the Postmaster-General, "There is plenty of money. We are entitled to a reward for our labours." But what would the Postmaster-General have to reply? "I am very sorry, but this is a matter for the Civil Service Commission. It is not a matter of the financial health of the Post Office. It is a matter of the economy of the country." Therefore, those who are engaged in the Post Office will not be able to get the financial consequences of their efforts.
  I know that it is a difficult problem. When discussing this with Lord Geddes I found that he was very anxious to maintain the security of the Civil Service, and sacrificed all the possibilities of keeping up with the ordinary industrial workers. We have this situation, that we have one nationalised undertaking governed by the Civil Service Commission and other nationalised industries governed entirely by the economic circumstances in the outside world.
  Those were the things I wanted to say about the Bill. I want generally to give it a welcome. I regard it, as I said before, as the end of the road. It frees the Post Office from Treasury control in

  231
  the size of the charges it makes. It means that in future the customers will be paying for the services and not be paying for the services plus a given amount of tax. That is all over. However, I hope there will be much closer examination of the price the Post Office is paying for this freedom from the Treasury, and that there will be regard to its financial obligations to the Treasury in the next twenty-five years as provided for in the Bill.
  This is probably the last speech that I shall make on the Post Office. I have been associated with it, as I have said, for twelve years. I now speak from the touchline, but I felt that, as this was the end of what I regarded as a progressive struggle to get freedom for the Post Office, this was a debate in which I could properly take part without derogating from the position of my hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Holland: I welcome the Bill, but I shall do so only briefly. I welcome it for two reasons, and first for its general content. As I understand the implication of the rather technical Clauses—and I think that most hon. Members, if one may judge from what they have said tonight, also understand their implication to be this—the Bill offers the Post Office a greater degree of autonomy, and therefore greater freedom from the restrictive hand of the Treasury, to operate as a commercial undertaking; yet, at the same time, there is a measure of Parliamentary control. I do not want to offend the susceptibilities of hon. Members opposite who do not like the term "commercial", but I think that the Bill does offer a neat compromise between, on the one hand, the physical needs of an organisation which is tackling a business problem and, on the other, the requirement of the country's elected representatives to exercise rather more control than a shareholder normally gets in a business—so that this is not quite commercial—over what is certainly and still remains a public service.
  In any structural change such as this there is, of course, bound to be a certain amount of anxiety among the members of the staff about the possibility of the change affecting their status, affecting their conditions of service and pension rights. Indeed, such fears were expressed
  232
  by several representatives from whom I sought a reaction shortly after the Bill was announced. I welcome the provisions in the Bill which now clearly indicate that the staff are to remain as civil servants and that their pension rights will not be affected, but I should like a concrete assurance from my hon. Friend when she winds up the debate that no detrimental change of any kind will occur in any of the conditions of service of any of the grades of Post Office staff, that no such change will be possible either as the direct or as an indirect result of the passing of this Measure through the House.
  I said that one of the two reasons why I welcome the Bill was its general content, but I also welcome it for its timing. We are today on the threshhold of tremendous and exciting changes in industrial and commercial life based on the realisation of new techniques and the growing development of automation. These changes will be nowhere more marked than in communications. For example, we heard in an Adjournment debate on 21st December, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), that communications satellites are now a practical proposition. In a few years they will revolutionise international telecommunications. In any attempt to be early in this field, the freer swinging stride of the Post Office, run on commercial lines as now but with the greater freedom that this Bill offers, should outstrip the slow, deliberate march of Government consultation and deliberation.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will tell us whether her right hon. Friend has yet reached any conclusions on his studies of communications satellites and research. As the House has heard from my right hon. Friend and from other hon. Members, in a more modest way the Post Office is already on the threshold of revolutionary changes both in postal and telephone services. Hon. Members who, like the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) and myself, have been to Tulsa Hill Research Station in recent months will be well aware of the rising tide of automation that is already 'beginning to submerge what one might call the outer reefs of manual operation.

  233
  In this context I would remind the House, as other hon. Members have done, of the nine ELSIEs at Norwich, the fully mechanised parcels sorting office at Leeds, "GRACE" and the S.T.D.s at Bristol, at Bolton—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor)—and elsewhere. I do not propose to list all the many exciting new innovations that are at various stages of introduction in different parts of the country, but I would add in parenthesis that when my right hon. Friend does enjoy a greater degree of autonomy I shall expect to have all the latest improvements, including a bright new modern post office, in Ao ton. A number of other hon. Members have put in pleas for their constituencies and I see no reason why I should not do so.
  We have in this Bill a promising innovation. It may be, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) suggested, that it should have been introduced much earlier. I content myself by saying that it is in time to be fully effective in developing the improvements in the services that are already becoming apparent. It may sound trite, but it is true that the Bill marks a beginning of a new era in the postal service. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on it and I support it.
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I shall not detain the House long, but I want to refer specifically to some of the current problems in relation to sub-post offices, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). Before doing so, however, I want to state my own great appreciation of the outstanding service which is given by all sections of this great organisation to the community. The Post Office is a little like one's digestion; no one pays any attention to it so long as things are working normally, but as soon as something goes wrong very great concern is expressed. If we gave it a little more attention when things were going well, greater progress would be made.
  Considering the volume of its transactions, I am always astounded by the efficiency with which the Post Office does its work. An American friend of mine,
  234
  resident here for many years, told me that he thought the two most efficient types of organisations in the United Kingdom, having regard to the quantity of the work involved in a very strictly limited time, were those concerned in the production of a national newspaper and the General Post Office. On the whole, he took the view, which I share, that the national newspaper made more mistakes than the Post Office. At any rate, I always try to show my appreciation by visiting at Christmas time the postal workers in my constituency, and I come away greatly impressed and grateful for their work.
  Before coming to the few positive suggestions I want to make about sub-offices, I want to refer to a constituency point. Some time ago I initiated an Adjournment debate about telephone facilities in Hayes. We were promised that when the new Viking exchange was opened it would relieve the problems. It has done so, but the demand for telephones locally has continued to rise here as it has elsewhere. We still have a large number of people waiting to be connected with the telephone, and I hope that, particularly where commercial or professional users are concerned, every help will be given to connect them as quickly as possible.
  Another problem is that of shared lines. One fully understands that a shared line is better than none, but it does create problems. My political agent has to share a line. I do not think that we have any secrets in Hayes to keep from the opposition, but it is symptomatic of the kind of embarrassment that does arise from time to time, and I again make a plea that as soon as possible shared lines will also be done away with in Hayes and elsewhere.
  In referring to the problems of sub-offices I make it clear that I am in no way opposed to the establishment and improvement of Crown post offices wherever the volume of business justifies it. This seems to be the most economical and effective way of dealing with the volume of traffic. In this connection, I hope that representations which have been made from Hayes about a Crown post office in the Uxbridge Road area will be sympathetically considered on their merits. There is a very strong case.

  235
  Having said that, one must go back to the fact that more than 50 per cent. of the volume of Post Office work is transacted through the 23,000 sub-offices. It is clear that very often the facilities in these offices are, for various reasons, inadequate. We want, of course, as many as practicable, having regard to the work involved, because, on the social service side of the Post Office's work—which it discharges so well—availability is a very important factor. These sub-offices must be situated where the public can easily reach them, and particularly should they be convenient to old-age pensioners.
  The Postmaster-General recently announced—I suppose that it is part and parcel of the present development—that about £300,000 a year is to be set aside for eight years to improve Crown post offices. I am glad of that. We all know of post offices where the facilities, both for the staff and the public, are very poor. Indeed, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I was at one time employed by the Post Office, but, unlike him, only in a temporary capacity during Christmas—I was very glad of the money at the time, and would be glad of it even now.
  When I saw the conditions in which the public had to do business and in which the staff had to take their meals I was astounded—yet this was in a salubrious suburb of London only a comparatively few years ago. Obviously there is considerable need for money to be spent, but that is equally true in relation to the 23,000 sub-offices. Examples have been given, which I will not elaborate further, to show that sub-postmasters should be encouraged to improve and expand the facilities which they offer to the public. I am told that they are sometimes discouraged, because whenever there is a new building the developer often tries, for example with a row of shops, to get one of the shops let as a sub-post office. This greatly increases the rental value of the rent of the shops. I entirely agree with having more sub-offices when the work justifies them, but if the remuneration of existing sub-offices is cut down too substantially, then we shall not get the improvements in facilities which the public ought to have, and which I believe most sub-postmasters want to give.
  236
  Over recent years the public has become increasingly concerned about the number of robberies and the amount of violence which post offices, particularly sub-offices, have attracted, with consequent risk and often injury to the staff. I think two changes ought to be made. First, where appropriate, alarms and telephone extensions to bedrooms should be installed in cases of sub-postmasters who live over the office premises, as is often the case. I am told that there is a reluctance for this to be done. Whether that is because the Post Office will not meet the charge, or does not make it worth while for sub-postmasters to do this, I do not know, but the cost is trifling. The fact that one can be linked by telephone to get help during any possibility of entry at night can be reassuring and will also prevent some incidents from happening. I should like to know that that trifling improvement will not be held up by parsimony or some administrative excuse.
  The second change is in connection with the insurance of the staff. It is clear that some Post Office workers in sub-offices are now subject to personal attack as a kind of occupational hazard. One of the things which should be done to reassure them is to see that they do not suffer financially through their occupation. I am told that the Post Office is reluctant to undertake insurance of this kind. I know that there is a tradition that in the normal way Government Departments do not engage in this kind of cover, but in this case some arrangements should be made. I believe that the Federation of Sub-Postmasters has already insured many sub-postmasters and their staff for the small sum of £800 a year. If that is the figure involved, and it is very small, I hope that the Postmaster-General will feel that it is a responsibility which he should accept, so that elementary justice can be given to those who, while carrying out their daily work, may be subject to attack and may be permanently injured or incapacitated. It is mean of him to refuse to do so.
  In recent years, the Post Office has centralised and mechanised in the Crown offices some of the work which was previously done by the sub-offices. That has probably been right and efficient and I do not criticise it. I hope, however, that the Bill will give an opportunity

  237
  for the Post Office to consider what new useful tasks on behalf of the public might be performed at both Crown offices and sub-offices. That would help to make up remuneration in sub-offices where it has been lost and would also add to the commercial vigour of the Post Office itself.
  Various suggestions have been made. For example, the Post Office might deal with the purchase of unit trust shares by the public. I do not know whether that is a good thing, but there are one or two obvious services which the Post Office could provide. As an example, one small but important service for many individuals would be this. Until recently, pensioners of the National Coal Board have been able to draw their pensions only from an office of the Board, which has sometimes been some miles away from the pensioners' homes. Yet the pensioners have also had to go to the local post office to collect their old-age pensions. Why should they not be able to draw both pensions from the one place on payment by the National Coal Board of a small fee to cover the cost? I believe that arrangements have now been made whereby co-operatives may pay some of the pensions. That is excellent and I would not want to stop it, but that sort of service could be provided by the Post Office, especially when the pensioner already has to go to the local post office to obtain his State pension.
  There is also the new simplified passport. I know that it can be obtained from the local employment exchange, but in rural districts that may be fifteen or twenty miles away, whereas there is bound to be a post office in the village, a mile or two away at the most. There is no reason why the local post offices should not deal with these passports, because they deal with far more complicated matters. There are many more examples, one being the motor vehicle licence. Why is it that only certain offices can deal with these licences? Why cannot these licences be available at all post offices?
  My last suggestion proposes a much more important development. On several occasions the Postmaster-General has promised that he would report on the possibilities of introducing into the British postal service the GIRO system of transfer of payments. As hon. Members will
  238
  know, this has the elements of a simple banking system which is well known on the Continent. Firms have a number and one simply makes a cash transfer to a number in any post office. In some countries individuals, too, can have numbers and a whole range of simple banking transfers is then possible. The system saves time and money and possibilities of loss. It also encourages thrift. Incidentally, in Belgium no charge is made for the service because it is found that the balances which are held by the Post Office more than pay for the service provided by the Post Office personnel.
  That is an excellent development which would give a great deal of new work and new opportunities to the Post Office, and I hope that the hon. Lady will say something about it tonight. I should like the system expanded even further. I have always believed that the joint stock banks have resolutely opposed in various ways, open and subtle, the introduction of any kind of cheque system in the Post Office. I hope, however, that with the new freedom given by the Bill such a step will be considered. Many Continental countries have a cheque banking system through the Post Office, with adequate safeguards. I know that the limit, on cash demand has been raised with the Post Office Savings Bank, but it is still a very long-winded procedure for drawing out money. Why could not banking facilities be made available to the public through the majority of the 23,000 sub-offices?
  During our Committee discussions upstairs of the Payments of Wages Bill, we moved an Amendment to the Schedule to include post offices as places where cheques could be paid. We desisted from pressing 'that Amendment because the Minister of Labour said that the Post Office was considering all aspects about banking and would report. I hope that we shall get a statement about the possibilities, at some time if not tonight.
  It is now clear that millions of workers can elect to be paid by cheque, and if that system develops on a large scale it will be impossible for the banks to cope with the work, because their hours and their staffs are restricted. This seems to be a wonderful new opportunity for the Post Office and I hope that it is something that will be seriously considered. The Government say that they

  239
  believe in competition and the Postmaster-General wants to shake up the Post Office. Here is a great now opportunity to do so which should be welcomed by everybody.
  I am sure that we all wish the Post Office well. It has a great tradition and a great record of public service. I hope that the Bill will give it new opportunities for serving the public even more widely in future than it has in the past.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. The White Paper made four points which, I understand, will be implemented when the Bill becomes law. First, the separation of Post Office finances from the Exchequer; secondly, the abolition of the annual Parliamentary Estimates procedure and the Treasury control that goes with it; thirdly, its replacement by effective, but, nevertheless, flexible Parliamentary control; fourthly, Post Office staff will remain civil servants.
  There have been suggestions for improving Post Office services. I cannot speak with the expert knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), but I believe that, although the Post Office has given such good service, it can be improved. The Postmaster;General is keen on bringing it up-to-date and making its outlook modern. I hope that the Bill will give him power to direct his keenness and energy to achieving that end.
  The Post Office is connected with the everyday life of the people. It was started 300 years ago, and during all that time it has maintained its great tradition of service to the public. When the Post Office was started there were no social and welfare services, but today it is allied to those services. The old-age pensioner goes to the Post Office for his retirement pension. Widows' pensions, children's allowances, ex-Service men's pensions and National Assistance benefits are paid at post offices. In our towns, cities and villages we can see the great service given by the Post Office to our social services. If separate offices had to be set up to pay these benefits the cost would be very heavy indeed. We therefore believe that, apart from its ordinary postal duties, the Post Office plays a most important part in the everyday life of Britain.
  240
  I have on occasions written to the Postmaster-General about speeding up the installation of telephones, and I have always had courteous replies. The war has now been over for fifteen years and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), I have received complaints from people who have waited six, nine, and sometimes more than twelve months for a telephone. One person waited nearly two years. The reason for the delay in installing telephones is, that the region concerned has exhausted the money allotted by the Treasury for new plant for this purpose and is, therefore, unable to provide more telephones. I hope that the Bill will give the Postmaster-General the green light to go ahead.
  The facilities in many post offices are out of date. The Postmaster-General spoke about providing chairs and tables. These facilities are necessary not only for the old-age pensioners who go to the Post Office to draw their pension and to sign their books, but for those who fill in forms to buy Premium Savings Bonds, National Savings Certificates, and to apply for licences, etc. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go ahead with his plans to improve facilities in all post offices.
  I would like to see more automatic machines provided in post offices, in sub-offices and also in ordinary shops. There is no reason why ordinary shops should not have an automatic machine from which people could buy stamps. The provision of such machines would avoid the necessity of people having to join long queues in busy post offices. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go ahead with the provision of automatic machines, not only for selling id., ld. and 3d. stamps, but also for stamps of larger denominations. I visited the modern Post Office in Lincolns Inn Fields, about which the right hon. Gentleman told me. One can buy postal orders from automatic machines in that office. I hope that the Bill will give the right hon. Gentleman power to press on with such facilities.
  The Post Office owns many valuable freehold sites, not only in London, but in many large cities. The price of land has risen, and we know that people are prepared to buy a cinema, pull it down, and build in its place a block of offices.

  241
  There is no reason why the Post Office should not build modern blocks of offices on the freehold sites that belong to them, use the ground floor to provide postal facilities, and let the upstairs offices to business firms and thus provide an additional source of revenue. Such revenue could then be used to provide additional services for the public.
  This year the Savings Bank movement celebrates its centenary. It was started by Mr. Gladstone's Government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the decision on payment by cheque is long overdue. There are millions of small depositors who do not have an account with a joint stock bank. If they were able 'a pay their electricity and gas bills and other small accounts by cheque that would be of great assistance to them. As we are celebrating the centenary of the Post Office Savings Bank, I hope 'that part of the celebrations will include the introduction of the cheque system.
  Having referred to the centenary celebrations, there is another point which I should like to mention, although it is not the direct responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, perhaps he could have a chat with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it. The Post Office Savings Bank pays 2½ per cent. interest on deposits. Although the Bank was started nearly 100 years ago, and the value of money has changed considerably in the interval, the rate of interest is still 2½ per cent. It is probably not worth a ¼per cent. of its original value. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase that figure. If it were increased by only ½per cent., or even a ¼per cent., that would be a good way to mark the centenary celebrations, and would encourage small savers.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fleet of vans owned by the Post Office. I think that there are 40,000 of them. I suggest that the Government use them also for advertising National Savings Certificates and similar advertisements. If they were used for such advertising, that would provide yet another source of income. We are moving into a new age. The old Victorian post offices must go. We must have new buildings not only for the public, but also for the Post Office staff. I know that the
  242
  welfare facilities provided by the Post Office for its staff are good. There are some very good canteens, and so on, but many of the buildings are out of date, and I hope that, with freedom from Treasury control, the Postmaster-General will press forward with the new building programme as quickly as possible. The Post Office today serves nearly 48 million people, and it employs a staff of 350,000. It is a great' public service with a great tradition.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed the Bill. We wish the right hon. Gentleman and the Assistant Postmaster-General success in getting the Bill through, and hope that they will be able to carry out the suggestions which have been made by hon. Members to improve even further Post Office services for the public and the staff.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. James Boyden: I agree with many of the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter). We all welcome that part of the Bill which clears away anomalies, but there is a very considerable danger that in clearing away some of the anomalies and in stressing the commercial aspect of the Post Office some things of value may be lost. I have never been able to understand why so many hon. Members opposite consider that making a profit is more honourable than serving the community. I do not think that I am churlish in saying that. I think that I am being realistic. In all sorts of aspects of running the Post Office there is a very grave danger that to lay too much stress on the commercial aspect may blunt the cause of doing good to the community.
  Paragraph 23 of the White Paper, headed "Obligations to the Community", states:
  " Emphasis on the commercial aspects of Post Office business must not be allowed to subtract from its obligations to the community as a whole, though this may mean giving some services below cost. For example, the daily delivery of letters to scattered communities, and in some cases the provision of telephone service for them is very expensive. Moreover, losses on inland telegrams are universal."
  When we have debates on the Post Office and its annual report, I hope that we

  243
  shall be able to hold the Postmaster-General to this theme. I hope that we shall be given an account of the way in which these particular services are maintained, despite the commercial emphasis which is now being introduced. In a large part of my constituency, which is rural, there has been a steady flight from the countryside. All over Great Britain the output of agriculture is being maintained by the increased efficiency in farming. However, the population steadily drifts away. This is particularly so in my constituency.
  There should be more telephone kiosks in outlandish places and the parcel and letter service should be maintained at an even higher level. I should like to see in the general report of the Post Office a forward-looking plan setting out geographically where these services are being improved. I visualise that if commercialism takes the place of serving the community we may have the sort of losses in the Post Office which are occurring with British Railways. I am engaged at the moment in a battle to try to stop a railway line being closed. It appears to me that the powers of darkness, if I may so describe the recommendation, are likely to win. I hope that they will not win. The closure of railway lines and the gradual cutting off of bus services are just two instances of the way in which the commercial aspect is put before the good of the community. It cannot be said that it is in the country's interests that the countryside should be denuded of these services. I do not like to make comparisons between town and country, because I represent both, but there is a quality about country people which it is highly desirable should be preserved, and some of the things which may well come about with the passing of this Bill and the new attitude in the Post Office might be disadvantageous to the country as a whole.
  The social services which the Post Office provides, in particular across the counter, may become a battleground between different Government Departments. I think that if would be a great pity if the service which the Post Office renders in its various administrative ways became a matter of bargaining. Are the services which the Post Office renders now to be added to the social
  244
  service burden? People are rather reluctant to pay for social services. They pay more readily for things like tobacco, drink and entertainment generally than for rates and taxes. I think that most hon. Members would agree that the public get more value from their rates and taxes than they do from their extravagant expenditure on the sort of things which I have mentioned. It is very difficult to maintain public spirit in this sphere of expenditure. It is certain that the £1·6 million which the Post Office spent last year on sites and buildings is not adequate to produce the sort of service to the public and the necessary atmosphere in that service which the public deserve. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have another look at that figure. For a rich country like England this expenditure is reasonable, but it ought to be very much greater.
  If too much stress is laid on the commercial side of the Post Office it is conceivable that the wrong sort of people will gain promotion. If the Postmaster-General drives commercialisation to its logical conclusion, personal qualities in serving the public may well be sacrificed to people who can economise and produce a favourable balance sheet. It seems that the way to success on British Railways and to get a statue in Darlington Market Place is to close half-a-dozen branch lines. That is against the interests of the public and the railways.
  I should like to join with my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), in paying tribute to the morale and efficiency of the Post Office service. Postmen deliver the mail in spite of snow, dogs, rain, inadequate letter boxes and come what may. The telephone girls are nearly always co-operative. They are far more polite than discourteous. I can recall a number of occasions when the telephone service has shown remarkable initiative and help to me. I think that that is universal. I very much hope that the present morale will be maintained, despite profit being put before good will.
  It is stated in the Annual Report of the Postmaster-General that 6,000 suggestions have been made by joint production committees for improving the

  245
  postal and other services. It would be appropriate if rather more was made of that in the Annual Report. I am sure that some of these suggestions have come from humble members of the Post Office staff and are the result of the excellent relationship which exists between the staff. I think that it is only right that tribute should be paid where it is due. In my constituency there is a family whose ancestors have lived in Upper Teesdale for 200 years. For a large part of that period they have maintained the local postal service. The generation is dying out now because the little Post Office in Forest-in-Teesdale is run by two maiden ladies. It is that tradition of service in the Post Office at large which we must try to retain.
  I should like to see a brighter and more attractive Post Office report. Surely some pictures and maps can be incorporated in it. I can find no reference in the Report to the Activities of the International Postal Union. I always thought that this country made a historic contribution to the Union. It is one of the very few international organisations which is a wonderful success and in which people manage to get on very well. Mention should be made of it in the Post Office Report, particularly the part which we play in it. I can see nothing except a reference to overseas visitors. There is no reference to the part which we are playing in the development of postal services in our dependencies and Colonial Territories. May I also suggest that some claim be made for the part we are playing in helping the underdeveloped territories to build up their postal and telegraphic services?
  I feel some sympathy with the plea of the Postmaster-General for proper letter boxes, code addresses, adequate addressing of letters and the proper tying up of parcels. I know that the Post Office has these things very much in mind, and we could all do something by using our influence to persuade the public that it would get a better service if it cooperated with the Post Office in this way. Since it is mentioned in one Report, I hope that the Postmaster-General will indicate what success has attended his campaign for lower and bigger letter boxes in houses.
  I hope that there will be a more vigorous attitude in the Post Office towards the
  246
  need to attract people into the service. Again I am not being churlish, but I hope that training will never suffer as a result of an emphasis on profits. In the last Report there was a reference to the shortage of graduates and a drive for graduate recruitment. Yet there were only twenty apprenticeships in engineering grades and 584 applications. I should have thought that in that direction there was much which could be done. There should be more apprenticeships and more encouragement.
  The Postmaster-General made play with the fact that 59 per cent. of his employees under 18 years of age were attending day release courses. I should have thought the figure would he nearer 100 per cent. The Report also refers to the interchange of postal workers in industry and the number so exchanged was two. While that is better than nothing, I hope that more drive and vision will be displayed in promoting Post Office workers to responsible jobs, and giving them an opportunity to train for them. I hope that the emphasis placed by the Government on commercial practice will not result in them losing sight of the good will which exists between the public and the Post Office but rather that they will strengthen both that good will and the morale of postal workers—which is already high—and not overlook the common touch in all the vast operations which they undertake.
  7.33 p.m.
  Sir Barnett Janner: I agree with most of what has been said in this debate and I think that the Postmaster-General will feel pleased with the major portion of it. There is no question at all that our postal services rank very high indeed, particularly when compared with similar services in other parts of the world. I have had experience of the postal service in the United States of America, for example. There the process of delivering letters took days, but with our postal service the letters would have been received in a matter of hours.
  Everyone who has paid tribute to our postal service did so with sincerity and in the belief that its standard is high. But that does not entirely meet the circumstances which prevail in our community today. Considerable change is taking place owing to the movement

  247
  of people because of bad housing conditions, the spreading out of our towns and the creation of new residential areas. There is the general effect of the creation of the Welfare State in which we on this side of the House can claim to have taken the most effective part.
  From time to time I have been concerned about the balance between the commercial aspect of the Post Office and its utilisation as a social service. On the commercial side of this undertaking there are two aspects to consider. It is a monopoly and also something which everyone understands as part of their own business. It is not purely a kind of industrial undertaking which is providing a service and I think that the social aspect of its existence is one of tremendous importance. The community has set up this industrial concern for its own benefit.
  Last year the Treasury took nearly £21 million of surplus obtained by the Post Office after allowing for the interest on the capital utilised in the postal services, and that is not a small sum. The actual figure for 1959–60 was £20,900,000. Yet there are occasions when we feel ourselves frustrated by the lack of response to rightful and proper requests for facilities to be provided which, in my view, are essential not only to serve the community but also for its health and general welfare—
  Mr. Bevins: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. It is untrue to say that a surplus of £21 million was taken by the Treasury. It was not.
  Sir B. Janner: If it was not taken by the Treasury, and if it was a surplus retained by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, my next comments are even more appropriate.
  When I asked for the provision of a telephone kiosk for the use of a community of aged people who, because they are aged people, are housed in bungalows in a certain area in my constituency, I received a letter from the Assistant Postmaster-General saying:
  " We do try to provide good public telephone facilities in urban areas, but I must consider the financial aspect most carefully because we are already losing over £3 million a year on public call offices, and this loss has to be made good by the general body of telephone
  248
  users. Generally speaking, we put up a new kiosk only where we are satisfied it will pay its way."
  What an absurd answer from a concern which is making £20 million or £21 million profit. It is not prepared to provide a social service in an area where there are aged persons who at any moment may need to use the telephone. Of course, it is true that they do not rush to the telephone every five minutes in order to ring up their friends. We should not expect that sort of thing to happen. But this is a social service of a highly important nature and should be provided in the district to which I refer. The Post Office says, "All right, we will let you have that service, but we shall take away one of the kiosks existing in an adjoining district, on the New Parks estate, where there are young married people with families." I assume that that kiosk was provided because it was essential for that area. The Post Office says, "We will change our mind now. We do not think that it is essential. Let the people come down to the kiosk which we propose to move to the place where the aged persons are living in bungalows."
  That is a cheeseparing policy. One of the most essential needs is to provide for those who have been shifted into these areas and also to ensure that the other areas are not deprived of facilities which already exist by shifting a kiosk from one place to another, thus saving a small sum.
  Another letter from the Ministry in my possession says that it costs £60 to keep a kiosk for a year, including repairing and painting. Even if it does, in view of what is paid for telephone calls from the kiosk, is it not worth having it there for persons who need it for purposes of health, etc.? Is not the State called upon to provide such a service? Is not a monopoly run by the State called upon to ensure that such amenities are provided?
  I speak with some heat because, time after time, I have endeavoured to bring this home to the authorities and to the Postmaster-General. I have always felt, perhaps with justification, that he has been under the influence of the Treasury. I am prepared to concede that the Treasury may have been the villain of the piece. Somebody referred to the

  249
  shackling of the Department by the Treasury. That may be a somewhat strong expression to use, but I may say something about that later.
  The fact is that £21 million is available as a surplus. That should and must be used for the benefit of the cornmunity as a whole. The services should be advertised. People should be encouraged to use the telephone service more. This is crucial. People should be made telephone conscious. Telephone kiosks should be used more. The Post Office, as a good commercial undertaking, should make people realise that the use of the telephone is valuable to them for their own business and to private relationships. There is no reason why it should not be.
  I am sorry that the public in this country does not use the telephone on anything like the scale which prevails in many other countries. I do not know the figures, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me in this contention. That is a commercial aspect which the Postmaster-General will now be in a position to underline and emphasise.
  Aged people who are shifted into an area have to draw their pensions. The Assistant Postmaster-General accompanied me on a walk at Mowmacre Hill, Leicester. We walked up a hill. Perhaps she could not walk comfortably, because she was shackled by the Exchequer. Somebody asked the hon. Lady to push a perambulator containing twins up the hill. She refused. I quite understood her refusing on moral grounds, but I am sure that in any case she would have refused on physical grounds. It was far from easy for the mother who had to come down from the top of the hill to the bottom to draw from the sub-post office what was due in respect of the two youngsters to push the perambulator containing them up the hill again.
  People there are agitating all the time. I do not believe that the average Englishman or Englishwoman keeps on protesting for the sake of protesting. People are entitled to grumble, but they do not keep this up indefinitely. People there have protested at meeting after meeting. Aged persons have been taken to their beds, because they have slipped on this steep hill. They keep on pro-
  250
  testing to their Member of Parliament, quite rightly. I see the Postmaster-General smiling, but I think that they are right to protest. These people want a sub-office at the top of a hill so that they do not have to come down the hill to draw their pensions. It is difficult for them in bad weather, especially as the hill is slippery. Where is the sense of it when there is £21 million to play with? The Minister says that there must not be another sub-office. Why not?
  I emphasise these points because I have experience of the difficulties which have been created because of the failure of the Minister to take action. I make an appeal to the Postmaster-General and all concerned with him. They should ensure that they have power in the Bill to do what they want to do. In that event, we can put the blame fairly and squarely on their shoulders if action is not taken. However, I believe that action will be taken if the Postmaster-General is not prevented from taking it because of other Departments stepping in.
  Tributes have been paid. I am objective in these matters. The Assistant Postmaster-General knows full well that, whenever any improvements in the postal services have been made in my constituency, I have gone out of my way to attend the various opening ceremonies or functions, because I believe that the Pest Office should be encouraged to do things which bring benefit to the community.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he does not know where the 'balance lies between commercialism and services. This business can be made a paying one. In fact it is already a paying business. I did not understand the hon. Member opposite when be spoke about commercialising and profit making, because a profit is being made already. As a profit is being made, it should be ploughed back into the industry for the benefit of the consumers. Every person in the land is a consumer. Everyone is a customer of the Post Office. It is not only Members of Parliament and industrial people who are consumers. Men and women in the street are consumers. Old-age pensioners are consumers. They pay for their postal services as well as everyone

  251
  else. So does the person with young children whom I mentioned.
  It is good business policy to admit that the customer is right, even if only occasionally—not that the customer is always wrong or that these customers are wrong. I do not speak in a carping spirit. The right hon. Gentleman must weigh these matters up and reach a conclusion. He should take a broad view about the further noble service the Post Office can render. It is not necessarily the big things that count. The small things count also. What counts is that a person is uncomfortable having to go down a hill to draw his pension. If such small matters as that are put right, it will bring happiness to the lives of those who unfortunately are not as well gifted with the necessities of life as some of us are. I believe that both the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General are convinced that the human aspect of these matters is tremendously important.
  I, also, say good luck to the Bill. It is a very important Bill. If it is properly put into effect, as he wishes it to be, it will serve the purposes to which I have referred even better than has been done in the past. It is in that spirit that appeal to him. I am sure that other hon. Members have had similar experiences in their own constituencies, but I appeal to the Postmaster-General to look upon that aspect as being of extreme importance to the happiness and welfare of the community.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I will not detain the House very long, but I wish to refer to a specific case in which the interests of aged people are rather neglected. I refer particularly to that anachronism to which my hon. Friend referred in Clause 12, where it says:
  "…with the anoroval of the Treasury, determine, being a form which shall conform to the best commercial standards."
  Bearing in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir Barnett Janner) has addressed himself to all the elementary virtues that should be in the Post Office, I wish to refer to a specific case. This is certainly known to the hon. Lady, who, I think, is to
  252
  reply. Leeds Corporation is building very big blocks of flats around the city which are 15 storeys high. They have the pleasant custom, in the six Parliamentary divisions of Leeds, that the local Member of Parliament opens these housing projects in various parts of the city.
  In planning these blocks of flats in municipal estates as neighbourhood units attention has been paid to the question of small children and elderly people crossing roads. To this end the Corporation has put a block of eight shops quite near to these 15-storey blocks of flats. I refer to one block that I opened near Armley Heights. To make that neighbourhood unit self-contained and road-safety-conscious it has everything except a sub-post office. The occupants, in the main, are people who have been decanted, if that is the word, from back-to-back houses on to new housing estates. They have been used to having small distances to walk, because, obviously, there has been a great density of population in the areas from which they have come.
  I wrote, in the normal way, to the hon. Lady and she sent the sort of civil reply, which one would expect, and which, no doubt, was the Departmental case, referring to the proximity of other post offices. As I have walked over the territory I can tell the Postmaster-General that there is all the difference between planning a case on paper and actually walking over the ground. There is all the difference between knowing what you are talking about and understanding what you are talking about. His Department does not know or understand what it is talking about when it tells me that other sub-post offices are near enough. In one case it involves the crossing of two main roads and in the other the crossing of another main road. That is just the situation which we are seeking to avoid. The Post Office is a service which has to be integrated into the needs of the community and where one has municipal housing estates one has to plan the post offices in a civilised manner.
  I think that the hon. Lady is to visit this site before long, but it will not be enough for her simply to look at a map. It will be necessary for her to put herself in the position of those old people who have old-age pension books—and

  253
  young people as well—and to walk over the main roads. This has to be put in its right setting. It has not to be the normal commercial standards, but has to be judged from the criterion of what the old and young people have been used to. It is rather a reflection, when we have a first-class piece of municipal planning, that the oldest nationalised industry should even appear to fall down on the job.
  The hon. Lady knows all about the position at the Armley Heights. I hope that it will be taken into consideration. I hope that she will be able to walk over the territory and to visualise what we are trying to do. She must not consider the post offices in the City of Leeds simply on the basis of the number of people who are going to this or that post office, and whether, by the best commercial standards, these offices are justified. There are other standards on which they must be judged.
  I hope that when the hon. Lady visits my constituency she will bring her natural sympathy to bear on her local officers, who, I believe, are the niggers in the woodpile here. There are certain things up with which the people of West Leeds are not prepared to put.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I have listened with great interest to this very lengthy debate lengthy in a relative form, of course. I was rather afraid, having regard to the fact that it was the second day back after the Recess, that this very important matter would pass through a poorly attended House with not too many hon. Members taking part in the debate. That would have been a very serious thing. I believe that the House of Commons should be watchful of the interests of all its services in the best possible way. I believe it is healthy for the services that they should know that the matters that are concerning them are also matters of concern to this House. I am, therefore, very pleased—as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and Assistant Postmaster-General will be—that so many Members have taken part in the debate today and that so many useful contributions have been made.
  The debate has ranged over a wide field. I am not blaming anybody for that, and I think it is all to the good.
  254
  It is better that these things should be brought out into the open and for the Post Office to know exactly what people are thinking about its service; its good points and its bad, its achievements and its failures. Speaking broadly, I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his administration should feel very pleased with the general tone of the House towards the Post Office as a public service.
  I digress to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) for some very generous references that they made to me. I know my right hon. Friend will appreciate that the fact that I am standing here today is not due to any great ambition on my part. I regret—and did regret at the time—that my appearance at this Box was due to the fact that my right hon. Friend felt he could no longer carry on the work which he had done with great distinction over many years. I appreciate those references very much indeed, and the good wishes. The good Lord knows I can do with all the good wishes that come from every quarter. I can assure the House that that is the case. I hope I shall be able to work with the right hon. Gentleman and his administration in the same way as my right hon. Friend has been able to do and that, with a little experience of the Post Office, I may be of some use from time to time in considering the problems.
  I remember that when forty years ago I was on the telegraph staff of the Post Office in Liverpool we had a telegraph instrument called the Baudot, an excellent but a very delicate instrument, which depended for its efficiency on complete synchronisation. A great deal of care and attention was required in its maintenance, and in the early stages it was not unusual for it to have stoppages. Sometimes the circuit stopped. I remember an incident of that kind. We knew that special staff would have to be trained to look after it. I said to the man concerned, "What is the matter, Harry? What has caused the stoppage?" He replied, "Nothing at all". I asked him why he had stopped the instrument, and he said, "I just wanted to find out why it was going so well".
  I cannot help but think that in this debate we have tried to stop the machine for a few minutes in order to prove to

  255
  one another and to the Minister that there is nothing wrong with it, that everything is going on all right and that we have satisfied our curiosity to know what is going on.
  Of course it is going well. Any business which produces a surplus of £20·9 million, even in these days, is going well. It has dealt with considerably more traffic during the last twelve months and at a substantially reduced cost, and all this, apparently, without the aid of the mysterious private master mind, whom everybody seems to think is essential to any industry. It was those master minds who allowed those defective engines to go on to the Glasgow railway system and some of the London systems. We have to be careful how we talk about these commercial brains and the commercial disposition, but I do not think that there is a great deal in it.
  It is very significant that in the debate today no speaker has criticised the nationalised industries in the House. That in itself is significant. None of the vituperation which is hurled against other nationalised concerns has been used today. That, I think, is further proof that things are going pretty well in the Post Office.
  The changes in the Post Office administration which we are seeking to put into statutory form in the Bill took place in the Post Office at least 20 years ago. I have been connected with the Post Office for many years, and during that time I have negotiated with generation after generation at Post Office headquarters and regional headquarters. I have not been blind during those periods of negotiation. I have seen the changes which have taken place in the direction of being more businesslike, if that is the word, than they were in the old days. Those changes have taken place, and all that we are doing in the Bill is to give them the statutory blessing of the House. That is all that I can see in it.
  When I heard about the Bill I confess that I felt some apprehension about what it might contain. I was not quite sure what would be the basic urge and impulse behind it. Since then I have read the most informative document about the Post Office that I have read for a long time—this very informative document in good English, good style and
  256
  plain language which everybody could understand. I have also read the Appropriation Accounts, but I could make nothing out of them, because when I thought that I had found the fish I discovered that it was not the same kind of fish as I wanted or the same kind as I had found in the commercial accounts. I went through them night after night. Indeed, I have done more homework in connection with the reconciliation of these accounts than I have done since I tried to obtain a Central Welsh Board Certificate fifty years ago.
  At the end of it all I confess to being no wiser about the reconciliation of these figures than I was at the beginning. If the Postmaster-General were honest with the House, he would confess to being as ignorant on these things as I am because it is almost impossible to understand them, and the wrangle on both sides of the House about the meaning of these figures has amazed me.
  I sincerely hope that the Postmaster-General will take serious note not of the speech made by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) today—I did not think very much of that—but of the speech which the hon. Member made five years ago, which in my opinion was an excellent speech and which showed that he had given serious consideration to the matters about which he intended to speak. In the course of that speech the hon. Member for Cheadle asked the Postmaster-General to bring before the House accounts and balance sheets which would be clearly understandable to hon. Members. I agreed entirely with him, because if we are to get people in the House interested in the affairs of our oldest nationalised industry, they must know what we are talking about and writing about and they must understand these things.
  I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not produce a White Paper, before he produced the Bill, giving the House some idea of what he had in mind about the presentation of accounts and balance sheets. Even at this late stage it would not be a bad idea for him to consider the matter.
  Mr. Bevins: It was referred to in the White Paper "Status of the Post Office", which made it clear that once the Bill became law there would be a set of commercial accounts, not a cash account.

  257
  This awful headache of reconciliation to which the hon. Member refers will no longer be necessary. This question of reconciliation, in fact, is quite simple, and I shall be happy to have a word with him on the subject.
  Mr. Williams: I am very pleased indeed to hear that and will certainly avail myself of the offer, although if the right lion. Gentleman intends to change the whole system I shall be wasting my time in learning about a dead piece of work. We will talk about that later.
  I have discussed the Bill with many of my old colleagues in the Post Office trade unions and with other colleagues outside the House who have indirect connections with the service, and I listened to the Minister's very able speech. I mean "able" in that he talked extremely well on what I regarded as the least fundarnental points before the House today and cleverly drew the House away from an examination of the subjects which really matter in connection with the transfer from the Treasury to the Post Office. I listened to him with great interest. As a result of my reading it and of the talks that I have had, I can support the Second Reading of this Bill, although when I first looked at it I thought that I would not be able to do so.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the new buildings that he had in mind, and I am glad that he is taking a personal interest in this subject. Nowadays, factories and offices and all that type of buildings are being put up in the most modern style, yet there are thousands of Post Office people who, for twenty Orr thirty years, have been working in pretty awful dens—that is about the only word for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said that the Post Office building there went back to 1874. It is a pity that Hitler did not deal with it. Seriously, it is a shame that such buildings should be occupied by a public service that last year provided a surplus of £20·9 million. Indeed, it is quite inexcusable, and I am very glad that the Postmaster-General is tackling the matter in a very serious way. He may find some little difficulty in getting the money, and for that reason I want to deal with one or two aspects that will rather interfere with that sense of freedom about which
  258
  so much has been so glibly said this afternoon.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a slanting reference to the examination of Post Office sites. That will be a very uesful inquiry. There has been a good deal of waste of valuable land, and we might as well confess it. I can understand that a good deal of it has resulted from a sense of never wanting to let the side down. For instance, when a new sorting office was being built, one never knew what its rate of development would be, and one had to go on the assumption that one would want to expand within the next twenty years. Nobody ever wants to fall down on the job and find that a building's expectation of life has been reduced because the forecast of needs has not been made with sufficient care.
  The examination that is envisaged will be very profitable, but I hope that the Postmaster-General will bear in mind that it is very important that the Post Office itself should have good buildings and good sites. In my Liverpool days—and the right hon. Gentleman knows something of that city—nothing used to annoy me more than to find every tinpot little bank in Liverpool, every trustee savings bank, every new shop that opened getting some of the finest sites in the city, white the Post Office had to go round the back streets where nobody could find the building and there were no direction signs to assist them.
  I hope that the Postmaster-General will not fall into that error when looking at the sites, and at their freehold value and the cash return that will accrue to the Department as a result. I hope that he will resolve "As the political head of the Post Office, I shall get sites that are in accordance with the status and dignity of the Post Office as an administration, and of the staff as its servants".
  I took the right hon. Gentleman's reference to certain discussions now going on to be in connection with road services. Here, again, I am fully behind him. After long experience in the Post Office, I believe that there is a good deal that the Department itself can do in connection with the transit of its mails in certain parts of the country—work that has hitherto been sublet to other agents. The major schemes of reconstruction now taking place on the railways, the closing of

  259
  branch lines and so on, provide an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman's Post Office administration to investigate the possibilities of different forms of transport of the mails in certain areas.
  I am sure that the Postmaster-General, my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who have contributed to this debate will excuse me if I do not follow the very useful, interesting and valid points they have made, but I should be failing in courtesy were I not now to offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor) on his maiden speech. I am very pleased that he chose his first occasion on which to address the House to praise the service with which I was so long associated, but I should like him to remember, when we give further consideration to this Measure, that what is good for Bolton ought to be good enough for other parts of the country in much less time than the ten years envisaged for the materialisation of the scheme.
  I agree with the three main proposals in the Bill. I believe that the Post Office should remain a Government Department. That is an important decision. During my period of service, there was a good deal of quibbling and vacillation on this issue. I am glad that the Government and the right hon. Gentleman have definitely decided to accept the conclusions of the Bridgeman Committee of 1932 which said:
  "…the public have a right to the influence which Parliamentary discussion and control alone can give."
  I hope that this House will accept the obligation contained in that declaration that it will accept that responsibility to discuss the achievements and the failures of this great service.
  I am also glad, and this view is shared by most of those with whom I have been associated, that the telecommunications and postal services are to remain together in a single organisation. We should not break up this grand service into segments. The country is too small. We are too close together. We rely so much, one service on the other, that in my opinion it would have been a fatal mistake to have taken any other decision on this issue.
  I am pleased to note that, if anything, there is to be more direct accountability
  260
  to Parliament. That is a very healthy sign. Here I must be careful how I put things. I only wish that some other concerns of which I have a little knowledge had been as accountable to this House as the Post Office will be under the new arrangements. If, as I have said, the accounts are presented in clearer and more attractive form, I am sure that there can be generated among hon. Members a desire to understand what is happening in the Post Office, how it is using its money and carrying out its social obligations and how the country is reacting to the way in which it is doing all those things.
  I assume that we shall have two Post Office debates in the course of a year. Perhaps the hon. Lady the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to tell us something about that. At least, we have got to pass a Motion in order to pay the salaries. Moreover, no money will be available to buy stamps unless we give the authority by means of a Resolution of this House. Therefore, I am assuming that we shall have that opportunity of saying what we think of these matters. Secondly, I am hoping that when the accounts are before us, together with the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Report thereon, there will be an opportunity for the House to have a first-class debate.
  I am in full agreement with the proposal that Post Office staff shall remain civil servants and enjoy all the rights and privileges of the Civil Service. The Civil Service has made a unique contribution to the life of this country. I believe that India recognised. above all things, when she was separated from us, that it was the Civil Service which was becoming the basis of her new life, hopes and aspirations.
  There is something about the Civil Service that can never be properly understood by people who have never been in the service. I know that there is a good deal of talk about it being pedestrian and deliberate, but there is a tremendous amount of integrity and hard work in carrying out the duties involved. I think that we have built up an esprit de corps which has been sustained in the Civil Service. I do not know what conversations my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly had with my old friend Lord Geddes. Perhaps I had better not delve too deeply into that, because I might

  261
  disagree with him. But I believe I understand the views of the Post Office people when they say that they wish to remain as civil servants.
  I agree with the separation of the Post Office finances from the Exchequer. I agree also that the trading fund should be established separate from the Exchequer and free from Treasury control, although, as I said before, "freedom" is a relative term. I hope that it will be controlled wisely and directed by the Postmaster-General who will be responsible directly to Parliament.
  Much has been said about the Treasury from time to time. A very good friend of mine, a former Member of this House, hated the Treasury as the devil hates holy water. I refer to Harry Wallace. He had every reason to hate the Treasury, as indeed I had in my early days. We had to deal with wage claims in arbitration courts and fight the Treasury. Believe me, those Treasury boys took an awful lot of beating. The Post Office was referred to as the mulch cow of the Treasury, and that was quite right twenty-five years ago. I remember being in an arbitration court for thirty-eight days. I am referring now to the Irishman's rise. However, in the last ten years I have never believed that the Treasury was quite so bad as it has been painted. There are some good points about the Treasury, although it is not for me to refer to them tonight.
  I should like to comment on paragraph 4 of the White Paper on The Status of the Post Office. First, however, I should like to join with those hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Cheadle, who have said that it would be very sad if the Post Office departed from having as its primary and basic function that of performing a public service and undertaking its social obligations. I believe that it would be a bad day for the Post Office staff if we were to create a hybrid administration which would ask for integrity on the one hand and slickness on the other, which would expect honesty on the one hand and then try to follow the sort of tactics which have sent thousands of financiers to Dartmoor and other places. I hope we shall not change the basic approach of the Post Office. Traditionally the first thing that the British people expect from the Post Office
  262
  is that it should look after the social obligations of the community, to which reference has been made in this debate.
  I have a fear about paragraph 4 of this White Paper, although I think that fear is relaxed a little when I read another document to which I shall refer in my peroration. There is a better climate about the other paragraph. In fact, I think this paragraph 4 is a bit of fluff. It has been put in to please the boys. I do not think that the administration or even the Postmaster-General or his Assistant could possibly believe some of the things that are in this paragraph.
  In the latter half of the paragraph there are some reflections which I am bound to challenge. Nobody fought the administration in a period of thirty-five years more than I have done. I have fought them pretty hard and I have found them pretty tough. But I am not prepared to accept the reflections which appear in this paragraph, that these people are a lot of nincompoops who have not marched with the times but have remained static for thirty-five years. The paragraph says:
  " If, after allowing for its social responsibilities, it fails to approach the problems of management and organisation with a business mind it will quickly become inefficient… it must be free to use the criteria applied in the world of commerce for gauging efficiency: it must be free to innovate and develop as a business seeking to meet and anticipate its customers' demands."
  I think that is a libel on good men and women, and I want the House to be aware of my feeling. This paragraph could have been written in a very different way, as I shall be able to show later when I refer the right hon. Gentleman to a paragraph in another document.
  When I look at some of the evidence before me relating to the achievements of the Post Office, I say without fear of contradiction that there is not a business in this country that has a better record in meeting legitimate demands, in trying to foreshadow what those might be and in trying to introduce new services, making use of the best scientific devices available. I have a list here which, if I had time to read it, would impress hon. Members with the way in which customers' demands in every conceivable

  263
  form have been anticipated, with great speed and efficiency.
  If these good men and women have failed in any way, I contend that the Postmaster-General must look elsewhere for the basic causes of their failure. In most cases, they have failed because they have been refused the wherewithal to do the things they wanted to do and knew that they ought to do.
  I am not opposed to Treasury control in principle. No Government, of whatever colour, can throw overboard control of its finances. I think that the Treasury must have the right of ultimate control; otherwise, all sorts of things could follow. I accept it in regard to pay and grading and conditions for the staff. I think that the Treasury will look after them in the same way as it looks after the rest of the Civil Service. Nevertheless, I invite the hon. Lady to give me two assurances about that control over pay, grading and conditions. First, will she assure us that this arrangement in no way adversely affects direct negotiations on wages and conditions issues between the administration and the various Post Office trade unions recognised by the Post Office? I hope I have made that clear. There have been suggestions that the Postmaster-General will not be able, under the new conditions, to consider claims on their merits without consultation in the first place with the Treasury. I assume that that is not so and that the hon. Lady will give me the quite specific assurance for which I ask.
  I wish to be assured also that the Post Office will be free to determine its own establishment force and that it will be able to deal with the number of people it wants in the various grades strictly in accordance with the needs of the service and the availability of suitable applicants for the jobs. In simple terms, I hope that the Postmaster-General, in the new conditions, will decide the number of people he will have in the Post Office, not the Treasury, as has been the case very largely until now.
  I accept the provisions regarding investment control, including control of borrowing, up to a point, with certain reservations. I accept the principle, but, like my hon. Friends, I think that there ought to be a good deal of elasticity
  264
  and flexibility in Treasury control of borrowing and so forth. I accept the foreign exchange control without comment. I accept the minimum obligation of the Post Office to pay its way and to make proper allocation to general reserve. I accept that unreservedly, but I have strong doubts about the new financial policy about which I have been reading in one of the documents, which seems to go a good deal beyond the terms of Clause 6 of the Bill. I shall return to that if I have time later on.
  I come now to three or four aspects of the matter which seem to me to merit consideration and which have been exercising the minds of many hon. Members during the debate. The first is the point about freedom. I believe that a good deal more freedom will be given to the Postmaster-General under the Bill, freedom which, I think, Postmasters-General should have had many years ago. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on that aspect.
  I must say, however, that the old-age pensioner has freedom of a kind, freedom to spend his £2 15s., freedom to go to any of the Manchester stores, the biggest of them if he likes, and have a look round. But he will not be able to buy. There is that element also in this freedom for the Postmaster-General. He can go only so far, and, after that, his freedom disappears under the overriding control and direction of the Treasury. The cold hand of the Treasury is still on his shoulder and, as I see it, even under the terms of the Bill, the only time when he can have complete freedom will be when he relies entirely on internal financing for all his capital investment for development and so forth.
  I come now to investment. As I see it, the crux of the whole problem in the Post Office is the problem of investment. It is the responsibility of the House of Commons to ensure that the Treasury is not permitted to fix an unreasonably low ceiling of capital expenditure and then wash its hands of the whole business. It is the responsibility not only of the Postmaster-General but of this House too to see that that does not happen.
  I believe, as many people in the service and outside believe, that there is urgent need for greater investment in the Post

  265
  Office, to complete projects already commenced and to put under way many others which are desirable or essential, projects which will benefit a large section of the British community. In my opinion, there is a need to move very much faster in supplying telephones to would-be subscribers. Every hon. Member, if he is honest, will have to admit that almost every week he receives complaints from someone or other who has been waiting a long time for a telephone. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir B. Janner), I believe that we should be travelling much taster in this matter.
  I know that there has been a fairly substantial increase in the last year or two, but I do not think it has been fast enough. In December, 1960, The Times, which is no great friend of mine, said that it was below that of any other of the fifteen major industrial countries. I do not know whether that is true, but if it is it is not very much to the credit of the British Post Office. Apparently we are behind at least fifteen of the major industrial countries in supplying people with telephones, which are one of the normal requirements of a civilised industrial nation. I understand that in the United Kingdom there is only one telephone for every seven members of the population. In the U.S.A. the figure is one in three; in Canada it is one in three; in Switzerland and Denmark it is one in four, and Western Germany has twice or three times as many telephones as Great Britain. Those are the statistics which have been given to me. I understand that there are now 150,000 people waiting for telephones.
  Not only is the installation of these individual telephones required; more capital is required in order to strengthen the trunk network, so as to accommodate these additional demands. After discussing these matters with people in the trade unions concerned, I am satisfied that the telephone service does not lack technical knowledge, research or skilled staff. The major reason for the slow progress has been the control over capital resources made available to the Post Office. I now want to say a word about the S.T.D., to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He said that it was an excellent system, and all the
  266
  information that I can gather about it confirms the view that it will be one of the best systems ever introduced into the telephone system of this country. To use the words of an old Post Office employee, this could be a money spinner. It could speed up telephone communications and it could also be run very economically.
  As I understand the programme, it appears that by the end of March, 1961, there will be 72 exchanges and about 250,000 subscribers using S.T.D. facilities. By the end of March, 1962, there will be 340 such exchanges, with 11 million subscribers, and by 1970 the S.T.D. service will be available to 90 per cent, of the subscribers. My only submission is that, in relation to an efficient, modern, well-tried and profitable system, a period of ten years is far too long. It should be reduced substantially, to about five or six years.
  I now want to refer to the automatic Telex network. Since I have been on this job I have been reading dutifully everything published in connection with the Post Office, and I find that the first two years of the automatic Telex network programme has been completed; that in Fleet Building has been set up the largest automatic Telex exchange in the world, and that it has been completed jointly by the Post Office telecommunication and engineering departments and equipped at a cost of £1 million. It is to cater for London and some of the Home Counties. But what is that? It is only a small proportion of the whole country.
  I hope that the Postmaster-General will not fall into the error into which certain other Ministers have fallen, of laying out a large amount of capital in order to start a large and expensive scheme and then vacillating and reversing the policy and wasting millions of pounds when it would have been cheaper in the long run to have carried on more rapidly with the development. One tragedy of the British Transport Commission is that it has spent millions of pounds in preparation for the electrification of the railway from Manchester to London, and the Government are now vacillating, doubting and cancelling. The Government must make up their minds that once they embrace a large scheme which will bring great benefits to the

  267
  people they will not turn their back on it and waste capital, and money.
  This automatic Telex exchange is a wonderful thing. Our business people will jump at it wherever it is offered to them. It is calling aloud for expansion.
  On the postal side, there is the automatic letter-sorting machine. I have seen two of these machines and I should have seen more except for the pressure of Parliamentary business. Here again is an excellent opportunity to introduce a new scientific machine and one which, in due course, will have wonderful results. I understand that it is in the experimental working stage. Those responsible should not be long in making up their minds concerning its final form and I hope that money will be available to the Postmaster-General to continue the development of this letter-sorting machine, too.
  A point to which the hon. Member for Cheadle slantingly referred is satellite communications. Hon. Members who were here on 21st December will remember that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) raised the question of a British satellite communications programme as one of momentous importance to the country. Some countries are going on with research. We want the United Kingdom to be in the forefront of research and development in this modern conception of space communication. I have deliberately included this item because it is most important that we should be looking forward, as we have been doing in the past, towards some of these great possibilities of development.
  I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to an article in the Evening Standard of Monday, 23rd January, which stated:
  " The Government has begun an intensive drive to persuade British industry to automate more quickly. Government money is to be plunged into the development of a new breed of computers which will bring automation within the reach of the small man as well as the big combine."
  The article goes on like this:
  " Ministers will ram home, in conversations with industrialists, two things that will happen if automation is delayed:
  Progressive worsening of Britain's trading position as competitors beat us.
  Certain defeat in the cold war with Russia. Soviet industry is automating—regardless of
  268
  need—under Kremlin policy. The fruits of this are expected to pour out in five to ten years."
  Ministers are asked to ram those thoughts into our industrialists. I ask them to ram them down the throat of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, inasmuch as it concerns the Post Office, because there is no excuse at this stage why the money should not be made available to meet the needs of our people and to give the best possible services to the community.
  I intended to deal with two or three other matters, but I have probably said enough. I therefore conclude by saying this. I have referred to the paragraph in the White Paper on "The Status of the Post Office". I now refer to two paragraphs on page 15 of the Post Office Report and Commercial Accounts. I quote:
  " Plans for the future envisage a steady expansion of services both in scope and quality. Such developments as Subscriber Trunk Dialling, designed to speed and to render more flexible the service which the Post Office can give, will be extended as quickly as resources permit."
  The last paragraph states:
  " The Post Office is a great business. The change in its traditional relationship with the Exchequer announced in March, 1960, will ensure greater emphasis on a commercial outlook."
  This is the one I specially like:
  " The sense of enterprise associated with the commercial approach will be fostered, without being allowed to prejudice the sense of public service to the community as a whole which has been a dominant feature of Post Office policy for three centuries."
  I sincerely hope, in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, that that will be the predominant motive. Let us make the Post Office as efficient as we can and use all the resources we can get hold of, but remember that in essence it is the greatest social service that we have in this country, and that it cannot be replaced. I think I am in a position to say on behalf of the workers in this great industry that they will be with us in the future as they have been over many, many years in the past.
  8.50 p.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): We have had a most interesting and constructive debate, and I think that all of us were heartened by the friendly remarks we heard about the

  269
  Post Office. Certainly, they were a heartwarming experience to those who have a very high regard for this great organisation.
  We have listened to a maiden speech, and I was particularly interested, if I may say so, as a Yorkshire woman, to hear a contribution from a Lancashire Member of Parliament. We have all listened with tremendous interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor) had to say. It was an excellent bonus in that it was a speech by a satisfied customer of the Post Office as well. We shall look forward to listening to him on future occasions.
  You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in particular, will he well aware of the fact that tonight is Burns' Night, and, therefore, it is most appropriate that in this debate hon. Members should
  " the giftie gie us
  To see oursels as ithers see us! "
  This has sometimes been a salutary experience, but none of us has any doubt at all as to the very real value of this searching scrutiny.
  The Bill now before the House ensures that Parliament will have plenty of opportunity to examine Post Office affairs and management in general. Indeed, the information to be put before Parliament should give it a much clearer picture of what happens than it gets now. For instance, at the beginning of each year, about March, the Postmaster-General will present a White Paper dealing with the prospects for the ensuing year, the staff employed, the investment programme and plans for financing it. By 31st March, Parliament will be asked to pass an affirmative Resolution authorising the Postmaster-General to make payments out of the Post Office Fund. That is in Clause 5.
  About June the House will deal with Votes for Post Office Ministers' salaries and the broadcasting Vote—that is in Claus,: 1—and by 31st December the Postmaster-General will present the Report and Accounts to Parliament, and these, of course, fall within the purview of the Public Accounts Committee. In addition, after about two years the House will be asked to pass an affirmative Resolution autho-ising borrowing up to the higher limit of Clause 10, and after a further
  270
  two years new Post Office borrowing legislation will be required.
  In other words, there will be a continuing cycle at about two-yearly intervals of Resolution, new Bill, Resolution, and so on. Finally, under Clauses 16 and 17, the Statutory Instruments authorising the fixing of tariffs will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure, and there will be always Questions and Adjournment debates. Hon. Members will, therefore, have every opportunity of satisfying themselves about the management and development of Post Office affairs.
  But the Bill, of course, is one of the most important milestones in the long history of the Post Office's development, and I think that this debate has shown that the House in general is agreed on what we are seeking to do. There has been a general recognition that the Post Office, existing as it does to give the service that is demanded at a fair price and with all possible efficiency, must continue to be a highly organised commercial undertaking. It must measure its achievements by normal commercial standards. It must be free to make quick and often adventurous decisions. Above all, it must be free to innovate and develop as a business seeking to meet and anticipate customers' commands.
  Some hon. Members have asked, "Why have a Bill?" Everybody is so satisfied with the Post Office that as an hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), asked, "Why have a Bill in these circumstances?". The present system of financial control which we are seeking to change neither helps the management of the Post Office nor provides Parliament and the public with full understanding of its policies and problems. This Bill, however, is designed to clear away all the confusion and to give full scope for business enterprise—business enterprise, as always, consistent with the public's wishes expressed through customer relations and through Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), in a stimulating speech, said he felt that we have no more freedom coming to us than we have at present. He also—I thought rather unexpectedly for an ex-tax collector—" cribbed "at the Post Office making a contribution in

  271
  taxation. I would remind him that to make a fair contribution to the services of the State is a normal thing in our national industries and that the amount we pay will be agreed.
  The hon. Member was rather worried about what would happen when there was disagreement in settling our taxation accounts. It must be agreed between the Post Office and the Inland Revenue, and, at the end of the day, it is Ministers who must settle it. I do not think that he need have any qualms in that respect.
  The hon. Member seemed to have greater difficulty over the repayment of our debt. Although we shall be going into these matters much more fully in Committee, I assure him that there is no catch in the arrangement for borrowing and reborrowing. We believe that we have come to a very good bargain with the Treasury. We have, in effect, bought the Post Office from the Treasury at the valuation in the present balance sheet, and we believe that the bargain we have made, and the arrangements for borrowing, repaying our debt and paying the interest on that debt, are in the best interests of the Post Office and of the country as a whole.
  These things will be argued out in Committee, but I can assure the House that if it comes to a question of arbitration then, of course, these matters will be settled, in the final analysis, in the Cabinet by Ministers arguing and standing up for their own Departments. The House may be well assured that my right hon. Friend will always make certain that the Post Office comes as well out of all these arrangements as it possibly can.
  Mr. C. Pannell: We find it rather intriguing that the hon. Lady should come to the Dispatch Box and say that she and her right hon. Friend have made a good bargain and have bought the Post Office. From whom has it been bought and to whom is it to be given?
  Miss Pike: That is fair enough. I was trying to draw the sort of simple analogy which people like myself, who are not very good at high finance, can understand when looking at this kind of arrangement. This Bill is, in effect, a means whereby we are transferring our accounting from one convention to another. It is a means of
  272
  clearing away many of the old traditional difficulties which people like myself found so difficult when trying to understand the position at the present time. I apologise if I oversimplified and thereby muddled the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. C. Pannell: And got a bit muddled yourself.
  Miss Pike: Hon. Members have rightly asked what we are trying to do. Clause 6 confirms the principle, that has always been implicit in Post Office policy, that for the most pant prices must be such as to cover at least the average cost of the services rendered and ensure an adequate return on the very considerable amount of capital employed. At the same time, there will be no weakening of that sense of responsibility which we are proud to bring to the discharge of the social obligations of our service. Our success will be judged by the triple yardsticks of sound finance, social obligation and quality of service.
  My right hon. Friend has already described in some detail both the financial proposals of the Bill and our plans for expansion. Judged by the yardstick of sound finance, I think that we can look forward with confidence. We accept wholeheartedly our social obligations, about which I shall have more to say later in my speech.
  To maintain the quality of our services presents many real problems with which the House is all too familiar, and it is to some of those that I would now like to turn, because, although we have had many compliments in the debate, I would not wish it to be thought that in the Post Office we were in any way complacent. We are glad of the compliments we get, but we want also to face some of the shortcomings in the quality of the services that we give.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) mentioned delays in the post to Edinburgh. If he had been less generous, he could also have mentioned some things which he had brought to my notice and delays in things like the parcel post as well. The House will realise that the poor quality of the parcel post, for example, even more than the letter post, has been a source of concern to us for some time. It is certainly slower than pre-war and seemingly inexplicable delays so often happen in transit.

  273
  Much, of course, depends on the punctual running of trains, and British Railways are always co-operating with us in improving both their handling of the mails and their time-keeping; because good time-keeping is of the utmost importance in the handling of letter mails.
  We, for our part, are tackling the problem of staff shortages which in recent months have contributed to the delays. We have set up the study group, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, to examine the whole question of the handing and conveyance of mails between post offices. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) knows, a great deal can be done in this way to measure up to the requirement; and the standards of our service. At the same time, we are pressing forward with our mechanisation plans to improve efficiency and to reduce handling costs and save tedious and irksome work in the handing of our mails.
  If it does not weary the House, I would like to give some examples of the new machines which we are now developing. There is a new machine which can take the mail brought in by the postmen from the collections and separate packets from letters and then prepare the letters for sorting. These are being manufactured and will be in service in three of our largest offices sometime this year. Seventeen of our new letter sorting machines are already in use. At Leeds, we have the most up-to-date "push-button" parcel sorting equipment in Europe. This equipment can handle more than 10,000 parcels an hour. New methods of sorting parcels mechanically are also being developed and will shortly be having their first field trials.
  Other important developments are under way, particularly that at Luton, where a new technique for sorting letters entirely automatically is being tried out. Letters are marked at the first sorting stage with a pattern of phosphorescent spots representing the address written on the envelope. These are code marks which a machine can "read". The code marked letters can then be sorted and re-sorted as often as may be necessary by automatic sorting machines which do not need operators.
  If this technique can be developed successfully, it could enable a great deal of the sorting work now being carried
  274
  out manually to be done in future by machines. It would, in fact, be a significant leap forward of tremendous value in the field of postal mechanisation; and I remind hon. Members that in this field we still lead the world in spite of tremendous competition from Russia and from America.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) mentioned security in post offices. In recent times all of us have been worried about the attacks that have been made on post offices and on the mails in general. We have made a most searching review of our security arrangements in all fields and we are co-operating closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, the British Transport Commission and the police. We have also drawn on other outside expert opinion.
  A number of new security measures are being introduced. The House will, naturally, not expect me to give precise details of those, but they improve additional protective devices on many of our vans and also on railway vans carrying mails. For Post Offices we have increased controls and we are putting in many more alarm devices. I can assure the House that we shall continue to do all we possibly can to defeat these criminal attacks on Post Offices and to consider any suggestions that hon. Members may bring forward in this respect.
  All these measures are aimed at ensuring the safe, speedy and efficient handling and transportation of mails, and can help us in future to overcome many of our problems. In recent months recruitment difficulties, particularly in Central London, have contributed to the delays. However, in common with most of the non-industrial Civil Service, the Post Office manipulative staff had a rise of 4 per cent. from 1st January, and they will also participate in the settlement reached this week in the National Whitley Council for an increase in the allowance paid to staff employed in the London area.
  There is an increase for staff employed within a 16-mile radius, and a greater increase for those working within three miles, of Charing Cross. For telephone girls working in Central London the pay increases from the beginning of this year, and, taking account of the last stage of

  275
  equal pay, range up to 30s., and for postmen in Central London up to 23s. 6d. All these changes should be of material benefit in enabling us to recruit and to retain staff, particularly in Central London where, as hon. Members know, we have had so much difficulty in recent times.
  I am sure that the House will recognise that we are concerned not only to maintain and wherever possible to improve our existing services. We are equally anxious to reflect changing public need by introducing new services, services such as the Recorded Delivery service, which comes into operation on 1st February, and a Postage Forward parcel service which we hope to introduce about the middle of the year. As hon. Members may remember, the recorded delivery service is intended to provide a cheaper alternative to registration where proof of posting and delivery are the primary requirements. The postage forward parcel service should be of particular value to the mail order firms. So much for what we are trying to do on the mail side. I hope that I have answered some of the shortcomings of which we are guilty from time to time.
  My right hon. Friend has already described in some detail the expansion and mechanisation of our telephone and Telex services, to which the hon. Member for Openshaw referred, and I think that we can be justly proud of the progress that we are making. Nevertheless, there again we are very well aware of our shortcomings.
  There has been a decline in the quality of the service at some telephone exchanges, particularly in Central London, the Continental Exchange and the Overseas Telegraph Station. This has been largely due to an exceptionally heavy increase in traffic, staff shortages, and also to an overloading of the system. There is no easy way out of these difficulties.
  Where staff shortages are the main cause of trouble, everything possible is being done to overcome them. The rates of pay of telephone operators generally have been increased, and as I have already said, improved language allowances have also been given to the Continental telephonists. Staff for London exchanges are being borrowed, and are
  276
  also being recruited from the provinces. A shorter working week and new conditions of service, which should help to make a telephonist's job more attractive, are being introduced. New training and supervision arrangements in telephone exchanges are on trial in nearly 30 exchanges. As hon. Members know, operating procedures have been reviewed to give more freedom and discretion to felephonists and so provide the customer with a service as helpful and as pleasing as possible.
  We are seeking not only to improve the quality of our service, but to meet the needs of our customers. We are introducing such things as a telephone answering set, and a hearing aid telephone, which, I think, some hon. Members have already come across. It is of particular value to deaf people, and I know at least one hon. Member who has found it of particular value; but I had better not say who it is. We are introducing a loud speaking telephone which will be of use to businessmen, and of course our telecommunications advice service is doing valuable work in helping our customers to take the greatest advantage of the facilities available. We are also seeking to improve our repair services.
  Possibly the worst thing about the telephone—anyway, for me—is having to pay for it. The telephone credit cards which we introduced last year can help us whenever we find ourselves without money in our pockets. They can be used to make calls or to send telegrams anywhere in the world, and also for calls from 51 countries abroad. Perhaps one of the most welcome things, particularly for those of us who do a great deal of talking, is the reintroduction of quarterly bills. I am glad to say that we hope that we shall have completed the changeover to quarterly accounting by 1964.
  I have tried to answer some of the questions in hon. Members' minds about the way we are facing up to our responsibilities of providing the type of service which the public needs. I hope that I have answered those questions which hon. Members have put and explained some of the causes behind our occasional failures. But, as hon. Members are well aware, in spite of our increasing mechanisation, much of our work is and always will be performed manually. By the very nature of our service we are constantly in close

  277
  personal touch with the public, and, whilst l would not wish to excuse any of our shortcomings, we all know that many of the problems about which I have been speaking and so often have to speak about in this House are human problems. We must not forget that the Post Office is made up of a large cross-section of our community and human error is universal. May I remind the House of one more quotation from Burns:
  " What's done we partly may compute. But, know not what's resisted."
  I am constantly impressed by the keenness and conscientiousness which I find in the Post Office. I believe that, in general, our management, our unions and staff as individuals have learnt to work together in an unusually effective way. I should like to pay tribute to the quality of the staff relations in the Post Office. Many hon. Members who have spoken have personal experience of working in the Post Office and personal experience of these relations. It is something of which we can be justly proud. In no other organisation can good staff relations and good management be a more essential ingredient for development and achievement. It is small wonder, therefore, that we seek to recruit the best type of men and women. To do this we must offer not only a reasonable present, but also an attractive future, for what man or woman worth his or her salt does not want to get on in the world? We do not believe in dead end jobs.
  The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) was particularly interested in our recruitment and training and opportunities for promotion. I should like to say something about our recruitment and training programmes. If we are to be the vital, energetic organisation which we must be in future we must recruit the right sort of men and women in the Post Office. For the present, we recruit at all educational levels—from the secondary modern school level to the honours graduate. Progressive promotion schemes provide a path of opportunity from the lowest level to the Post Office Board. and it is a path which more than once has been followed.
  There is a further aid to providing technologists to meet the challenging
  278
  needs of the Post Office in future. Last year, we started the scheme for student apprenticeships, to which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred. These are open to sixth form pupils of high potential and provide for a university course and systematic technical training to equip them for professional engineering posts with us. As the hon. Member said, this scheme has met with an enthusiastic response and there were, as he said, 600 applicants for the 20 apprenticeships offered. The first 20 apprentices started last autumn and we are about to embark on the selection of a further 20 this year.
  The needs of our own staff are not ignored either. Internal bursary awards provide for university courses for those with the ability to become graduate engineers or scientists. At higher levels we provide systematic management training both within the Post Office and by the use of such opportunities of contact with other organisations as the Administrative Staff Training College course and our recent successful interchange of senior staff with I.C.I. and Unilever.
  I think that hon. Members are not so much interested in the quality of the service, which is already high—indeed, as has been said, we can claim to have the best record of any postal administration in the world—as in the part played by the Post Office in present-day life. On the wall of my room at St. Martin'sle-Grand I have a copy of the Act which established the Post Office as a Government Department. It is a proclamation issued by Charles II in 1660 to "Quieten the Postmaster-General in the execution of his office." It is a far cry from that event to the stage in the evolution of the Post Office at which we have arrived today. Several hon. Members have said that at the inception of the Post Office it was never thought that it would become the social welfare department that it now is in the eyes of many people.
  Perhaps the first thing that most of us learn about the British Post Office is that in 1840 we issued the first postage stamp, the famous Penny Black, showing the head of the young Queen Victoria. Recently, our £1 stamp won the gold medal awarded for the most beautiful

  279
  stamp in the world and, again, it is a black stamp and it shows the head of our young Queen. I think that hon. Members would wish to congratulate the designer, the engravers and all concerned with the production of this very beautiful stamp.
  Although postage stamps are perhaps the first thing about which we learn in connection with the Post Office, as hon. Members have reminded me tonight, to many people "the post office" means the sub-office down the road, where they collect their pension or their allowance. There are over 23,000 sub-offices and it is scarcely to be wondered at, in a community like ours, that it is the provision of sub-post offices which seems to loom largest in my life.
  Hon. Members have asked about the balance between our commercial enterprise and our social obligations. Naturally, hon. Members wish to advance the claims of their own constituents, but I must remind them that the Post Office has to keep a national balance in this respect. I will not weary the House with all the many arguments which I so frequently have to advance in this context, but I should like to say that each case is very carefully examined. It is never a question of officials just sitting at their desks and looking at a map.
  In every instance Post Office officials have actually walked the ground themselves, and, as same hon. Members know, I sometimes walk the ground myself as well. I do not wish to enter the battle again with the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), but in the case he quoted the twins and the old people did not have to go down the hill, because there is a post office at the top of the hill to which they could go.
  We weigh these things as finely as we possibly can. Our policy governing the provision of new sub-post offices is designed to meet the public need while keeping, overhead costs within reasonable limits. As hon. Members will be aware we recently liberalised this policy. The distance standards have been retained, but they are being applied more flexibly wherever special circumstances justify the provision of an office, such as self-contained housing estates and difficult geographical positions. The hon. Mem-
  280
  ber for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) will know that I am shortly going to Leeds to look at the matters which he raised, and I assure hon. Members, once again, that such matters are looked at very carefully.
  It is not only sub-offices with which hon. Members are concerned, but also the provision of Crown offices and conditions in Crown offices.
  I cannot give the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) any assurances about the Ashton-in-Makerfield Post Office tonight or even about the Up Holland Post Office, which we have discussed so often. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are pressing ahead with the building of new Crown offices and new sorting offices. The House has, quite rightly, welcomed more than perhaps anything the fact that we are looking at older 'buildings and doing what we can to bring them up to modern standards.
  The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) said that we last debated this subject two years ago, but the hon. Member for Openshaw and I know that it was only a year ago. On that occasion we both appeared at the Dispatch Box for the first time. It was on that occasion that my right hon. Friend said that he wanted to get rid of all the aspidistra elements of our Post Office buildings.
  Plans have been going ahead to carry out the pledge my right hon. Friend then made. He has already announced a plan to modernise all public offices over the next seven or eight years. We expect that about 1,000 offices will need treatment and we expect to spend, on an average, £2,000 on each office. This means that we shall be spending up to £300,000 a year and modernising between 100 and 150 offices each year. At the same time that we are modernising the front of the offices we are modernisiing the staff accommodation, which is not seen. We take the view that it is most important that our staff should have the best and the most up Ito date accommodation in which to work.
  The provision of public telephones is another service which we judge by the yardstick of social need rather than financial considerations alone. As the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West pointed out, we are at present incurring a considerable loss on public telephones.

  281
  There are 74,000 of them and the loss on them is considerable. This year we expect to lose well over £2½ million.
  But we try to meet public need in this respect. Although I do not want to enter into a discussion on individual cases tonight, I want to remind the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West that he did not give the full picture when he talked about the telephone kiosk on the housing estate. Some time before Christmas I went to that estate and walked out the distance very slowly from the position of the telephone kiosk which had been moved to the nearest kiosk. I found that nobody, walking as slowly as possible, need walk more than five to six minutes to get to a telephone.
  What happened in that case was that we moved a telephone nearer to the old people so that they would not have to walk at all. We took the view that it would be easier for the younger people living in the other part of the estate to walk for a maximum of five minutes to get to a telephone. I say that to hon. Members to show that we do look very carefully into the provision of these services.
  Not only do we want to provide public telephones. We want to provide public telephone kiosks of contemporary design, because they are very much a part of our British scene. A new telephone kiosk of contemporary design is being produced and a new coin box which is simpler to operate has been developed. This will he used in areas where there is Subscriber Trunk dialling. Trunk calls can be dialled from this coin box, which uses 3d. pieces instead of pennies. This coin box should also help to remove queues at busy times, because it times all calls made. Hon. Members will agree with me that sometimes one of the great difficulties is that somebody is in the telephone box holding what seems to the people outside to be a quite unnecessary conversation for about an hour. It is usually men who are doing this.
  One of the other Things which I have not mentioned in connection with services to the public is that we are, as my right hon. Friend said, doing all we can to get rid of queues in public offices, because we take the view that if we are to give the best possible service to the public we must give it as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
  282
  While I am on the question of queues I want to point out once more to hon. Members that these, so often happen at lunch time. Post Office staff have to eat at lunch time just like anyone else. It is a very difficult time for us. We are looking at the canteen arrangements as carefully as we can, but I am sure that no one would wish to suggest that Post Office employees should not have an adequate lunch time, even though at times it means some difficulties in busy places. I will not weary the House with any more points on that aspect of our service.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned, as did the hon. Member for Openshaw, the great developments in our automatic Telex service. I remind the House that apart from the conventional uses of this service there is a growing interest in using Telex to transmit data for centralised processing by machines and computers. There is also a growing awareness of the advantages of teleprinter working, in particular by public authorities, and networks are being provided and modernised for many police, ambulance and fire authorities. New techniques, including the use of electronic devices, are being developed and a new teleprinter, which is considerably lighter and smaller, is also being designed.
  Electronics are also coming into the telephone field. In conjunction with leading manufacturers we are going ahead with the development of electronic telephone exchanges. Progress has been encouraging, and the first exchange—an experimental one—is expected to be completed early next year at Highgate Wood. This will be among the first electronic telephone exchanges to be brought into service in the world.
  No mention has been made in the debate of the very important part played by our overseas telecommunications, but it is worth while drawing the attention of the House to the developments which have been going on here because in the overseas field technical developments are perhaps even more striking than in the inland service. We realise that what we can do here will be of great value to the export trade of this country. Overseas facilities are being rapidly increased. A telephone cable between the United Kingdom and Sweden was opened in the autumn of last year. New cables with the Continent are being planned and another trans-Atlantic cable, which will

  283
  carry 128 telephone conversations simultaneously, will be, laid between the United Kingdom and the United States in 1963.
  In partnership with Cable and Wireless Ltd., the Post Office is strengthening communications with Commonwealth countries; a new cable between Canada and the United Kingdom will be completed in 1961; and a cable linking Australia with New Zealand and Canada will be laid between 1962 and 1964. Other cable links between Commonwealth countries are being planned.
  While we are pressing on with these plans so that we may fulfil the overseas communications requirements of the present and the immediate future, it is, as the hon. Members for Acton (Mr. Holland) and Openshaw have reminded us, the possibility of satellite communications which perhaps presents the most exciting prospects. The Post Office is keenly interested in this development. We firmly believe that the technical problems will be solved and that satellite communications will play a great part in the future development of international communications.
  Nevertheless, I think that a word of caution is necessary about the economics of satellite communications. There can be little doubt that a successful satellite system would make possible a great increase in the capacity available for international communications; 600 simultaneous telephone conversations would probably be well within its capabilities, compared with fewer than 100 on existing types of transoceanic cable. But it is one thing to say this and quite another to say that traffic even at reduced rates of charge, may be expected to increase sufficiently to use this large capacity to the full.
  It is considerations of this kind, together with the uncertainties about the cost of a satellite system, and not least the uncertainties about the life of satellites and the frequency with which they will have to be replaced, which make it difficult to estimate the economics of this type of system. As I said, the prospects are exciting, but I think that we should all be well advised to keep our feet firmly on the ground when we talk about economics.
  I hope that I have answered most of the queries raised by hon. Members, al-
  284
  though I am conscious that I have not gone into the detailed points raised in particular by the hon. Member for Sowerby. As the hour is getting late I felt that, possibly, it would be better if we dealt with most of these in Committee.
  I would like to say one more thing about the debt which we have been incurring. Some other hon. Members have queried twenty-five years as not being a reasonable time in which to pay off this debt. I believe that, on the whole, twenty-five years represents the life of assets, but there is nothing fixed about this twenty-five-year period. At the end of twenty-five years we reborrow. That is the same sort of practice as the nationalised industries have and, at the end, one simply gets a fair average rate of interest, taking the higher interest rates with the low interest rate. These are matters which we shall be going into more fully in Committee.
  One other question which was very much in the minds of hon. Members was the Civil Service status of our staff, and whether any changes would be made in that respect. I can assure hon. Members. particularly the hon. Member who asked me whether the staff had been consulted, that the staff have been in full consultation, so I believe, and are in full agree-men with our proposals. At least, there has been no significant comment on this particular score.
  The hon. Member for Openshaw asked me whether the Bill would make it possible to have clearer accounts. I am glad, as my hon. Friend has already indicated, that it will make it possible in the future for us to have accounts which both he and I can understand. The Civil Service status of our staff in no way affects the present wage negotiation position. In fact, the position will be exactly the same after status as it was before. After status we shall be free to establish our own labour force and shall not be subject to Treasury control as to the number of staff employed, as we are at present.
  I hope that I have covered most of the questions asked by right hon. and hon. Members. I would like to thank hon. Members for the constructive approach that they have made to our problems, even when it comes to asking me to walk up and down hills to look at sub-post offices.

  285
  In conclusion, our main objective in everything we undertake must be to satisfy our customers. We must give them a good service and be ready to innovate for their benefit. I have tried to show how the Post Office is facing up to the demands made on it by the complex and increasing needs of modern society. We are already a vigorous and progressive organisation, but we cannot perform a full efficiency while we are weighed down by the present traditional procedures and controls which obscure the true basis of Post Office operations. I believe that they are inappropriate to a commercial status.
  The Bill aims to remove these handicaps and I commend it to the House as a Measure which will bring to the Post Office both opportunity and incentive and which will bring to the public an even higher standard of service.
  Mr. T. Brown: Before the Question is put, may I ask the hon. Lady one question? It is not my intention to strike a discordant note in what has been a very harmonious debate. Could the hon. Lady give the people of Ashton-in-Makerfield some assurance that in the near future the Crown Post Office, for which they have been waiting thirty years, will be conceded, or are they to be asked to be like Dante to Beatrice and to abandon all hope of a Crown Post Office?
  Miss Pike: I hope that I have said enough tonight to assure hon. Members how very closely and carefully these matters are gone into. I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to give any categorical assurances tonight as to when we expect to do things. All I can say is that it is our desire and wish to give the public the best possible service that we can. Within that concept of service we believe the right sort of provision for Post Offices and sub-post offices should be one of the most important things that we should consider.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  POST OFFICE [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAYin the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to reorganise the financial arrangements of the Post Office, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of—

  (a) any sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling any guarantee given by them in respect of the repayment of the principal of, or the Payment of interest on, any loan raised by the Postmaster General from the Bank of England:

  (b) any sums required by the Treasury for the purpose of their making advances to the Postmaster General in order to provide him with money for meeting expenditure incurred by him which is properly chargeable to capital account or with working capital;

  (c) any sums required by the Treasury for paying off any amount shown, in the last Post Office commercial accounts, as representing a liability to the Post Office of the Exchequer on current account or for making payments by way of interest on so much of that amount as remains for the time being outstanding;

  (d) such sums as are required to pay the terminable annuities which, in consequence of the passing of the Post Office money enactments, are outstanding at the commencement of the said Act of the present Session in favour of the National Debt Commissioners;

  (e) any sums required by the Treasury to pay the Postmaster General for the performance of the functions conferred on him under the National Debt Act, 1958:

  (f) any sums paid into the Exchequer by way of repayment of, or payment of interest on, sums issued under the authority of sub-paragraph (h) above or by way of the payment off of any amount shown in the last Post Office commercial accounts as representing a liability of the Post Office to the Exchequer on capital account or the making of payments by way of interest on so much of that amount as remains for the time being outstanding;

  (2) the application of any sums issued under the authority of sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph (I) above

  (a) in so far as they represent principal, in redemption or repayment of debt;

  (b) in so far as they represent interest, towards meeting such part of the annual charges for the National Debt as represents interest;

  (3) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required—

  (a) by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, for the making by him of payments for work done by the Postmaster General in the execution of the Family Allowances Acts, 1945 to 1959, the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1959, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts, 1946 to 1959, the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act, 1951, the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Acts, 1951 and 1954, and the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Supplementation) Act, 1956;

  (b) by the National Assistance Board, for the making by them of payments for work done by the Postmaster General in the execution of the Old Age Pensions Act. 1936, and Part II of the National Assistance Act, 1948;

  (c) by the Minister of Transport, for the making by him of payments to the Postmaster General for work done in the execution of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949;

  (d) by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, for the making by him of payments to the Postmaster General for work done in connection with the issue, in England and Wales, of licences under the Dog Licences Act, 1959, and of licences to deal in game, for killing game and for guns;

  and that for the purposes of this Resolution "the last Post Office commercial accounts" and "the Post Office money enactments" shall be taken to mean respectively the accounts which, in pursuance of section five of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1921, are prepared in relation to the Post Office in respect of the twelve months ending with the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, and the Acts passed during the years nineteen hundred and thirty-five to nineteen hundred and fifty-nine inclusive the short title of each of which consists of the words "The Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act" followed by the year in which it was passed and section five of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Act, 1949.—[Miss Pike.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.
  WAYS AND MEANS Considered in Committee.
  [Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  POST OFFICE
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to reorganise the financial arrangements of the Post Office, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of—

  (a) any sums required by that Act to be paid by the Postmaster General for
  288
  securing that there is contributed to the Exchequers of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland as nearly as may be what would be contributed thereto,—

  (i) by way of taxes, duties, fees and other imposts (except stamp duty) but for the exemptions which by law are enjoyed by the Postmaster General from liability thereto and from liability to comply with enactments compliance with which would involve the payment of imposts (with the exception aforesaid);

  (ii) by way of stamp duty, but for paragraph (9) of the list of exemptions set out in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, at the end of the heading "Bill of Exchange of any kind whatsoever (except a bank note) and Promissory Note of any kind whatsoever (except a bank note)", paragraph (3) of the list of exemptions set out, in that Schedule, at the end of the heading "Receipt", and section eighty-four of the Post Office Act, 1953;

  (b) any sums received by the Postmaster General by way of broadcast receiving licence revenue;

  (c) any sums received by the Postmaster General under section seventy-three of the Post Office Act, 1953 (both as originally enacted and as applied by subsection (5) of section fourteen of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949), and any sums received by him under section thirty-five of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890;

  (d) any sums received by the Treasury by way of the repayment of, or the payment of interest on,—

  (i) any sum issued out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of fulfilling any guarantee given by the Treasury in respect of the repayment of the principal of, or the payment of interest on, any loan raised by the Postmaster General from the Bank of England; or

  (ii) any advance made by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund to the Postmaster General in order to provide him with money for meeting any expenditure incurred by him which is properly chargeable to capital account or with working capital;

  (e) any sums required by the said Act of the present Session to be paid by the Postmaster General by way of—

  (i) payment off of any amount shown in the last Post Office commercial accounts as representing liabilities of the Post Office to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom (whether on capital or current account); or

  (ii) interest on so much of any such amount as remains for the time being outstanding; and

  (f) any sums required by the said Act of the present Session to be paid by the Postmaster General in respect of liabilities accruing to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom in respect of the payment of pensions, gratuities, allowances and other like

  289
  benefits, in so far as those liabilities are referable to the service of persons in the Post Office; and

  (2) the raising, under the National Loans Act, 1939, of money required for any of the following purposes, namely,—

  (a) providing sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for making advances to the Postmaster General in order to provide him with money for meeting expenditure incurred by him which is properly chargeable to capital account or with working capital;

  (b) providing so much of any sums to be so issued for paying the terminable annuities which, in consequence of the passing of the Post Office money enactments, are outstanding at the commencement of the said Act of the present Session in favour of the National Debt Commissioners as represents principal;

  (c) providing for the replacement of sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph or the replacement of so much of sums so issued for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph as represents principal;

  and that for the purposes of this Resolution "the last Post Office commercial accounts" and "the Post Office money enactments" shall be taken to mean respectively the accounts which, in pursuance of section five of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1921, are prepared in relation to the Post Office in respect of the twelve months ending with the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, and the Acts passed during the years nineteen hundred and thirty-five to nineteen hundred and fifty-nine inclusive the short title of each of which consists of the words "The Posit Office and Telegraph (Money) Act" followed by the year in which it was passed and section five of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Act, 1949.—[Miss Pike.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ETC. (PENSIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.37 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This short Bill seeks to enable the Agricultural Research Council, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make contributory unfunded superannuation schemes for the staffs of certain agricultural institutions, and certain agricultural colleges in Scotland, which are financed wholly or partly by those authorities. The Bill is needed for technical reasons, and I will briefly give the background.
  The Barlow Report of 1945 on the Scientific Civil Service was adopted by the Government of the day, and its terms were also applied to the staffs of the State-supported agricultural research institutes. It was envisaged that the agricultural research scientist should have parity with his Civil Service counterpart in all matters relating to conditions of service. Until 1953 this meant, in relation to pensions, that the pension arrangements of the Federated Superannuation System for Universities—normally known as F.S.S.U. or similar arrangements were applied, and these provided benefits related to contributions throughout the member's career.
  In 1953, however, large numbers of F.S.S.U. civil servants were enabled to exchange their F.S.S.U. cover for the pensions arrangements applying to the Civil Service generally under the Superannuation Acts. These provide benefits related to pay during the last three years of service. It is, perhaps, debatable which of the two systems is the better in present conditions and in every case, but there has been pressure for some time from those of the staff of the various institutes, and particularly those financed or grant-aided by the Agricultural Research Council, who have felt that something on the lines of the Superannuation Acts arrangements would be more suitable.

  291
  There has been pressure, too, from industrial staff at the institutes for pension arrangements to be extended to them. I do not say that it would have been impossible to do anything towards suCh changes without this Bill, but unless we have it, we are unable to adopt the most economical method. For instance, an alternative would be to operate a pension fund, but this is unnecessary if the pensions are payable from the same source as the grants to these institutes and colleges—that is, from the Agricultural Research Fund in the case of the staff of those under the aegis of the Agricultural Research Council, and from the Exchequer in the other cases. As the House will appreciate from the Bill, one of its effects will be to authorise this.
  On the other hand, unless employees' contributions are required under statute, the effect of such arrangements would be to deprive the employee of tax relief on his pension contributions on the scale which would operate if the benefits were payable from separate pension funds. By virtue of this Bill these contributions will be so required and the employee's position will thus be safeguarded.
  Since the Bill is only an enabling Measure, it involves no commitments as to the form of the pension provisions which could be made under it. This would be a matter for discussion with the staff interests. What is envisaged at present is that, wherever this would be a general improvement on the present situation, schemes producing benefits broadly comparable with those of major public services such as the Civil Service would be offered.
  I accordingly invite the House to give this Bill a Second Reading in order that any new schemes agreed upon may take effect at the earliest possible date.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: We welcome this Bill, as we welcome any Measure which helps to improve the conditions of those who serve our greatest industry in institutions and colleges.
  I think it is generally agreed that agriculture in this country has reached a stage in Which its further development can come about chiefly as a result of the work of men and women in institutions and colleges such as are covered
  292
  by this Bill, and, of course, if that is to be so we must encourage good men and women to be on the staffs of these institutions.
  There are one or two points that I should like to raise. First, I should like to know how many employees will be covered by this arrangement. Secondly, if a member of the staff wishes to continue in his existing superannuation scheme, will he be allowed to do so? I cannot see anything in the Bill which would safeguard this right, and I should like to know whether such a person could do that. I was very glad to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say that since this is an enabling Measure and since regulations will be made, the form of the pension provisions would be a matter for consultation with the staff. Again that is not covered in the Bill. We rely on Ministerial assurances for this, and I am very glad that we have had such an assurance because it is most important that Ministries should work closely with the staff organisations on such matters. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assurance on that point.
  I understand that in Scotland there is a wider variety of superannuation schemes at present among the staffs employed in the Scottish agricultural colleges, and I should like to know what problems there are likely to be in Scotland. I see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland here. know that he has had to miss his Burns Night haggis, bannocks, taties, turnips and whisky to wash it all down. I feel that since he is here he should at least feel that his journey has been necessary and that he will assure us on these points.
  We welcome the Bill. We will consider it in Committee and see whether there are other points which we should like to raise.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I, too, from this side of the House wish to be associated with what has been said, but I have one question to put on a matter which is not made at all clear by the Bill, as I read it. The Report of the Agricultural Research Council, presented to the House in June, 1960, shows that during the financial year 1958–59 Parliament provided a total, in round figures, of £4·1 million as a grant in aid for the

  293
  Agricultural Research Fund. I take it that if anything is taken out of the fund for this pension scheme those moneys will be replaced and there will not as a result be any reduction in the amount for pure agricultural research. I should like an assurance about that.
  I do not want to weary the House or make a long speech about something the importance of which is obvious, but I sometimes feel that the amazing amount of work which is done by the Agricultural Research Council now is not always appreciated, and many of us on both sides of the House do not understand the full measure of responsibility which the Council carries in the matter of the quality and quantity of our food and the other things with which it deals.
  Also, as is made clear in the final pages of the Council's Report, since 1946 the fall-out of Strontium-90 has made necessary increases in staff, and there is a real problem throughout the country in this respect. Fortnightly, our milk and other food supplies are monitored, and for this work we want the very best men and women in research that we can have. Only if we provide the best conditions will we have them. We want skilled scientists to take up this kind of work in applied research rather than go to industry to find out whose detergent washes whiter than white.
  I hope the Joint Under-Secretary of State will make clear that, if necessary, the House will be asked to increase the funds for real research and that there will be no limitation in those funds as a result of contributions originally given for the purpose of scientific research being taken out to cover the pensions.
  Mr. John Brewis: Do the provisions of the Bill apply also to scientists engaged in forestry research? In Scotland, we have just about as much forestry as there is in the whole of England and Wales, and I want to be sure that scientists engaged in forestry will be covered by the scheme.
  Mr. Tudor Watkins: In any breakdown of the figures between England, Wales and Scotland. England and Wales are usually lumped together. May we have a breakdown showing the figure for Wales so that I may once again emphasise that there are hardly any research facilities in Wales?
  9.49 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I have taken a note of the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins).
  The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) is quite correct in his assumption. The money will be replenished and there will be no diminution in the money devoted to agricultural research as a result of this proposal.
  The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) is that forestry research will not be covered. I understand that people in forestry research are already covered by a scheme which is analogous to the Civil Service scheme.
  The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) raised two points. First, he asked about the actual numbers to be dealt with. In the United Kingdom as a whole, there are about 5,700, or a fraction less. Of these, about 3.850 are non-industrial and about 1,800 are industrial.
  The only purely Scottish point in the Bill relates to the inclusion of the agricultural colleges in Scotland. This arises from the fact that the Scottish colleges have a dual rôle: in addition to teaching, they are responsible for the Government's agricultural advisory services to farmers. In England these are carried out by the National Agricultural Advisory Service, under the Ministry of Agriculture, so that the people engaged on this work in England have Civil Service pension rights. It seems fair that the staff of the Scottish agricultural colleges, who are doing similar work, as well as those in our research institutions, should have a pension position as nearly as possible in line with that of their English counterparts.
  Finally, I can give an assurance that there will be no difficulty about the existing pension rights of the people in these services under any new scheme. Those existing rights will be preserved.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ETC. (PENSIONS) [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Major SIR WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for contributory pension schemes in respect of persons employed at certain agricultural institutions and colleges financed wholly or partly out of public funds, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for making payments under such a scheme; and

  (2) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Secretary of State or the said Minister under such a scheme.—[Mr. Vane.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  SHERIFFS' PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Maclay.]

  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Maclay.]

  CONSOLIDATION ETC., BILLS
  Lords Message [24th January] relating to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills (including Bills for Consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills, and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure), Act, 1949, to be considered forthwith.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Select Committee of Six Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills (including Bills for Consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills, and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session, together with the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the Act:
  Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Charles Doughty, Sir Barnett Janner, Sir Hugh Linstead, Mr. James McInnes, and Mr. Oliver:
  Power to send for persons, papers, and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:
  Three to be the Quorum.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

  NURSES (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to nurses for the sick, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section twenty-six of the Nurses Act, 1957, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session authorising the General Nursing Council for England and Wales to make payments to members of any committee of that Council who, for the purpose of enabling them to perform their duties, have suffered loss of earnings or incurred additional expenses.
  Resolution agreed to.

  Sir Kenneth Pickthorn added to the Committee of Privileges.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

  TRANSPORT COMMISSION (ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. James Watts: In the last Session of Parliament, I protested against the expense incurred by the British Transport Commission in giving a party to celebrate the electrification of thirty-eight miles of railway between Manchester and Crewe. Six hundred people were asked to luncheon and many more were transported at the expense of British Railways from London to Crewe and back and from Crewe to Manchester and return in a special train. The Transport Commission refused to tell me the cost on the ground that it was day-to-day administration. I said that this meant that the principle that grievance must precede Supply, the enforcement of which is one of the major reasons why Members of Parliament are sent here, had been changed to a new one, that Supply is to precede grievance.
  Since then, two more parties have been held, one at the Abercorn Rooms, which the Lord Mayor of London attended and at which the Press reported that there were 270 guests to celebrate the electrification of part of the London-Chelmsford line. Inauguration of the Trans-Pennine Express took place in a special train which went on 29th December from Manchester to Leeds and back and consisted of six coaches and a buffet car. I am told that the train was only half full.
  I have been denied details of the cost in a letter from the divisional transport manager dated 20th December, in which he said:
  " As I emphasised in my letter of the 14th instant, the matter is in accord with normal commercial practice. Everything we do to increase our net receipts can only be to the advantage of the industry and to those who are dependent upon it."
  I do not think that it is in accord with normal commercial practice to send out a special train of six coaches and a buffet car to inaugurate a new service and to fill only part of it. In this case, British Railways operate a monopoly—British European Airways do not com-
  298
  pete—and because of the congestion of the roads in these built-up areas, nobody would go on direct journeys to Leeds or Hull from Manchester or Liverpool except by express train.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport wrote to me about the Manchester-Crewe party that it boosted morale. I suppose he thinks that the same is true of all three parties. I am led to believe that these parties have done exactly the opposite, for they have been given at a time when a reverse attitude is taken to the claims of super-annuitants from the supervisory staffs and the needs of old members of the wages staff who are too old to come into the new pension scheme.
  The supervisory staff superannuitants who retired before 1948 and were exempted from contributing to National Insurance get no National Insurance benefit at all. Those who come under Class III get only £158 a year in superannuation, which is £89 less than the £247 a year which married couples will receive in retirement pension from April next.
  These people, who were managers in various parts of British Railways and who, like all retired persons, pay visits to the people who are still in work, naturally discuss the two attitudes. The first is that when the industry is £600 million in deficit and is losing £100 million a year, the Ministry of Transport supports the Transport Commission in giving to 1,000 people expensive parties in the last two or three months in the most public way. The second is that the Ministry turned down a scheme from the Commission in December, 1959, to help superannuitants. On 4th July, 1960, six months after the scheme had been put up, dtiring which time no decision had been reached—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Sharpies.]
  Mr. Watts: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in the House that the Minister
  " would prefer to have some indication of the amount of expenditure which the Commission

  299
  was envisaging before he could take any decision upon it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 191.]
  But we do not know why there had been a delay of six months from December of 1959 until July of last year. Since then all plans have been in abeyance because of the investigation by the Stedeford Committee. Nor can I find in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings any reference to a possible betterment of the condition of the super-annuitants. I agree, of course, that categorically the expense of trips and the finances of insurance funds are, in the words of the Minister, "unconnected", but though this is financially true, I submit they are very much connected with reference to morale.
  Mr. R. A. Blood, the chairman of the British Railways Superannuitants' Association, Manchester and District Branch, has written these words in a letter to me dated 21st January discussing the two attitudes. Here I wish to say that I think that if he had been in the House this afternoon and heard my hon. Friend say that the Transport Commission and the Ministry had a moral duty to look after these people and that legislation was not at all necessary because he really was taking the matter into consideration he might not have written me quite so bitterly but this is a new word of encouragement that we have had from the Front Bench at Question Time this afternoon, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the Ministry had a moral duty to look after these people, that legislation was not necessary, and that the matter was under consideration. If that is true the words that he wrote me might be modified, but what he wrote me was this:
  " We had a meeting with the Minister of Transport on 16th December last and our deputation came away very despondent. I wish Mr. Ernest Marples was as earnest as his name would imply and I also wish I could refer him to the, National Assistance Board as he referred us."
  Mr. Blood sent me the minute of the meeting which confirms this quotation. It reads:
  " 16th December. Meeting between British Railways superannuitants and the Minister of Transport in the House of Commons. The Minister recalled that he had been Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and knew from personal experience
  300
  of people's reluctance to resort to State assistance. He felt however that he must stress the benefits to be gained from National Assistance by those persons who are really in difficulties. It was a remedy which was flexible and applicable where it was needed and administered fairly and humanely."
  If this is the answer to the British Transport Commission's proposals of December, 1959, for the benefit of retired supervisory staff it is a remarkable contradiction of the attitude of the Ministry to entertainment, but, of course, the same is true of the condition of the wages staff who are too old to come into the 1954 pension scheme and they will receive 9s. 9d. a week when they reach 65 after 40 years' service and retire, though they will in addition get National Assistance.
  My submission, therefore, is that these entertainments should cease when the railways are in deficit, and that it will aid morale if they are discontinued till the needs of aged superannuitants and wages staff are released from the need to seek aid from the National Assistance Board.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: There is a great deal to be said for stressing the case for railway super-annuitants. I have been associated With two Motions on the Order Paper stressing the claims for railways superannuitants because they live in a plight which one would wish did not exist in this country.
  [That this House, recognising that the resources of Railway Superannuation Funds have been insufficient to preserve the real purchasing power of the rates of benefit paid to members of such funds and totally inadequate to ensure that railway superannuitants received a share in the growing prosperity of the nation, as have National Insurance superannuitants, requests Her Majesty's Government to include in their plans for the reorganisation of British Railways measures to alleviate the economic plight of railway super-annuitants.]
  [That this House, being of opinion that exceptional hardship has resulted to British Railways Superannuitants, many of whom are not in receipt of National Insurance benefits, in a period of declining money values, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring forward proposals for the alleviation of this hardship.]

  301
  I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) that it is a poor reward for forty years' service if one gets a pension of 9s. 9d. per week. But I also remind him that for thirty of those years the man must have been working for a private railway system. I agree that that is no excuse now that it has become a public concern and that one should not trade on the misdemeanours of those who ran the railways under private enterprise, but I wish that he could have said that the people who had the railways in the past had made adequate provision for these pensioners. If they had done so, then this extra burden would not have been placed on the industry when it was taken into public hands.
  One of the reasons why the industry was taken into public hands was its past masters' failure not only to provide an adequate railway transport system, but also adequate and decent conditions for those whom they employed. If we start off with that understanding, then I can well understand the hon. Gentleman raising this case tonight. I agree with him that something ought to be done. I have been saying so for a long time. On the other hand, it is just a little mean to tack on to this special case—because there is a very substantial case for the superannuitants—an attempt to besmirch the Transport Commission for a little entertainment which it has carried out.
  The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that today in every form of business this type of entertainment goes on, and, indeed, when we read of and hear and see the tremendous entertainment carried out by certain private business with a view to attracting new business and, I hope, providing better work and conditions for the people it employs and contrast it with the small effort by the Transport Commission, then to use that effort as a peg on which to hang the case for superannuitants does the case no good.
  Only this afternoon, when we were discussing the affairs of the Post Office, the complaint from the benches opposite was the very opposite. Hon. Members opposite said that the Post Office was not using up-to-date commercial methods to attract new customers. Indeed, they suggested that the Post Office should go out to meet the public and to attract the
  302
  public and even sell it telephones which. apparently, are non-existent. The argument was that the Post Office was not up-to-date in its methods.
  The British Transport Commission, in the face of great difficulties, introduced new services. Those of us who were cursed for so many years with the old trains are delighted with the new diesel engines we have, and it was a very good thing to popularise them and to attract the public to them. The result has been, in my part of the country, that these services have attracted thousands of new customers. The Commission's efforts should not be maligned in this way.
  It would have been much better if the hon. Gentleman had concentrated his case on the superannuitants and the pensioners, because there he has a substantial case. This is the second time he has raised the subject and the same point. The entertainment we are discussing tonight is the entertainment we discussed three months ago. I am told that the hon. Member for Moss Side is a little disappointed—
  NIL George Lawson: He did not get an invitation.
  Mr. Hoy: He was invited, but he did not accept the invitation. Perhaps he did not appreciate that the entertainment was to be so good. At least, it was done with the good intention of creating new industry for the railways. I hope that it will create new industry and attract new passengers and that, as a result of it, there will be a substantial improvement in the position of the superannuitants and other pensioners.
  I was heartened earlier today when the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), said that this matter was being actively considered. That made two successive days on which statements have been made to prove that that is the case. Whichever party occupies the Treasury Front Bench, the House is often given the answer that a matter is under active consideration, but I think that on this occasion we have had proof that that is the case.
  I hope that the superannuitants will get all they want, but it does not help the case which we are trying to make when attempts are made to use a small issue of this kind to make a contrast and to

  303
  create ill-feeling which ought not and does not need to exist.
  10.11 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: As previously, I put great emphasis on the need to apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, to railway superannuitants. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), I drew some encouragement from the Answer of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side today. Having given us a lead, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will expect us to keep up the pressure. I am looking forward to the time when this battle is won.
  In case the Parliamentary Secretary overlooked yesterday's debate, I contrast the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport with that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Yesterday, we were discussing pensioners of the Colonial Service who have not yet received benefits from the 1959 pensions legislation. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, after a somewhat heated debate, in sympathetic terms pointed out that those pensioners could no obtain the benefits of the 1959 legislation because they were the responsibility of other territories. The implication was that if they had been the responsibility of the home Government, he would have seen that their legitimate claims were met. If that is so, I can see no reason why the Minister of Transport should not accept responsibility for these pensioners who are entirely the responsibility of the home Government.
  I do not dissociate myself from the railwaymen's claim for increased wages. Railwaymen have always had a raw deal and have always had to fight for what they have got. They were among the country's best servants during the war. When other big unions make their claims, Ministers hurry round to try to avert strikes.
  Along came the old servants who served us during the war, who had nobody to speak for them but this House, and whose pensions have been eroded—for which we all have some responsibility —and all that happens is that we are told by the Minister of Transport, against the
  304
  advice of the Chairman of the British Transport Commission—and I think that Sir Brian Robertson has played his part magnificently in this case—that nothing can be done. It is absolutely scandalous.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side said, the treatment of old servants is discussed by the people now working on the railways. We are repeatedly told that we cannot recruit responsible men to the railways. Of course not. They know how their grandfathers and fathers are being treated, and that affects their morale. It is a perfectly ridiculous situation, most unfair, most unjust, and I cannot see the slightest justification for it.
  The Government have had to undertake the expenditure of £40 million because of the increase in railwaymen's wages. They hope now that they will get the best type of men into the railways, yet the people who during the war helped to run the railways, in the face of the enemy, are neglected because they have only a few voices to speak for them in the House of Commons.
  It is simply disgraceful, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will study the sympathetic way in which the case for colonial pensioners was received by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. If my right hon. Friend were as sympathetic and as co-operative as the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the case of the railways superannuitants would not wait very long before being settled.
  I cannot believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has really had the case put to him. I wrote to the Chairman of the Stedeford Committee, or whatever it is, this great big business organisation headed by one of the great men who is supposed to know how to organise things, and as far as I know he did not make a single recommendation on this matter. That is how he thinks railway servants ought to be treated. If he did make a recommendation, I think that my hon. Friend ought to say so to clear his character. I have no use for any of them, and I can only hope that before long this claim will be met.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I begin by thanking my hon.

  305
  Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) for having had the courtesy to give me advance notice of the points that he proposed to raise tonight.
  As the hon. Member for Edinburgh Leith (Mr. Hoy) said, this is not the first time that my hon. Friend has raised an issue of this character. On 1st November we had a debate when he raised the question of entertainment provided by the British Transport Commission in respect of the opening of the Manchester-Crewe electrification scheme. I was obliged then, as I am afraid I am obliged tonight, to tell him that this was clearly a matter of the day-to-day administration of the British Transport Commission which Parliament had deliberately excluded from the ambit of Ministerial control.
  As I think the House knows, under the 1947 Transport Act the Minister has only two major powers in relation to this sort of thing. The first is to give the Commission a general direction, on a matter which appears to him 'to be of national interest, to do something or to discontinue something it is doing. It is clear that this issue of entertainment could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be brought within that power.
  The second power which my right hon. Friend has is to ask the Commission for information on a matter which he considers is of national or intrinsic importance. I must tell my hon. Friend again that the Minister of Transport does not take the view that the issue of entertainment expenses is a matter on which he is justified in calling on the Commission for information. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith put his finger on the point when he said that the Commission, because it is a nationalised industry, is in no different position from that of private industry and commerce, which customarily engages in what I believe is called in the jargon promotional expenditure to try to raise business. In our view—and I am sure that hon. Members opposite share this view—because an industry is publicly owned, that does not automatically disqualify it from all the techniques and practices of publicising itself, its activities and services in the hope, often the justifiable hope, of increasing its business. At a time when the railways are and have been losing a considerable amount of money and the taxpayers have
  306
  been obliged, in order to keep the service going, to provide substantial sums by way of direct subsidy, I think that anything that the Commission, in its various activities, can do to increase its revenue should be applauded rather than attacked.
  That briefly is my position tonight. If the issue of the railway superannuitants had not been raised I should at this point have sat down. However, since my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith, has raised the issue of the superannuitants, I ought to make one or two further observations. My hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side said that, until such time as the lot of the railway superannuitants has been improved by increases in their pensions by the Commission, all this promotional expenditure should stop. Even if that were accepted, I think that the House can be in little doubt that the amount of money which would be saved would be minimal compared with the amount which would have to be found to meet in full the demands of all the super-annuitants. It would really be a drop in the ocean. I therefore hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will feel that that is not a proposition which is tenable.
  However, as I said at Question Time today, the position of the superannuitants is under discussion between my right hon. Friend's Department and the Transport Commission. I cannot add anything tonight to what I said this afternoon, at any rate on this point. However, I should like to say something about responsibility to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and to my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side, who, I think, relying only on his memory, rather misrepresented, quite innocently, what I said this afternoon. I have obtained a copy of the report of what was said at Question Time this afternoon, and I find that what was said was this. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), in a supplementary question asked:
  " Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is a very strong moral claim? Whatever the financial difficulties of implementing it, will he do his best to help the British Transport Commission to do something for these men?"

  307
  I replied:
  " Yes. We have never been in any doubt as to the moral claim of many of these pensioners. It has been largely a question of finance."
  I shall stop there because the remainder of it is not strictly relevant to my point.
  I wish to put that on record again, because it is not right to say that we in the Ministry of Transport accept responsibility for the superannuitants. We have a good deal of say in the matter. I do not deny that. We have some influence and we have some degree of responsibility, albeit a little remote, but the major responsibility rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Commission, because, as the hon. Member for Leith said, it is the successor to the old main line railway company, and the superannuation funds were taken over from those companies.
  The superannuitants, to whom, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth, I pay tribute for the work which they did for the nation both during and for many years before the war, nevertheless are not in the category of public servants in exactly the same way as civil servants. So, therefore, their situation is a lithe different. Their superannuation payments come from the funds of the Commission and not from the funds of the Government. Of course, that makes it a little difficult for these matters to be treated quite as simply as some hon. Members would sometimes have us believe.
  Dame Irene Ward: Is it not a fact that under the 1947 Act the Minister has powers of direction to the Commission if he cares to use them?
  Mr. Hay: With respect to my hon. Friend, the position is somewhat more complicated than that. I have looked at this today and, as I understand it—I speak subject to correction because I have not the details before me—the position is that the Minister has not power to make a direction on this particular point. I think it is that his consent or approval is required in certain circumstances if the Commission wishes to increase the superannuation payments—
  Dame Irene Ward: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, may I complete that by
  308
  saying that the predecessor of the present Minister—that is my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Defence —when I was discussing the position with him and before my right hon. Friend took over as "boss", informed me that he had powers of direction but, in view of the financial position of the British Transport Commission at that time, he did not feel that it would be fair to exercise that.
  Mr. Hay: I will look into the point, I cannot say fairer than that. I may be wrong—
  Dame Irene Ward: You are.
  Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend is seldom backward in telling Ministers when they are wrong, and she has not been backward again tonight.
  I speak from memory, but I think that the position is as I have stated. I wish to put on record that the Minister cannot accept either a legal or a moral duty to increase the pensions of the super-annuitants because, as I said, their payment comes not out of public funds. In any event, as I said this afternoon, the whole problem of superannuitants is being discussed at present and I cannot anticipate any further statements which will be made. We have had this matter very much in mind in the course of the last twelve months during which we have been investigating the whole situation of the Commission and trying to formulate the proposals we have now presented to Parliament.
  Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman says they are discussing this at the present time. May we have it made perfectly clear? Does he mean that at present discussions are going on between the Ministry and the Commission?
  Mr. Hay: The actual words I used this afternoon in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side were:
  " the possibility of further supplementation is under discussion with the British Transport Commission at the moment."
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

ROADS
  Road Programme
  Road Programme
  Central London
  Central London
  Preston and Lancaster Bypasses (Motorway Link)
  Preston and Lancaster Bypasses (Motorway Link)
  Pontypridd (Town Centre Diversion)
  Pontypridd (Town Centre Diversion)
  North Circular Road
  North Circular Road
  Tolls
  Tolls
  A.30 Road (Dual Carriageways)
  A.30 Road (Dual Carriageways)
RAILWAYS
  Superannuation Payments
  Superannuation Payments
  Proposed Closures (Hearings)
  Proposed Closures (Hearings)
TRANSPORT
  Bus Services, London
  Bus Services, London
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Premature Retirement (Resettlement Grants)
  Premature Retirement (Resettlement Grants)
  Guided Missiles
  Guided Missiles
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Charges
  Charges
POST OFFICE
  Recorded Delivery Service
  Recorded Delivery Service
  Letters and Parcels (Christmas Deliveries)
  Letters and Parcels (Christmas Deliveries)
GERMANY (TRAVEL DOCUMENTS)
  GERMANY (TRAVEL DOCUMENTS)
  GERMANY (TRAVEL DOCUMENTS)
CHINA (FOOD PURCHASES)
  CHINA (FOOD PURCHASES)
  CHINA (FOOD PURCHASES)
GUATEMALA (MILITARY AIRCRAFT)
  GUATEMALA (MILITARY AIRCRAFT)
  GUATEMALA (MILITARY AIRCRAFT)
BAHRAINI PRISONERS (ST. HELENA)
  BAHRAINI PRISONERS (ST. HELENA)
  BAHRAINI PRISONERS (ST. HELENA)
CONGO (UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)
  CONGO (UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)
  CONGO (UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Deptford
  Deptford
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
ROYAL NAVY
  Select Committee's Report
  Select Committee's Report
  H.M.S. "Pandora"
  H.M.S. "Pandora"
BRITISH ARMY
  National Service Men
  National Service Men
  Clothing (Orders)
  Clothing (Orders)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Schedule A
  Schedule A
  Suez Finance Company (Compensation)
  Suez Finance Company (Compensation)
  Universities (Expansion)
  Universities (Expansion)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Long-Range Weather Forecasting
  Long-Range Weather Forecasting
BASUTOLAND
  Ritual Murders
  Ritual Murders
ATOMIC ENERGY
  Sahara Atomic Test (Radioactivity)
  Sahara Atomic Test (Radioactivity)
HOSPITALS
  Building Programme
  Building Programme
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  First-Feature Films
  First-Feature Films
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Airguns and Shotguns
  Airguns and Shotguns
  Anti-Dumping Duties
  Anti-Dumping Duties
  Films (Overseas Earnings)
  Films (Overseas Earnings)
  Films (Quotas)
  Films (Quotas)
  Cinemas (Admission and Box-Office Takings)
  Cinemas (Admission and Box-Office Takings)
  Corduroy (Imports from Spain)
  Corduroy (Imports from Spain)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  R.A.F. Camp, Shoreham by Sea
  R.A.F. Camp, Shoreham by Sea
  Cinemas (Levy)
  Cinemas (Levy)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield

UNIVERSITY EXPANSION
2.35 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: 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 when they will be in a position to announce precise plans for university expansion in this country; the number of university places to be provided within the next ten years; and the funds to be made available to the University Grants Committee.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a statement in a Written Answer in another place to-day. He has authorised the University Grants Committee to increase the Government-financed university building programmes, in the calendar years 1962 and 1963, from the present figure of £15 million each year to £25 million each year. For the calendar years 1964 and 1965 he has authorised the Committee to invite the universities to make plans on a basis of £30 million in each year.
This very large addition to the resources made available to the universities should be of material help to them in their immediate practical task of accommodating the increased numbers of students who will be coming forward in the second half of this decade; and it will be compatible with further development after 1965 to expand the university population, if this proves desirable, to about 170,000 by the early 1970's.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this announcement will be received with great satisfaction.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that there is a feeling among university teachers, and particularly in the Council of the Association of University Teachers, which represents the large majority of university teachers, that the Government should take a rather more firm stand about the need for a substantial increase in the number of students entering the universities. If I may say so, the noble Earl's answer is a little "wishy-washy" on this particular point. A substantial increase is essential in the national interest, and I hope that the Government realise that.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we discussed this point fully in our debate last May, and I told your Lordships then that it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government to increase the number of students at the highest possible rate consistent with the required high standard of teaching. I do not think that there is anything particularly "wishy-washy" about the figures which I have just given to your Lordships.
LORD DALTON: My Lords, I am sure we shall all study with great interest the more detailed information promised by the noble Earl. I hope that it will be fairly detailed in relation to the newer universities, and also those now in process of being brought to birth. I hope that they will receive great help in their early years. We should like to be as fully informed as possible, in particular, about the new institutions decided upon and proposed. I am aware of the dramatic results of the efforts made by the Committee headed by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, to raise funds for one of our newest universities, the University College of Cardiff, and this illustrates—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD DALTON: The point I wish to make is that this illustrates that not only is the taxpayer required to contribute towards helping this extension but that civic pride also has a place.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord.

THE PRESS AND ROYAL VISIT TO IRELAND
2.40 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: 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 if the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to activities, virtually tantamount to persecution, of certain organs of the British Press during the recent visit of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret and Mr. Antony Armstrong-Jones to the Republic of Ireland.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships' House would like me to say that of course we all appreciate the concern for anything which affects the welfare and happiness of Her Royal Highness, which has prompted this Question. But I am bound to say, in reply, that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, these matters are essentially questions of taste and good judgment and are best left to the influence of public opinion.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his reply, I should like to say, in putting a supplementary, that my Question did not include the provincial morning or evening papers, or the Irish national newspapers: it refers simply to "certain organs of the British Press". May I ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that no fewer than 17 reporters were sent along from the same group of newspapers when Her Royal Highness landed at Shannon Airport and that the airline concerned is ordering an immediate inquiry? Is he also aware of the amazement and eventual disgust, which the activities of these people gave rise to among the Irish people, who were anxious to welcome Her Royal Highness and respect her wishes?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have no information of any of these matters other than what I have read in the public prints. As I indicated in my original Answer, I think that it would be rather difficult for Her Majesty's Government to devise a remedy for this
1194
disease which was not worse than the disease which it was designed to remedy.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount if he would bear in mind that in the Charter of Human Rights, to which I believe this country is a signatory, Article 8 assures the inviolability of every person's
"private and family life, his home and his correspondence,"
and that Article 13 requires that anyone whose rights are violated
"shall have an effective remedy before a national authority…"
I am not asking the noble Viscount to give me an answer on that point now, but will he bear it in mind?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am sure that we all desire to see the inviolability of private rights of this kind, and particularly, perhaps, for those in respect of whom this Question is asked. It is only a question of what is the wisest way to handle matters of this kind; and, as I say, I think that public opinion is the strongest influence for good upon which we can rely.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I take it that if there had been any serious offence to Her Royal Highness, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who happens to be the Lord President of the Council, would have heard something about it?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, these acts, whatever they were, took place in the Republic of Ireland and, as I have said, I have no more information than what I have read in the public prints or heard over the B.B.C.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, arising out of the Answer which my noble friend the Leader of the House gave (I think he said that the reporters were all confined to one group) would it not be possible, by some means, to give the names of the owners or principal shareholders and editors of this group? If such publicity were given, and especially if it were announced in the news bulletins on the B.B.C., they would be subjected to considerable pubic complaint and that might add to the deterrent against this conduct in the future.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the information to which my noble friend

1195
refers was contained in the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and not in my Answer; but I am sure there is a great deal in what my noble friend says.

THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
2.45 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the situation in, and desirable developments of, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and the need for firm support of it by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have the honour to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I may say that I am very pleased indeed that so many distinguished Members will follow me in the debate and that we shall have the opportunity of listening to no fewer than three maiden speeches. I am also glad that the Foreign Secretary is to speak on behalf of the Government—that we shall look forward to with the greatest expectation—and also that the First Lord is to wind up for the Government.
In the last few months there have been two meetings connected with N.A.T.O. The first was the Parliamentarians' Conference in Paris in November last, when no fewer than seven Members of your Lordships' House attended, together with their colleagues from another place, as representatives of the United Kingdom Parliament; and the second, a little later, was the Ministerial Council, also in Paris. So far as the Parliamentarians' Conference is concerned, the British Delegation was led by the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, in his usual kindly and courteous way; and we also had the opportunity of hearing a speech or two from the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. I may say, so far as the noble Lady is concerned, that the Parliamentarians are always anxious to hear her, not only for her own sake but also because of the memory of her late husband, Colonel Walter Elliot, who was one of the founders of the Parliamentarians' Conference.
I have been to Parliamentarian Conferences for several years past, and this
1196
year it was a lively Conference. It seemed to me that, for the first time, the members were beginning to think of themselves as part of the North Atlantic Community. There was an impressive United States delegation, headed by the Vice-President Elect, Senator Lyndon Johnson, together with Senator Fulbright, who at that time it was thought might be Secretary of State, Senator Kefauver and others, both from the Senate and from the House of Representatives. A number of important subjects which affect the Atlantic Community were discussed and recommendations upon them were passed, but I intend to mention only three this afternoon, because others who were there will no doubt take up other points in their speeches.
The first subject upon which I wish to speak is that relating to the speech of General Norstad, the Supreme Commander. He made on the first day of the Conference's business what has since become a famous speech, often referred to in Parliament and in the Press. He put before the Conference three issues which he asked the Conference and their respective fifteen Parliaments to consider. The first issue that he raised referred to the mid-range ballistic missile. He said that the N.A.T.O. forces required to be armed with these weapons which have a range of 1.000 to 1,500 nautical miles. They will supplement the fighter bombers and the light bombers and are in addition to the N.A.T.O. conventional capability. In pursuance of this proposal, the United States Government propose to assign 100 missiles to N.A.T.O. and five Polaris submarines with a total capability of 80 missiles: in other words. N.A.T.O. is to be armed with 180 missiles. As one Polaris submarine has an explosive capability equal to the whole of the bombs dropped by both sides throughout the Second World War, it can be imagined that the capability of N.A.T.O. when it gets these 180 missiles, quite apart from the nuclear weapons it now has, will be enormous—almost unbelievable.
The cost is to be shared by the N.A.T.O. Parliaments and will not, as heretofore, be borne solely by the United States. This naturally came as a shock to the representatives present, who had rather got into the habit of thinking that

1197
the United States should be responsible for all this tremendous expenditure. But it is a salutary shock, because we have to realise that at some stage or other the West must bear a fair share of the burden of these 'weapons and not rely exclusively upon the United States.
The second point made by General Norstad was as to a N.A.T.O. strategic force—that is, a heavy strategic retaliatory force for N.A.T.O. alone. It would obviously be armed with H-bombs. Now this proposal did not find much support, among the representatives of N.A.T.O., and I think it is true to say that it has not found much support either in Parliament in this country or among the public as a whole, so far as the public have either understood or considered a complex issue of this character. Most delegates again felt they would prefer to rely upon the United States for the force—that it would be much cheaper, at all events. In fairness to General Norstad, I should say that he himself did not either advocate or repudiate the suggestion. He put it forward as a possibility, and it is obvious that such a possibility is very much in the minds of the United States Government or, at least, of the late United States Administration. Whether it is in the minds of the present Administration, of course we do not know.
The third issue raised by General Norstad was the desirability for a broader sharing of political control of N.A.T.O. nuclear weapons. It is at least equally important as the others, and it is a question upon which I am sure we shall be most anxious to hear the views of the Foreign Secretary to-day. This desirability of the broader sharing of the political control of these weapons is made more urgent by the proposed missile transfer to N.A.T.O. of these tremendous weapons. I do not pretend to be in the confidence of the Government, or even to be able to follow all the ramifications of their various statements. The only Government statement or comment that I can quote to your Lordships to-day is one by the Prime Minister, in his usually witty and caustic style—I am referring to our Prime Minister, Mr. 'Macmillan. He said:
"Can we say that with fifteen representatives, Ambassadors or Ministers, in N.A.T.O. acting in unanimity, the deterrent would continue to be credible? There might he one
1198
finger on the trigger. There would be fifteen fingers on the safety catch."
Of course, that is witty and caustic and it is epigrammatic, but it does not lead us very much further. We have to try to achieve, if possible, some way in which there is no longer one finger on the trigger and the safety catch, and that the same finger, namely, the United States.
The Parliamentarians representing the Parliaments of the fifteen countries urged the N.A.T.O. Council to develop ways and means to establish the political authority of N.A.T.O. over nuclear weapon delivery systems and their use. In other words, they did not accept Mr. Macmillan's rather limited view of this problem. They thought there was the possibility of doing just that. The Liberal Party believe that Her Majesty's Government should negotiate with other N.A.T.O. members a more effective joint control over the use of nuclear weapons. So the Liberal Party is at one with the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians on this particular point.
What I should like to know is what the Government and the Foreign Secretary believe can be done. I am not pretending that this is an easy problem—it is not. This is a very difficult problem, for the reasons which the Prime Minister has given. But, at the same time, I think we must try to effect a solution, because obviously when the missiles are added to the already big nuclear weapon potential of N.A.T.O. it is most important that all the rest of us should have something to say about when they should go off, These defence issues which I have mentioned vitally affect United Kingdom politics. We are not at one in this country. There is no British point of view on these things. Every one of the Parties has a different point of view. The Conservative Party believe in every nation having its own deterrent—a sort of John Bull attitude to the deterrent. I must say that I shudder to think what is going to happen if every nation does have its own deterrent. When one considers that some of the Banana Republics and some of the Middle Eastern countries may get hold of the deterrent it gives one great cause for thought.
The Liberal Party wish to cease the independent manufacture of nuclear weapons and to rely upon collective security, and they reaffirm their support for the retention of N.A.T.O. as a neces-

1199
sary shield until multilateral disarmament is achieved. We are entirely behind N.A.T.O.; we support it to the full. The Labour Party renounce the retention or use of nuclear weapons entirely, and thus as a logical consequence desire to leave N.A.T.O. The official policy of the Party is not, of course, approved by the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party, either in this House or in another place—I say that in fairness to the speakers who are going to speak to-day, most of whom will take, I gather or I imagine, the minority point of view.
Now we come to the so-called conventional forces; and this is very important indeed if we are to get away from too great a reliance upon the nuclear deterrent. The problem is how to build up or even maintain the conventional forces so as to make the shield realistic and lessen reliance on nuclear weapons. This problem is accentuated by the difficulties which the various European nations are experiencing: the French difficulties over Algeria, the United Kingdom difficulties over recruiting, the Belgian difficulties at home, the United States' desire to reduce the numbers and the cost of their forces in Europe, and the smaller European nations' unwillingness to accept the predominance of the West German forces. The wounds of war, I think we all can agree, have healed marvellously in the time since the end of the last war. But the scars are still there. Unless we make an important contribution to N.A.T.O., none of the smaller European countries will be at all happy. They rely upon us.
Now what are the Government's intentions with regard to the so-called conventional forces? I use the word "so-called" because there is not a better word. I ask because just lately there have been two reports in The Times on this very point. The first was a week or two ago, when it said that the United Kingdom's N.A.T.O. commitments would take priority over other overseas commitments—that is in view, of course, of the fall in recruiting—and that troops would be returning from Malaya, Cyprus and the Caribbean, whilst a brigade of Gurkhas would be stationed for the first time in history in this country. If they are depending upon getting troops from the Caribbean to support N.A.T.O. they
1200
must be in very bad shape, because the number of troops in the Caribbean is very low and I should not have thought there was any possibility of weeding out any from there. Of course, it is quite desirable to have some forces in that area.
The next reference in The Times appeared in an interesting article this morning by the military correspondent, in which he said—or inferred perhaps; I will give a précis of his argument—that the British Rhine Army is not organised, equipped, trained or deployed to react promptly with conventional weapons. They are in fact depending upon nuclear weapons. The matters that I have raised are the main matters that I intend to raise to-day as there are a large number of speakers. These subjects are very important and vital to our national safety and to the safety of the North Atlantic Community. I would ask whether it is intended that they should be settled, if they can be settled, on the highest possible level, because that is the only level that can really deal with problems of this sort. It was reported in the Press recently that President Kennedy may attend a N.A.T.O. summit in May. Is this so? If the Foreign Secretary is able to give us any information on that point, I am sure we should welcome it. May I say now, as this is the first opportunity we have had to raise any point with regard to President Kennedy, that I am sure we all appreciated the President's most inspiring inaugural address. It was very heartening to us all in the free world.
The second main subject to which I shall refer to-day is related to economic co-operation. Here the Parliamentarians showed themselves in advance of their Governments. They drew attention to the need for direct negotiations between the Six and the Seven, with a view to the establishment of economic and political integration throughout Western Europe, and recommended their Parliaments to ratify without delay the O.E.C.D. Treaty. On this last point, as your Lordships will remember, it was, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who made a statement before we rose for the Summer Recess, and I anticipate that there will certainly be no delay in ratifying this Treaty so far as the United Kingdom Parliament is concerned.
The last subject which I wish to mention is the question of under-developed countries. The Conference urged N.A.T.O. Governments to give substantial educational, economic and technical assistance to the developing countries and, as far as possible, on a multilateral basis. This decision was very significant, showing how the effect of the cold war and of the moral necessity, quite apart from the cold war, for us to help underdeveloped countries has become more apparent to all the nations in N.A.T.O. In 1957 I spoke to the Assembly at the N.A.T.O. Conference and I urged them to do this very thing, and I was called to order; I do not know whether I was actually ruled out of order, because they are very polite, but I was certainly called to order and asked what it had to do with N.A.T.O. The fact that at this Conference, only four years later, practically every committee moved resolutions saying how important it was that we should assist the under-developed territories and eventually a very strong resolution was passed by the Assembly itself, shows how far opinion has advanced in this way since 1957. That, I think, is a most encouraging sign.
Many other important subjects were discussed and resolutions were passed, and no doubt noble Lords and the noble Baroness will develop them in due course. As I say, I felt as never before that the Atlantic Community was evolving as a real community, with high ideals and practical proposals. Let us in the United Kingdom not fail to make our contribution and to give our support to this vital brotherhood. I beg to move for Papers.
3.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, this Motion is on a very important subject. It is raised at this stage, I suppose, at an earlier date than we expected, perhaps because the Foreign Secretary was not able to speak to the House on this matter after the ending of the meeting of the Council of Ministers. But I must say that as I read the Reports put by the Lord Privy Seal to the House of Commons on December 20 I felt very much that that Council of Ministers was deliberating in a sort of atmosphere of hiatus with regard to the Presidency in the United
1202
States of America and what the policy of the newly elected President would be. I feel, therefore, that the communiqué which was issued, and which your Lordships can find reprinted in the Hansard of the House of Commons for December 20, is not very promising.
It repeats a good many old statements of the past. It gives little idea of very much progress having been made, and I should myself have preferred, seeing the tentative nature of the explanation of the matter which was given in the other place on December 20, to refrain from making any major contribution to the House on this question until we have the White paper on Defence. In that Paper we shall be able to find out exactly what the reactions of Her Majesty's Government may be in regard to implementing the suggestions that were discussed in the Parliamentary Conference of N.A.T.O., and whether the actual meeting of the Council of Ministers resulted in anything which means factual and executive action by the Government in this country. At present I have no indication of it. Of course, the Foreign Secretary has the top position in this matter as regards the Reports of the Council of Ministers, and no doubt when we have listened to him this afternoon we shall have a little more information about it.
However, let me say this. With the general language of the Motion on the Paper, that the support of Parliament is needed for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, I am in entire agreement. It is perhaps just as well to remind ourselves that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is in existence through the initiation of a British Government; and a British Labour Government at that. We should always, when we are meeting criticism, whether from within or without our Parties, on this matter, take to mind what was the situation that made it necessary that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation should come into being. It is very simple. I notice from the list of speakers who are likely to take part in this debate that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn is to address us, and it will be interesting to get his confirmation, perhaps, of the basic reason for N.A.T.O. and the kind of conditions which those who drew up

1203
the draft of the Treaty envisaged would require to be fulfilled.
Certainly in 1946 we were only a few months away from the dreadful agonising experiences of five years of war; and a war in which, for nearly four years, at any rate, the U.S.S.R. had been an Ally, an Ally because we first of all offered her assistance when the common enemy invaded her. And it might have been expected, when it came to the Paris Peace Conference to discuss ways and means of coming to the most comprehensive peace and of getting a real settlement of the treaties with enemy countries, that we should have found the U.S.S.R. pulling with us in the general idea that, as a result of our common dire experience in the war, we should be aiming for the same goal of widespread international peace. But we did not find that. In my own Labour Party, in spite of variations here and there in decision from time to time, which are rarely permanent when they are not right. I would say that in all our growth of knowledge in international affairs and matters relatng to armaments we always had this great bugbear; how could we get away from the effect upon the working classes in all countries of the normal operation of the balance of power?
When the late Ernest Bevin and myself (and I was a substitute for him for a very large part of the gathering) got to Paris, what did we find, without much delay? That we were presented with a new balance of power section. Russia had already taken control of the satellite States, had started arming them, and would give nothing at all to our proposals for the development and maintenanance of understanding and peace. That is the reason for N.A.T.O. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation came about because of the common search of those who are really interested in, and are desirous of establishing, international peace and who have long since become convinced that, unless there could be set up some world organization, able to take advantage of a gradual reducing of the sovereign power of individual States, which could become of world consequence, and armed sufficiently to have world authority, it would never be possible to maintain a peace.
1204
At that time, just growing in its first year of existence, we had the United Nations Organisation. This was how it was being greeted by the U.S.S.R. and her satellites in Paris. When we studied the Charter of the United Nations we found that, standing out a mile, was the fact that the United Nations would have no arms to support her authority, and that within the terms of the Charter it was quite reasonable for any country attacked to be able, and rightly so, to defend herself, and that for that purpose individual nations which were in danger of attack might form Alliances. That is the basis of the origin of N.A.T.O. In spite of all that its critics say, whether from the Left or from the extreme Right in this country (and there are such people as well as those of the extreme Left), the basis of that Treaty is entirely defensive. It is specifically stated that it is in no way introduced in order to attack somebody else. Therefore, we ought not to have to apologise anywhere for defending the existence, and to desire the promotion, a the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
Look at the actual issues which have arisen from the Ministerial Conference referred to by Lord Ogmore. I am glad that the noble Lord had his preliminary training in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I asked him to represent us, and on the occasion to which he referred he was there at my request. No doubt it has been good experience for him, and I congratulate him on now possessing the necessary knowledge. But I would say that there were certain things which happened at that Conference, and particularly some passages in General Norstad's speech, which only remind me of suggestions I have made to your Lordships over and over again in connection with debates upon White Papers on Defence policy.
I have been concerned continuously, as a Minister of a Service Department, either at the Ministry of Defence or the Admiralty, for well over thirteen years —always as a Service Minister. I have been concerned with the post-war situation in which senior military officers make such public statements as they do. and in regard to such subjects as they do. Whilst there was a great deal in the speech of General Norstad to this International Parliamentarians' Conference which one might praise, I felt that from

1205
time to time he was lecturing the parliamentarians on politics. I take one passage, in particular, from his speech:
"The forces which are assigned to the N.A.T.O. mission require the support of nuclear weapons. The defence of Europe against a serious large-scale attack certainly depends on these weapons. A search for a fair solution to the problem of sharing their control is thus of the most vital concern to all of us. … Such action might very well satisfy the desires and interests of others by meeting fully the military requirements and by assuring an equal voice in the control of the particular pool of forces which could be established as essential to the direct defence of Europe."
That statement may be absolutely true, but I would say that the latter part of it, at any rate, should have been made by a Minister and not by a senior soldier. Over and over again, it seemed to me, as I carefully read the full speech of General Norstad, that there was a constant sort of flying of a kite at this stage in the relationship between N.A.T.O. and the United States of America in what I have already described as a period of hiatus. That will all have to be most carefully considered, by both Governments and Parliaments, when the time comes to make actual decisions. I greatly hope that the Foreign Secretary will not disagree with my general presentation of that aspect of the matter, and that it will be duly taken care of.
With regard to the actual points which were made by Lord Ogmore arising out of that speech, the noble Lord dealt first with the medium-range ballistic missile. If, as has been foreshadowed, the range turns out to be between 1,000 and 1,500 miles, how we can possibly defend our case morally in any international council of nations on the ground that these are not strategic weapons but only weapons generally used in localised warfare. I really do not know. What is an atomic, or a partly atomic, nuclear missile launched at 1,500 miles to do? It is going to attack, as I think was rather grudgingly admitted in the General's speech, some objective from the N.A.T.O. defence force. The shield which was to be a shield for us against enemy attack was going to be the launching of a missile over the frontier of Russia, on to some particular target which it was required to reach. For the life of me, I cannot see what confidence and what enjoyment of a likely peace will result from that for the population of this country.
1206
I do not know what would be the consequences in regard to the reaction of the Soviet if that were carried out. Would they regard that as anything other than a strategic weapon? Would not the immediate result be that we in this country should then be in the front line as a target for the nuclear weapon? I much prefer the statement which has been made again and again by members of my Party, however much they may be criticised just now—namely, that we would follow up not only the campaign that we were the first to operate for ending the testing of nuclear missiles, but that we would undertake never to be the first to launch a nuclear attack. I cannot see that the General's speech means that we shall not be the first to launch such an attack.
On that point, and on that point alone, one is entitled to say that at this stage the North Atlantic Treaty Council surely needs very careful examination: it needs to widen, and widen very specifically, the amount of political control that can be fairly operated in regard to the possession, and the use, of these weapons. I hope that when the Government come to present their White Paper on Defence they will have within its pages specific views, if not by then actual specific recommendations, as to how they are to proceed to secure this amendment of the constitution and control of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
The strategic force that is to be allocated to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation seemed to me to be further "kite-flying" on the part of General Norstad which I expect will be as greatly resented by as many people in authority in the United States as, clearly, it has been resented by in this country. I have not, of course, seen the full report of the Parliamentary Conference; but so far as I can tell, judging by reports from my colleagues who were there, I should say that there was very strong opposition from British Parliamentarians to the proposals which were then made. It seems to me, also, that it would be very unlikely that we should get much support for the particular proposition except, maybe, from the United States and certainly from Germany. And as things go on from year to year I beg our citizens in this country to keep their eyes upon German developments.

1207
I hope very much that those in West Germany who hold the right democratic views will prevail. I am not by any means one who wants to prolong criticism or anything approaching hatred of those who have been our enemies in the past; nor do I think it can ever be said against our country as a whole that we have usually followed such a line. But when I look at the position now with regard to the German economy and the United States—where the Republican Party, under President Eisenhower, in its last peace-time budget submitted to that country a budget of nearly £29,000 million—and note that a representative of the United States had to go out and have a talk to those in West Germany, the people who caused the war and who have got rid of their terrible indebtedness, to see if West Germany could help the United States out of an awkward gold position, it seems to me that if we in this country are gradually so to give up our proper contribution to the real basic principles of defence which we tried to put into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation then we shall be leaving it more and more not only to the enlargement of German numbers and armament but also to the leadership of a German High Staff and Command.
I would beg that we should all think and consider exactly where we are going. If we take the point which was rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the condition of our conventional forces in West Germany, what sort of a record have we on that? We were to maintain permanently four divisions in Germany. That was to be the B.A.O.R.—the British Army of the Rhine. That Army had a very important function. It has always had a British Command, and certainly the position to-day, under the present Government, is not surprising. I am not surprised. I have lived 75 years, and I have never known a Conservative Government in office at the opening of a war who were ever ready with the forces required to back the policy which led them into it. What do I find to-day? Already our forces in 'the British section of the British Army of Occupation have been greatly reduced. Admittedly they were reduced two years ago from 77,000 to 55,000, and now there are rumours running around about new economies in the coming
1208
Budget. I hope that they may be untrue. There is a suggestion that we shall reduce those forces still further, by another 12,000. We ought to have some of these facts in front of us before we go too deeply into that. What then becomes of the military command in Germany, of the northern area of Germany? I just wonder.
I believe that, these matters having been raised, we are entitled to bring these points home to the Government, whether or not your Lordships will agree with me, for consideration, to see what their effect is likely to be. I myself am persuaded that the first thing to do in regard to this matter is to make sure that we get away from the disaster of the White Paper of 1957 and make it clear, not only to our countrymen but to the world, that our main reliance in this matter of our defence organisation is on conventional forces; that we are not against the use of a nuclear weapon as a deterrent if it is understood that we are not going to make use of the nuclear weapon as a first strike. In other words, we ourselves will not use it first.
Then I believe we ought to make quite sure that the conventional forces are at least properly equipped. Why are they not now? Parliament has a lot to answer for in the last nine years. When I left the Ministry of Defence in 1950 I was spending just over £800 million. Then N.A.T.O. came in, and there was the Korean war; and we went up to a triennial budget of £1,500 million. What are we spending to-day?—£1,625 million. But we have not one-half of the forces we handed to the Government in 1950. That is what Parliament has to answer for. The Government, therefore, in spite of the expenditure, have not provided us to-day with an adequate defence for our needs; and that is the fault of the Government and the Parliament that supports the economic policy of that Government. Perhaps on a future occasion we shall have an opportunity to develop that economic point. I do not think I should have any difficulty in proving the case.
Let me say this, in conclusion—for I do not want to keep your Lordships too long. I said when I began that in the end, if the peace of the world and the happiness of mankind were ultimately to be secured, then without a doubt we shall have to look forward to a world

1209
organisation. Forgive me if sometimes I have a very big doubt as to whether we shall ever achieve it in the present dispensation. If I read my Bible, I read of the dispensation in which One shall come:
"and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor … mighty …"
Nevertheless, we have the duty to maintain our struggle towards attaining a world government of the kind I have indicated. How we can hope to do it unless we make progress, first of all, through the United Nations, I do not know. Here, the United Nations certainly, I think, if we take a fair view of the last sixteen years, is more powerful in its influence than the League of Nations was on matters of peace and war, for the prevention of war. Yet it is up against such problems as, under its present constitution and administration. cannot be mastered. We see the sporadic calling forth of small units from various countries to go to a particular centre of conflagration; we see things happening as they are happening in the Congo to-day, and the dissidents among those contributory nations gradually pulling out one after the other. The use in a most extravagant and extraordinary manner of the Veto in the Security Council has not made it easy for those who truly desire the success of a world organisation to pursue towards their goal successfully. A great deal needs to be done on that.
What is perhaps the greatest and first step that has to be pursued—one which this country as a whole, I think, has pursued, but I feel inclined to claim no better pioneer in this than my own Party—is, in season and out of season, a general disarmament, on a collective basis and with proper controls of the areas disarmed. If that were really brought about, we should have gone a long way towards first making the United Nations a successful and operative organisation, building up step by step its prestige, as well as its mutual authority and power. We should perhaps be on the way at last to the Eldorado of a world organisation in which there would really be a reign of the Prince of Peace.
3.33 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, Lord Ogmore has
1210
promoted this debate upon the North Atlantic Alliance at a time which I think is both appropriate and useful; and certainly I look forward very much to being able to hear the contributions which are to be made by what are known as the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians who are represented in this House and by others who can speak with a great knowledge of Europe and who have worked a lifetime to help towards its unity. Before Christmas, when I gave a short account to your Lordships of the N.A.T.O. meeting in Paris—that is to say, the meeting of the Council of Ministers—I said that the permanent representatives there were about to conduct a review of the purposes, control and deployment of the nuclear armoury of N.A.T.O. with the objective of making the deterrent as effective as possible without wasting our resources. And to-day the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has, quite properly, concentrated much of his analysis upon the military problems which are presented Ito us all by eleven years of rapid evolution of nuclear weapons, with the effect that that has had upon strategy and tactics in the Alliance.
I hope to follow him very closely, but at once to make four points, two old and two new: the first, that it was recognised as early as 1954 that a certain number of nuclear weapons must be included in the N.A.T.O. armoury; the second, that at this present day, now, N.A.T.O. commands a wide range of nuclear power. And the two new points are these. The development of nuclear weapons has in the last few years been so revolutionary that it is no longer possible to put weapons tidily into categories arid mark them "tactical" or "strategic". A weapon is to-day tactical or strategic according to where it is sited and according to the targets which are allocated to it in the military plan.
The second point is this. I always listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, with great appreciation and am instructed by what he says about its origin; but, of course, when N.A.T.O. was started the situation was that the Western Powers had an absolute predominance in nuclear power. To-day there is equipoise between East and West, and each bloc (if you like to call it that) is in a position to destroy the other; and the repercussions of that situation are

1211
bound to modify the original conception of N.A.T.O. as a tripwire. I shall return to that in a moment, but I thought that those were two new factors which we must take into account.
I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, when he says that these two factors. namely, the revolutionary character of the new weapons and the fact of the nuclear equipoise, throw immediately into highlight the importance of defining with precision the military purpose of N.A.T.O. to-day, the importance of defining its area of operations and the nature of the political control over weapons which it is decided it is proper for N.A.T.O. to deploy. It is those problems precisely upon which the permanent representatives of N.A.T.O. are at this moment sitting in review.
I think it may help your Lordships to visualise what N.A.T.O. ought to be if I say a word about what it was and what it is to-day. I need not add very much on what it was to what Lord Alexander of Hillsborough—himself one of the authors of the Treaty—said. It was brought about as a result, primarily, of Russia's refusing to co-operate in peace after the war. It was an Alliance born of the failure of the United Nations to provide collective security. It was, as he said, a defensive Alliance within the Charter; and I think I should be right in describing the military objective from the start as being solely directed to preventing Europe from being overrun by an aggressor. Sometimes I am myself guilty, I confess, but I have never been happy with the attempts to describe the function of N.A.T.O. in words of one or two syllables drawn from the Army Manual: "tripwire" or "shield" or even "shield and sword." That, I think, is to oversimplify. But the design, I think, of the N.A.T.O. Alliance can be described quite clearly to-day: it still is an exercise in collective security; it still is an essentially defensive Alliance to which all its members make a military contribution.
It is necessary to remember that, under Article V of the Treaty, an attack upon one member is to be regarded as an attack upon all. I ask your Lordships to remember that for this reason. I think it helps us to avoid some of the confusion which arises when people talk about the possibility of N.A.T.O. emerg-
1212
ing as a third or fourth nuclear Power. What happens if N.A.T.O. cannot hold an attack upon Europe, or upon any Member of the Alliance? Then the whole strategic strength of the entire Alliance comes into play. So, inevitably, there is a relation between the N.A.T.O. Alliance and the broad strategic plan which would come into operation in the event of an attack. I will return to that, if I may, in a moment.
What, then, is the purpose of N.A.T.O.'s strength? I think we can describe it like this: to carry such conviction as will deter an aggressor from attacking Europe; and, if that fails, to delay and to hold an attack long enough for the Alliance to mobilise. But the position of nuclear equipoise is now introducing another, a third, conception. That is: now that full-scale nuclear warfare means that each side can annihilate the other with megaton weapons, should one of the rôles of N.A.T.O. be to try to enforce a pause where an enemy can have second thoughts before the world is irrevocably involved in its own destruction? I do not know whether, in the event—I pray we shall never reach it—these niceties of calculation would be practicable. But noble Lords will recall the jargon which is used about these matters at this time; and it is a real problem that if once a nuclear weapon is used at all then the escalation in nuclear weapons may 'be very rapid until you get into the final battle with rockets and guided missiles. Now that, again, is a matter which is being studied by the Council at the present time.
When the Council met in December, the first thing that came under scrutiny was the Treaty. It was agreed, in the first place, that the structure of the Treaty was adequate to any rôle which N.A.T.O. might have to fulfil in modern times, and that it need not be amended; but, secondly, that it was sensible, after eleven years, that there should be a review of the purposes of N.A.T.O., of the control and deployment of its nuclear armoury.
My Lords, the Treaty was not judged solely by military tests. By many other tests it can be said to have succeeded far beyond the expectation of its authors. It has preserved its members from Communist aggression. It has enabled France and Germany to find a new understanding. It has allowed former

1213
enemies not only to achieve a considerable degree of integrated military planning but in fact to achieve considerable integration in their military forces. As I listened to the noble Viscount I reflected, too, that perhaps the greatest prize has been that it has allowed the German forces to be fully integrated with the forces of the other Allies in the West. We must acknowledge that this is not only welcome to us but fully welcome to, and entirely the policy of, the present West German Government. Again, the Alliance has enabled the United States to keep its power in Europe. And finally it has provided the security and fostered the confidence behind which the sense of the unity of Europe is growing day by day. I believe that these are assets which none can gainsay and that in these respects the N.A.T.O. Alliance has contributed not only to the stability of Europe but also to the peace of the world.
In recent years the Alliance has extended its field of consultation on political as well as on military matters, and that process is going to be extended. I am sure it can be extended with great advantage, and that the extension of political consultation on matters which are outside Europe but which are of great interest to the member Powers will lead to greater understanding. So I leave the Treaty itself with this reflection: that it has served the Alliance and its members well.
Now it is against that broad achievement of the Alliance that I should like, for a few moments, to review the genuine problems which arise when we consider what should be N.A.T.O.'s tactical rôle to-day. The first question which naturally arises, and which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, touched upon, is this: what policies should govern its nuclear armoury? How great a strike power is necessary for the purposes of first, deterrence and, secondly, defence?—bearing in mind, as one must, that no ground attack or assault could be launched against Europe to-day without a considerable build-up in the rear of the leading assault troops. My Lords, one is immediately brought into the difficulty of definition which I mentioned earlier in my speech: that if you think in terms only of the weapon's performance you can no longer say whether an
1214
aircraft or a missile is tactical or strategic—because, as I said, it depends on siting, the target allocation and the directives within which, in this case, SACEUR works.
I should like to say, in this connection, that I am starting from the premise that there is no proposition at present before N.A.T.O. which suggests that there should be any addition to the area in which SACEUR at present operates: and I should like to indicate to the House, therefore, with that as the background, what are the kind of questions which must be studied by the Council—and, indeed, which are being studied now. They are questions like this: when the bomber goes out of production—and there is a very strong case, I might interpolate here, for keeping the bomber as long as possible, as long as the bomber can get through, because the bomber is a more flexible instrument than the missile —and the day comes when the bomber cannot get through, should N.A.T.O. be armed with missiles which do the same job as the bomber is doing to-day? Again, there is the question whether missiles which to-day, when they are put on fixed sites, are known to he vulnerable, should be converted into missiles which can be made mobile. Then, again, bearing in mind that Russian forces in Eastern Europe command a very wide variety of tactical weapons, there is the question how best to constitute the N.A.T.O. armoury so that it is manifestly capable of dealing with any type of attack which those forces could mount.
My Lords, within this study comes the offer from the United States which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned, which was connected both with the allocation of Polaris submarines and with the conception of a European force of M.R.B.M.s. It will be for the Council—and I should like to recall to the House that the Council is the political body of N.A.T.O.—after taking military advice, to make recommendations on this to Governments. There has been a lot of public discussion, and indeed a good deal of criticism, of the American offer, but I should like to say at once that the motives behind that offer were unselfish, generous and honourable, and they were these. They were to reassure Europe that American power would remain at the disposal of the Alliance, and to place

1215
a portion of the nuclear deterrent under European control so as to strengthen the will of the Alliance. Again, the conception was that if N.A.T.O. should own its own nuclear weapons, then it would be unnecessary for more nations in the Alliance to build up their own military nuclear capacity. My Lords, I find all those objectives admirable.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I just ask a question on this point, because I want to clear up a matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore? Criticism is already arising, which may be quite unfair, that this is a move in the present economic difficulties in the United States to try to spread over a wider field the cost of their undertaking in the nuclear field. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to say that at the Parliamentary Conference it was suggested that that cost would have to be shared; but my recollection—and perhaps the foreign Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—is that the Lord Privy Seal in another place, in answer to that kind of criticism, specifically said that the cost, especially of the Polaris offer, would be met entirely by the United States. I think he also included the 100 missiles of the other kind.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, might I ask him whether this offer has been repeated—because it is quite important—in any precise form by the new Administration? I gather it came from President Eisenhower's Administration.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, that is right; the offer came from President Eisenhower's Administration, and, as I said, it has been put forward to N.A.T.O. for study to see whether the N.A.T.O. Alliance wish to adopt the system, or any variant of it. As I understand the position at present, it is this: The submarines are allocated to N.A.T.O. and remain part of the American forces allocated to the Alliance. As far as any future system might arise where Europe produced its own weapons, the question of cost and the division of cost would have to be threshed out in the Alliance; but there is no definite proposal on that at the moment about which I can speak further.
1216
Now, my Lords, what I was saying was that the motive behind the American proposal, it seems to me, should be welcomed by everyone. But what I cannot do to-day is to pronounce upon the military merits of the scheme. For instance, why is a warhead of this magnitude needed in the tactical area of the N.A.T.O. Command? I would again remind your Lordships of what I said earlier on, that if N.A.T.O. fails to hold an attack, then the strategic forces of the Alliance are bound to go into action. I do not think that there is anything here that I have seen which involves the conception of N.A.T.O. as what one might call a third or fourth nuclear Power.
Perhaps I can put it in this way. N.A.T.O. provides the essential complement to the strategic forces of the West by supplying the tactical element in the deterrent. But whether or not this offer had come from the United States, there was a very strong case for review. There is the problem of the replacement of the bomb by the missile. There is the problem of the modern range of nuclear artillery. There is the question of the weight of the megaton explosion which is now possible. Those things all called for review, particularly upon the nature of the weapons deployed and the controlling system for their firing.
I now come to the second category of questions which the noble Viscount asked, and that is the question of control. I would join with his general proposition about Generals in office being allowed to speak. I am not really sure about that after they leave office; but, anyhow, the first proposition is good enough for me. Whether we conclude that the present rules of control are good enough, or whether we conclude that they should be revised, one thing is quite certain: that in respect of the firing of nuclear weapons, the decision must remain political. That is quite clear.
I think it is well to emphasise, as the noble Viscount has said some things about General Norstad and what he said, that General Norstad has publicly expressed that view. I should like to read to the House what he did say, because it gives the picture of the present system of controlling N.A.T.O. He said:
"All of the N.A.T.O. forces, conventional as well as atomic, are controlled ultimately by a political authority, and that applies to the

1217
tactical atomic weapons wherever they may be deployed, and in whose hands they may be located. In addition to that, in order to ensure control of this very important weapon, and, I must say, to keep faith with the Governments of N.A.T.O., I keep under my own hands a very tight centralised control on these units that are equipped to use nuclear weapons."
At present, of course, nuclear warheads are in the custody of the United States; but if the House needs any reassurance that the decision to use nuclear weapons must remain political, I give it categorically.
It has been suggested that in order to allay fear that the United States might at some future date be unwilling to defend Europe, the warheads might be retained in Europe under control by the members of the European Alliance. The noble Viscount asked me to comment on this aspect of control. To-day I think I should make only three observations upon any possible variation of control in this way. The first is that I do not believe that there need be any fear of a United States withdrawal from Europe. Indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. The second is that, if there is to be a change of control, Congress in the United States has to alter the law. Thirdly—and this matter has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when he quoted the Prime Minister—we must always remember that if the nuclear weapons are really to be an effective deterrent, they must be credible to the enemy.
Of course, we have to study and have to see if we can work out whether there can be a system of control which could be extended to European members of the Alliance, always remembering that the more hands there are in the control, the more the credibility of the deterrent is diluted; and as the essence of the deterrent is, of course, swift retaliation, the more you dilute the control the more it may be discounted by a potential aggressor. So, my Lords, I cannot gratify the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, more to-day on this subject than to say that these again are matters which are under active study by the Council and upon which they will report shortly to Governments.
Of course, we should all be happier if we could dispense with military alliances and if, in turn, they could dispense with nuclear weapons; but that is not very realistic. Mr. Khrushchev has
1218
very lately said that reductions in Russian manpower are more than balanced and replaced by the increasing strike-power of his tactical nuclear weapons. We know that there are heavy concentrations of these in Eastern Europe; that their forces there are armed with these tactical nuclear weapons, backed by long-range rockets. The Russians have some 400 submarines and we know that they have at least a type of missile-firing submarine. The balance between conventional and nuclear forces and weapons is another matter which certainly must be studied by the Council with the greatest care.
I have heard the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, make the point on many occasions that in the N.A.T.O. Alliance we may be over-insured on the nuclear side. I am not going to express a judgment on that, but certainly very close attention must be paid to that question by the Council in their study. And on other occasions I have heard the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, say that whereas the original conception of N.A.T.O. was that of a tripwire, we seem to have departed a very long way from that. I think that in some respects that is true, although I would remind him again that there is one essential difference between now and then. When the West had an absolute preponderance, of nuclear power, the tripwire could be lighter. Now that there is an equipoise, we have to ask ourselves, in the strategic nuclear field, if an attack develops, how it can be held by the N.A.T.O. Alliance. I suggest to him—and I shall be interested to hear what he says later —that this may mean that the tripwire may have to be heavier or may have to be devised in various stages. Therefore, as I said earlier, we have to decide very soon the degree and nature of the tactical nuclear weapons which may have to deal with the kind of attack which may be launched upon us from East Europe to-day.
Everything I have said, I think, reinforces the view expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that the only sensible way of resolving the dilemma, in which not only we find ourselves but also the Russians must find themselves to-day, is disarmament. I will not pursue this subject to-day. We have a Foreign Affairs debate in a fortnight's time and

1219
we shall have more to say about it at that time. I would only say this: that if the Russians could agree to work disarmament and accept the principle that we should so proceed that at no stage of disarmament would the balance of strength be disturbed, then I think we could start now and lift a lot of tension from the world, and that we could proceed at once, to the great advantage of all. Of course, it would be part of a disarmament plan that gradually there should be built up the international police force to which the noble Viscount referred. Meanwhile, this is, and will continue to be, largely a military debate.
Perhaps I may sum up the opening stages like this. N.A.T.O. is essentially a piece of machinery for a specific purpose, and that is, to prevent an aggressor from attacking Europe. N.A.T.O. is the servant of the fifteen nations and cannot be their master. The prototype of N.A.T.O. has been proved and, if I may use a familiar analogy, Mark I has been succeeded by various models. Mark II, I think, was brought about by the accession of Federal Germany to the N.A.T.O. Alliance and Mark III, when N.A.T.O. was equipped with nuclear weapons. Mark IV will emerge out of the present study of the N.A.T.O. Council, and when that happens I will report the results to Parliament. But I would remind your Lordships, when we are apt to criticise this N.A.T.O. Alliance, as some of us occasionally do, that it has achieved the main purpose for which it was made—that is, the security of Western Europe. With the control that there is of this Organisation by fifteen nations, all passionately determined to preserve their way of life and equally all passionately devoted to peace, I think the House may take it that the Council of N.A.T.O. are absolutely alive to their responsibilities to mankind and alive to their obligation so to handle their strength that, while it defends Europe against an aggressor, it also contributes to the peace of Europe and to the peace of the world.
4.7 p.m.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, the New Year seems to me to be a fitting time for a new Member to address your Lordships' House on the first occasion. I only hope that noble Lords will show
1220
me the customary courtesy which they have extended to others who on previous occasions must have felt exactly as I do to-day, the qualms of a "new boy" about to address this learned House for the first time.
The New Year is commonly regarded as a time to be hopeful, and indeed it would be a very sad thing for human nature if it were not so, but I think we are more likely to arrive at that desirable condition if we deny ourselves all false optimism's about the real nature of the contest in which we are inescapably engaged; for I feel that the more clearly we recognise what we are up against the better we are prepared to meet the challenge. On various occasions recently the Foreign Secretary has told this House, in brilliant speeches, the nature of the struggle of the 1960s. To-day he has given further food for thought, particularly in the military sphere. In the speeches which he has made, both to-day and on previous occasions, he has left us in no doubt at all that we are in for a period of fiercely competitive coexistence, which, on Mr. Khrushchev's own showing, will be used to further the advance of Communist influence on a global scale by every means short of open war.
So it would appear that competition, not open war, is now Communism's chosen instrument of policy in the struggle with the West. And the most favourable conditions on which to cooperate are those of peaceful co-existence. Mr. Khrushchev has used these words himself in this connection. I feel that in this context it is no good complaining of unfair competition because Soviet methods of prosecuting it do not correspond to the Western code. Nor dare we underestimate the immense military strength which Russia retains in reserve. The prospect before us, therefore, is stern in more ways than one. For that reason, apart from any others, the Motion before us could not be more appropriate or better timed, and, if I may do so in my first contribution in this House, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for having raised this Motion to-day. Not only has the inauguration of a new American President and Administration given us an opportunity to take a candid look at the state of the Western Alliance, but it is only a few weeks ago since some of your

1221
Lordships returned from the Sixth Annual N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference in Paris. I have been associated with this unofficial organisation since the autumn of 1958, and it is the accumulated experience of discussing N.A.T.O. in all its widest implications with Parliamentarians from North America and Europe that is one of the reasons which make me fed that I should take part in the debate to-day.
In Paris last November some of our most lively discussions, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has pointed out, took place in the Economic Committee. Other Members of your Lordships' House will in the course of the debate dwell further on the various committees and what took place in them, but I would say that the importance which Parliamentarians attached to the Economic Committee was a completely new feature. They were also much interested in the Scientific and the Cultural Committees, on both of which committees Members of your Lordships' House made most useful contributions on subjects ranging from aid to underdeveloped countries, as has already been mentioned, to space research and the study of African and Asian languages. Your Lordships will agree that this reflects the significance that the Alliance has come to attach to non-military aspects of Western co-operation; and this in turn, I think, reflects the shift in Communist strategy from a primarily military threat to a politico-economic offensive.
At this point I should like to digress for a moment to tell your Lordships my second reason for intervening in the debate to-day. Last week I visited Malta on behalf of the British Atlantic Committee. The purpose of the visit was to inaugurate a Malta Group of this Committee. The basis of the formation of the Group has been the eagerness and enthusiasm with which many of the citizens of Malta joined the British Atlantic Committee as associate members. As your Lordships will be aware, the British Atlantic Committee in the United Kingdom is the constituent national group of the Atlantic Treaty Association. The Atlantic Treaty Association is a voluntary international organisation which has national groups in all the fifteen N.A.T.O. countries, and its purpose is to bring to the notice of more and more citizens in the N.A.T.O. countries the work that is being carried out by NA.T.O. I
1222
thought your Lordships would be interested to hear of this new development in Malta, which I think has particular significance.
To return to my main theme, N.A.T.O., the fact remains, as the Foreign Secretary said in the conclusion of his speech, that nothing short of concrete progress in disarmament—multilateral, not unilateral—can dispense us from the responsibility to maintain our defensive strength. N.A.T.O., in my view, is not an automaton. I believe sincerely that N.A.T.O. has been able to fulfil successfully its deterrent rôle over the past decade not only because of the weapons, but also because of the political will among its members. My Lords, more, not less, political unity of purpose will be needed in the next decade.
Does not that bring us to this question: does this call for drastic change in the character of the Alliance in line with the changing character of the challenge? This, I believe, is the question that we should all ask ourselves. Few would deny that the entirely new conception of force brought about by the mastery of nuclear weapons has transformed the approach to power politics, both of East and West. This is certainly implicit, I think, in what the Foreign Secretary said not long ago, when he said it was inevitable that the logic of military developments would lead to greater integration, not less; to greater interdependence, not less. For surely this integration and this interdependence must have a political and economic, as well as a military, construction. So when we seek to find the answer to this question, whether the time has come for N.A.T.O. collectively to carry a great share of the nuclear responsibility, from which political control is inseparable, then we are at once brought up against the second question: to what extent is it desirable to reconstruct or make adjustments to the original concept of the Alliance?
These, my Lords, are matters of high policy, which we know—and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary has told us to-day —are under detailed review by the North Atlantic Council, following the Ministerial meeting in Paris last month. For these reasons alone I would not presume to attempt an analysis of these complex

1223
questions. The Foreign Secretary has touched on the great problem of the present day in the military field and the differentiation between tactical and strategic weapons. I would not go further than that; nor would I anticipate the answers that may emerge.
The reason I have brought these matters to the notice of your Lordships is because I hope and believe that the discussions in the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference have materially helped the N.A.T.O. Governments and their official advisers by providing them with a body of opinion where soundings can be taken and constructive criticism encouraged. At the same time, I personally am convinced—and so, I believe, are the majority of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians—that our Conference is best kept as it is, an unofficial organisation, and that to aspire to a constitutional status not only would be impracticable, but would also mean there would be a real danger of its losing its value as a forum for discussion at the highest level.
The crux of the Motion before us this afternoon is that the United Kingdom Government and Parliament should give N.A.T.O. their full support. That principle, of course, I give my wholehearted support. But I think there is a further reason, apart from what has already been mentioned, why this Motion is so founded to-day. I refer to the unilateralist movement, not as a matter of controversy, but as a matter of fact. The unilateralist arguments have only one logical conclusion, as I see them: that the United Kingdom would refuse to have any part in the policy of the Western nuclear deterrent and would leave N.A.T.O. rather than contribute to any form of nuclear defence by the West. The military and political consequences would be that we should contract out of collective security and adopt a posture of neutralism.
The unilateralists claim in this connection, as a justification for this step, that a neutral Britain would be better placed to advance the cause of disarmament, having set the moral example of renouncing nuclear weapons and throwing over her Allies. Here we have, I am convinced, a profoundly dangerous concept, based on utterly false premises; because I believe that the possession of the deterrent is not a barrier to dis-
1224
armament but a spur to negotiation. The fact that these Disarmament Conferences have not so far resulted in agreement may be disappointing. Of course it is disappointing. But I do not believe that this is surprising, in view of the nature of the actual as well as the ideological conflict, and the tremendous issues that are involved. Once we accept that true peace must rest on multilateral disarmament in all weapons, without placing any of the parties to agreement at a disadvantage, then we must accept also that there must be international inspection and control of a type that might justly be called unprecedented. Even when a start has been made, the end of the road may be very far off. Nevertheless, I believe it is fundamental to our support for N.A.T.O. that the Alliance should be maintained, in the interests of peace and as an insurance policy against aggression, pending the ultimate goal of disarmament.
4.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I regard myself as extremely lucky to be the next speaker on the list, because it gives me the opportunity, which I am sure other noble Lords who have heard the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, will envy, of congratulating him very warmly on his maiden speech, which was made with the full authority of the leader of the Parliamentary body which attended the last N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Conference. I should also like to join my noble friend Lord Ogmore in the tribute he paid to the leadership which we have in the kindly, courteous and skilful leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, and which greatly added to the efficiency of all of us and to the pleasure of all of us. It seems to me most satisfactory, looking back on my first visit to N.A.T.O., when I was privileged to serve under the late Colonel Walter Elliot, that the tradition of leadership which he set, and which was a difficult tradition to maintain, has been so satisfactorily maintained subsequently. I hope that we shall hear the noble Lord again, and particularly that he may speak to us about farming, which is one of the many subjects with which he is familiar.
I thank the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary for his interesting statement about the past and present of N.A.T.O. He did not say much about the future,

1225
but perhaps we were not entitled to expect it. He pointed out that the problems of political control of N.A.T.O. and the N.A.T.O. nuclear armoury are at the present time under consideration by the N.A.T.O. Council, and no doubt he is waiting for advice from that quarter. I think we shall have to be satisfied with this statement, although we should naturally have liked to hear more about Government policy in these matters.
What the noble Earl did say—and I hope he will correct me if I have misunderstood him—was that N.A.T.O. should not become a fourth nuclear Power and should be limited within a definition, which, of course, is for the technicians to advise, about the use of tactical nuclear weapons. If that is the broad principle of Government policy, we can unreservedly agree with it. Let me say that I hope that the noble Earl will be able to get our partners in N.A.T.O., and more particularly the new American Administration, to accept this policy.
THE EARL OF HOME: May I say that I did not want to lay down what we think should be the policy for N.A.T.O. while it is being reviewed in company with our Allies. It is for all of us together to say whether there should be any complement of a strategic deterrent. The point I was making was that N.A.T.O. is supplementary to the strategic deterrent, because it provides the tactical powers which would hold the attack or prevent it, we hope, until the whole operation of the Alliance can be given time.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I appreciate that we are discussing these matters with our partners in N.A.T.O., and it is quite clear that the noble Earl could not, and should not, tell us exactly what is going on at the moment. I think he will agree that it would be fair to say that with the broad approach to this problem we shall be in agreement.
The main point that has arisen, and which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, as the most important feature of General Norstad's speech at the opening of the Conference—and which was repeated again by M. Spaak, the Secretary General, at the conclusion of the Conference—was whether or not N.A.T.O. should become another nuclear Power with its own strategic deterrent.
1226
That is a matter about which I think we are all entitled to express our views. That was the proposition we were asked to consider, and it is a proposition which we have all considered very carefully since then. I think there is little doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said that public opinion generally in this country (so far as public opinion understands the issue) would be against any idea of N.A.T.O. having a strategic nuclear deterrent. Because it is difficult to define the difference between a strategic and a nuclear deterrent, may I say that I think we understand that a strategic deterrent could include either the Polaris missile carried by a submarine, which can be used in either capacity, or an H-bomb carried by a jet bomber over long distances. Certainly that is what I mean, and it is the way in which I mean to use this expression in the course of what I have to say.
The noble Earl suggested—indeed, it is one of the arguments in favour of this new weapon, or this additional weapon, for N.A.T 0.—that it would tend to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to European countries which at present do not have them. I must say that I am very doubtful about the force of this argument. Can one imagine that this would stop the French from having their own nuclear armoury? It would be interesting to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on this matter and—we are looking forward to his maiden speech, because nobody knows more about French policy than he does. But I myself should doubt it very much
Other European countries, if they are in a position to do so, will no doubt wish to have nuclear weapons of their own. It is an unfortunate tendency which we see all over the world—it is not confined to Europe—for countries to want the most expensive symbols of their national prestige. Of course we all want to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, which is one of the potential causes of war; and the question is, how can that be achieved. If giving them to N.A.T.O. would, as some people think, prevent or stop the spread of such weapons, those who take this view have a strong case. But I do not believe that this would be likely to happen. The positive disadvantages of a N.A.T.O. strategic deterrent are really enormous.

1227
In the first place, it would raise the difficult, if not insoluble, question which has already been discussed this after- noon, of effective political control. The graphic description of the situation that would arise is "fifteen fingers on the trigger" or "fifteen fingers on the safety catch". There is no doubt that public opinion in the N.A.T.O. countries would insist that the decision to wage, or possibly even to start, nuclear war must be a political and not a military decision. The noble Earl has said quite clearly that that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. There is equally no doubt that each country would want an equal say in this decision. How on earth can this state of affairs be reconciled with the military requirement of swiftness of decision? Again, the noble Earl mentioned this military requirement, and it is a problem which must appear to the ordinary layman, at any rate, as a problem not capable of satisfactory solution.
The second objection to this course of adding these enormously dangerous weapons to the N.A.T.O. armoury is that it would increase by a huge amount the arms bill of Western Europe. We should have to pay for part, at any rate, of the supply of atomic missiles and the means of carrying them, however generous America might be in endeavouring to help us in a matter of this kind. We know that the Americans have their own economic problem, which is at the moment a problem of the balance of payments; they are urging us to contribute more to N.A.T.O., and they would certainly wish us (and this point has already arisen in the case of the supply of the Polaris missiles) to pay at least a part of the cost of this additional deterrent. We certainly could not expect the United States to pay for a duplication of its own system of strategic deterrent. They would clearly have to keep their own atomic missiles and the means of delivering them. Surely increased expenditure on arms at a time when the people in Western Europe are looking forward to reduced taxation and better living standards could be justified only if it were absolutely necessary for the defence of the West. But is it necessary? I think everyone would agree that N.A.T.O. has carried out with very great success its task of preventing Communist aggression and encroach
1228
ment in Europe. There is no evidence at all that it needs this huge additional strength to go on doing what it has done successfully for the past ten years. If it can do its job without the strategic nuclear deterrent, as it has done in the past, why cannot it continue to do so in the future?
Finally, my Lords—and I think this is a no less important argument than the two I have mentioned—there can be little doubt that a new Western deterrent would make the prospect of agreement about general disarmament, at which we all agree it is essential to aim, even more remote than it is at the present time. The Russians would regard this new weapon as provocative and would be even less willing to cut their own arms. They might start a new arms race by retaliating or giving the nuclear weapon to the Warsaw Pact Powers. With the new Administration in Washington and the known willingness of President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev to negotiate, it 'would surely be the greatest of pities to do anything to lessen the chances of success of agreement about general disarmament or a more limited agreement about atomic tests.
What I think we should encourage N.A.T.O. to do is to give its conventional forces the most up-to-date organisation and equipment that can be given. General Norstad is not satisfied, and I think rightly, with their present state of efficiency. By making N.A.T.O.'s conventional shield stronger we shall also lessen the risk of nuclear war. Nobody expects a war to begin with the use of nuclear weapons. But if one side finds that it is losing a battle between conventional forces it will be strongly tempted to redress the balance in the only way open to it. We should give General Norstad all the support we can in his efforts to improve and modernise the conventional land, sea and air forces at his disposal. There is much to be said for a mobile striking force. I will not go into that point—I am not a military expert. But it is clear that there would be great advantage in having a mobile force which could go to any point of danger in Eastern or South-Eastern Europe; and such a force would add to the weapons the West has to defend itself from attack by conventional weapons without adding as the nuclear deterrent would, to the risk of war.

1229
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, made so much of this point. We are really living in the past if we imagine that the Communist threat to-day is still primarily a military threat. Mr. Khrushchev has described what he means by peaceful co-existence. In his own words it is an economic, political and ideological struggle, not a trial of military strength. Mr. Spaak, in the speech with which he wound up the Conference, spoke of the Communist economic offensive, and pointed out that it would be launched not in Europe or North America but in the underdeveloped countries of the world. The Russians want to turn swords into ploughshares, not because they have become pacifists but because they realise that ploughshares are now the most useful instrument in propagating the doctrine and power of world Communism.
The task of the Western Allies to-day is therefore to meet the threat to the free, and largely uncommitted, countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. This can be done only if we pool our economic resources for the benefit of these under-developed countries in the way we have already pooled our political and military resources. But this is something very much harder to achieve in the free economies of the West than it is in the State-planned economies of the Soviet bloc. That is why I regard (I think this is a new point, and a new point is always difficult to make at this stage of the debate) the establishment of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as the most promising recent development in relations between the N.A.T.O. countries.
In the first place it will bring Canada and the United States for the first time into full economic co-operation with the other countries of the N.A.T.O. group in Western Europe, and this will make possible prior consultation and the coordination of trade and economic policies which are essential if the West is to do more for the development of the underdeveloped countries. These countries still receive most of their capital investment and technical skill from the West, and most of their trade is, of course, already with the industrial countries of Western Europe and North America, which buy their foodstuffs and raw materials. Hitherto, everything has been
1230
done on a bilateral basis. For example, in Africa, France has helped the former French African colonies; the United Kingdom has helped the former British African countries, and the United States has done its best to help everyone.
It is vital, and it is certainly high time, that France, the United Kingdom and the United States, and the smaller European countries as well, got together and tried to work out common policies for trade, capital investment and technical aid in Africa. This has already been done for Southern Asia by the Colombo Plan, which provides a model for what is required in Africa. O.E.C.D. is the right instrument for getting the co-operation of the African countries. They are mainly neutral and uncommitted, and the fact that O.E.C.D. includes five neutral European countries will show them that we are not trying to drag them by the back door into the East-West conflict. I hope that the Government will make the greatest possible use of this new instrument to meet the economic challenge of the Soviet Union. I hope that O.E.C.D, will not stop at the co-ordination of supply; I hope that it will bring supply and demand together, and that will be the next step. There is no reason why this organisation, if it wins the confidence of the African countries, should not work out a Colombo Plan for Africa.
In saying all this about economic action to counteract what is being done by the Soviet Union and its allies, I do not for a moment wish to lessen or underestimate the importance of N.A.T.O. as a regional military Alliance, because it has the membership of the United States and this provides the best means of security for Western Europe; indeed, we have greater security now than we have had at any previous period in the course of this century. But N.A.T.O. has always been more than a military Alliance, and its other objectives—social and economic—willbecome increasingly important as time goes on, for the values and the way of life of the N.A.T.O. countries can be defended, in the long run, only by defending the whole free world. Our own freedom depends on whether or not we are able to meet the social and economic challenge of Communism in the underdeveloped countries of the world. Most of them, though uncommitted, still look

1231
to the West to rescue them from poverty and to improve their standards of living without taking away what they would otherwise lose—their most precious asset, their independence and their freedom from interference in their own internal affairs.
4.42 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to take part in this debate as I have had the privilege of being a delegate to the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference for three successive Conferences. I should like to say how touched I was by Lord Ogmore's reference and also by Lord Listowel's most kind reference to the origins of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Conference, which was in fact started by my husband and Senator Robertson from Canada, now I think some eight or nine years ago. I have watched closely the development of the Conference because I think that from year to year it has grown a great deal in importance. I am not sure that the Paris Conference last autumn was not perhaps the most important that we have yet had, because we had an enormous world press for the speeches made by many of the distinguished delegates and, more particularly, by General Norstad and M. Spaak. It shows that this organisation fills an important part in the work of the N.A.T.O. Alliance and in the work of the N.A.T.O. Council.
It started in a most humble way. It had neither money, nor personnel, nor administration—it just started with the idea in the minds of two Parliamentary men that the enormous sums of money that were being spent, and rightly so, on N.A.T.O. defence, at the end of the day came through the Parliaments of the N.A.T.O. countries, and that it was high time that the Parliamentary people in the N.A.T.O. countries realised what was going on and how the money was being spent, because in some ways discussion was conducted more over the desks of the Defence Ministers and less across the Floor of the Houses of Parliament from which were coming these great sums of money and these great plans. So it was really to try to bring in the political characters among the N.A.T.O. countries, to try to bring in the Parliaments of the N.A.T.O. countries to discuss and exchange views, that
1232
the idea of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Conference started. The fact that it has grown, that it has become more important, and that now we get small subventions from the Governments of the N.A.T.O. countries, I think shows that people are beginning to realise that this is an important part of the N.A.T.O. set-up.
In addition, the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Conference has had the opportunity of showing to many politicians the big centres of N.A.T.O. defence. Visits have been paid to the different centres in Europe and elsewhere, by Parliamentary people—not Defence Ministers, not people who know all about it, but people who should know and who are interested, and would not have such an opportunity of visiting these centres. That, I think, has been one of the great aspects of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Conference. Some of your Lordships were among the distinguished people who attended the Conference in London in 1958. Many people came—again, not necessarily people interested in military affairs, but those interested in the political and economic aspects of the N.A.T.O. Alliance. Then in 1959 we went to a Conference in Washington, where we had the benefit of listening to many of the great American experts on these subjects.
The speech that attracted the most attention in Paris was undoubtedly that of General Norstad. It has been discussed here in you Lordships' House to-day, and I do not feel that I can make any additional contribution to that aspect of the discussion. But in Paris M. Spaak made reference to General Norstad's speech. He did not, I think, commit himself to the views expressed by the General, but he made a point which I think is worth remembering. He gave illustrations in his speech of the difficulty of operating as Secretary of an Alliance that has fifteen bosses, so that no decision can ever be made singly but all decisions require the approval of fifteen nations. As he said, faced with the single powerful force of the U.S.S.R. and the single decision that Mr. Khrushchev requires to make, the disadvantages of the fifteen are obvious.
It is therefore to closer co-operation within the fifteen that attention must be given, and that is where I feel the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Conference

1233
comes in. In the military sphere cooperation has already gone a long way, although M. Spaak again said that he thought there were many aspects of military co-operation that could go a long way further. But the military aspect has been discussed ever since N.A.T.O. came into effect, and I have often felt that the economic, the political and the philosophical, if you like, background of all the free countries cooperating together has never been studied to the same extent as has the military background.
I remember very well in 1954, which was the first year I went as a delegate to the United Nations, feeling most strongly that the eyes of the Communist world were not turning so much towards Europe, although, being part and parcel of the European situation, they naturally kept their eyes on that part of the world, but were really turning towards the East —turning away to another part of the world rather than only to Europe. I felt then that we were so concentrated on Europe and in Europe that it was essential for us to look elsewhere. I went twice to New York and watched this same thing happening. Since then, the eyes of European countries have been turning away from Europe. They have been turned to Africa, which still occupies the world stage. They have been turned towards the Far Eastern countries, like Indonesia and Laos—alternative theatres of unhappiness at the present moment. Those events react on the N.A.T.O. Alliance, and it becomes increasingly more important that title fifteen nations should co-operate, not only in defence but also in political and economic affairs.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has referred to the Treaty that has just been signed—that of the O.E.C.D.—as being a great step forward, and I am sure he is right. We all feel that this is a big step forward in the co-ordinating of economic policies and in bringing about an effective way of helping under-developed countries—something of which people sometimes talk all too glibly, so that it becomes almost a slogan but does not become something practical. That is, indeed, a step forward; but it would be a great tragedy if on the economic battle ground, not only between Communism and the Free World but between the competing nations of the Free World, we
1234
did not and could not establish proper co-operation. So we must turn our minds to building up political and economic co-operation among the fifteen nations as one of the most important aspects of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, because if we are to provide a defence against the Communist world in another sphere altogether, it is by co-operation among the fifteen that we must find it; and it is exceedingly difficult.
In his speech, the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, to whom I listened with the greatest possible interest, he being, as the noble Earl, Lord Home, said, one of the authors of the N.A.T.O. Treaty and more fitted to speak than anybody, drew attention to the difficulty of thinking of one's former enemies as one's allies. Unless we all believe that in the fifteen nations all are allies we shall never get anywhere. I believe that that is extremely important. But if we are all to be allies, and allies with erstwhile enemies, we must have, as it were, a basic inspiration to give it strength. We talk of the Free World and often mean very different things by freedom. It is because of the need to find practical expression for our free way of life that N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians have sponsored the idea of an institute, to be called the "Atlantic Institute", to study and research into practical applications of freedom, of the philosophy underlying our way of life, of the need to study our differences and to try to reconcile them in the realm of thought and philosophy.
For centuries men have been researching into weapons, into military strategy and all its modern developments. Millions of pounds and billions of dollars have been spent, and our N.A.T.O. strength, as the noble Earl, Lord Home, and others have said, is to-day very great. But in the world of thought, the philosophy underlying all our way of life and ideas, in the study of men's mind in the Free World, no coordinated effort has yet been made, no money (to speak of) spent, no research begun; and yet, unless we have a positive way of life to put forward, which will appeal to struggling and poor countries in the same degree as the programmes put forward by the Soviet Union, we shall not succeed in spreading our faith in freedom throughout the world.

1235
In his winding-up speech in Paris, M. Spaak said:
"The problem is not which country produces the most; it is what to do with the wealth so produced, what sort of society we should organise, what hopes we should give to mankind. Recent history has shown us the most detestable and the cruellest régimes to be quite capable of producing a certain amount of social progress, but only by sacrificing all their spiritual assets to their material ones."
I am sure that that is absolutely true, and if our free society is to prosper and to recruit new nations to its way of life we must present our case for free institutions to the world unitedly, just as we have presented our case for defence. It is my hope that the Atlantic Institute will attract to itself a body of men and women prepared to study the many questions which divide us and those on which we agree and can demonstrate most effectively together. I do not believe this would in any sense be detracting from the United Nations, but in that vast Assembly of 88 countries it is really impossible to make such studies; and the atmosphere of the Assembly and its Committees, as I know all too well, is not conducive to this kind of work or discussion.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will give support and encouragement to the Institute in its beginnings in Milan, from where we hope it will grow to its own premises and by its work prove to be as important as the atomic and other research institutes and stations that have made the military strength of N.A.T.O. If that should be so, we should have practical plans to help the underdeveloped nations and also ourselves in the vast task of directing the Governments of the world away from war, whether cold or hot, to the spiritual and material well-being of individuals, of peoples and of nations. This is one of the activities, the ideas, that have come from the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Conference which I very much hope Her Majesty's Government and other Governments in N.A.T.O. countries will consider, because these things are important as contributions to the ideal put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, of a world in which the ideas of N.A.T.O. will not be confined to fifteen countries but spread out into other parts of the world and may
1236
break down—who knows?—the barriers that we all deplore between the Communist world and the non-Communist world. I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will see fit to support the humble efforts in these beginnings, and that we, too, here in this country, will support it in any way we can.
4.57 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I feel particularly in need of your Lordships' indulgence, and indeed your sympathy, to-night. It is not as if, like so many of the most brilliant Members of this House, I had come up from what I must now refer to as "another place". It is all very strange to me—Peers to the right of me; Peers to the left of me, Peers even in front of me; all potentially volleying and thundering! I must say I feel almost like poor Lord Cardigan must have felt at the Battle of Balaclava. I only hope I may come out of this engagement with as much success and honour as he did.
Such experience as I have had of public speaking has been in a quite different atmosphere, in the United Nations. There, as your Lordships probably know, one feels far more secure. I am sure the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary, will agree with me. In the first place, one sits comfortably at a table before a friendly microphone with lots of devoted secretaries who push forward material which one reads out. And nobody interrupts. Even in the Assembly, where one is supposed to indulge in flights of oratory, one grasps a kind of lectern and grinds out a speech quite irrespective of one's immediate audience, feeling as if one were reading the Lesson in Church. Indeed, it is not the immediate audience which is of any great importance. Everybody there is conscious of the prevailing presence through the microphones and television cameras of the great unseen, mass audience. I believe if anything is certain it is that I should be just as misguided to address your Lordships' House as if it were a mass audience as I should be if I were to address a mass audience as though it were the House of Lords; so I will do nothing of the kind if I can possibly help it.
My Lords, I suppose almost every Member of this House will agree upon

1237
one thing: that N.A.T.O.—that is to say, the organisation which is founded on the North Atlantic Treaty, and which I myself, under the inspired direction of that great Foreign Secretary, the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, was partly responsible for negotiating early in 1948—is essential for our defence. May I say here at once that I agree entirely with the description which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, gave of the state of mind of our negotiators at that time and with the reasons he gave for the Government of the day agreeing to this Treaty. May I say also that I personally accept entirely the brilliant analysis of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary as to the general purposes of the Alliance to-day and the things which it can and essentially cannot do. At this point I might say that, however much we criticise the present set-up—of course we may criticise it—-we should, I think, go rather warily about reform, because if we do not, perhaps without meaning 'to we may actually encourage disruptive tendencies. I think that is a danger.
Even those who believe that, for instance, the Command structure of N.A.T.O. should be reorganised, or those who question the whole principle of integration, like General de Gaulle, would also admit, I am sure, that the greatest disaster which could befall us at the present time would be if the Americans, despairing of their European Allies, proceeded to withdraw, or even to reduce the number of their troops. For then the Russians might conclude—I think they would—that the use of the nuclear deterrent for the defence of Europe was at least very doubtful. If this basic fact is generally recognised (and I must say I hope and believe it is) these problems of reorganisation., difficult as they are, are capable of gradual adjustment, given good will. They do not, as I see it, pose any insoluble problems. But what is essential is that nothing should be done which could lead people to suppose that Western Europe is defensible without America or, indeed, that America is defensible without Western Europe.
But there is one outstanding point of a politico-strategic nature, referred to in several speeches to-day, which admittedly does seem, on the face of it, to be insoluble. As we all know, it is the problem posed by the simple question:
1238
who presses the button for the use of nuclear weapons, and on whose authority? There are those who rightly maintain that this is a decision that can be taken only by the Governments concerned; and there are those who draw the logical conclusion that this means it is the N.A.T.O. Council that would have to make the decision. But, as we all know, in theory at any rate, the N.A.T.O. Council can act only by unanimity. Therefore, the equally logical, though naturally absurd, conclusion is sometimes drawn that there must be fifteen fingers on the safety catch. It is the old story of the Polish Diet and the Liberum veto.
I think that in considering this matter we should be guided less by theory than by common sense. The fact surely is that if Western Europe is the victim of a major or all-out aggression, irrespective of whether nuclear arms are employed in that aggression, all the chances are that all N.A.T.O. countries will be involved in an atomic war, whether they like it or not. An attack on one, as the Foreign Secretary said, is an attack on all. After all, hostilities, if indeed they are seriously intended and are not the result of some probing operation or even the result of some misunderstanding, cannot possibly be confined to one particular front or to one area. Besides, since what are known as tactical nuclear weapons are now, or shortly will be, part and parcel of defensive operations, they would sooner or later be employed, whoever is technically responsible for giving the command, and that irrespective of whether all Governments give their consent or withhold it. Those, I think, are the facts.
I know that it has been suggested that the use of tactical nuclear weapons would not necessarily involve the use of strategic nuclear weapons; but no one can surely count on this. Since, I believe, the range of so-called tactical weapons extends up to 1,500 miles, it stands to reason that in practice no distinction can be made between them and strategic weapons. If, therefore, any major attack occurs against a N.A.T.O. country, a seriously intended attack—a major attack with the object of knocking out—I do not think we need worry too much about who in theory will give the signal for a nuclear World War: it will simply start and we shall all perforce be involved. It may sound bleak,

1239
but I think it is so. Happily, I do not believe that this is in the least likely. Perhaps not all noble Lords will agree, but it has always seemed to me that the danger of nuclear war—never great—has, with the arrival of the balance of terror (referred to by the Foreign Secretary, I believe, as the nuclear equipoise) become increasingly remote. That is, of course, provided that the balance is maintained. If it is really true, as we are assured, that neither side can take part in war without committing suicide, surely we must assume that the buttons will not in fact be pressed. Nations do not normally commit suicide. Even the spectre of a mad colonel pressing the button in a fit of rage, or of radar operators mistaking the moon for nuclear rockets does not preoccupy me very much. Double precautions will certainly be taken on both sides against this sort of thing.
So it seems to follow that any "aggressions" in the old-fashioned sense are now completely out of date and that if they really were contemplated all the great Powers, while calling each other dreadful names, of course, would see to it that they were not undertaken or, at any rate, that they did not spread. If I may say so, Laos seems to me to be a textbook case. This state of affairs may, admittedly, be one day changed by China, but not, I feel, just yet and probably not for a number of years.
Thus, I think that for practical purposes we may contemplate action by the N.A.T.O. Council on two broad types of issue only. (I am talking about political decisions.) In the first place, there may be some major crisis—for instance, Berlin—not actually involving military aggression. In the second place, there may be some physical aggression but it is yet doubtful whether any major action is planned by the other side. On Berlin, the main responsibility for actually conducting any negotiations would of course be borne by the ex-occupying Powers in close association with Germany. But the Council would naturally, in those circumstances, be in almost permanent session, and any major decision would certainly be referred to that forum. In the second case—namely, that of a rather ambiguous aggression—it is also certain that the same kind of procedure would be followed. Thus, as it seems
1240
to me, if there is any doubt about this or any inhibitions, the smaller Powers will in practice have ample occasion for expressing their view and indeed for putting it across. And, after all, they must always reflect that if they left the Organisation they would put themselves in a position in which they would never be consulted at all. This, as I see it, is the limit to which political control can be exercised in practice. It may be different in theory, but in practice I think that that is as far as we shall be able to go.
For rather similar reasons I do not myself see (though this may be disputed) bow there can be such a thing as a N.A.T.O. bomb put at the disposal of the Council as such. The Supreme Commander, who already has this weapon at his disposal under one hat, and who under the N.A.T.O. scheme would presumably have it under another hat as well, could hardly wait to employ the arm on the consent of one recalcitrant member of the Council if the others had authorised its use. I repeat that in cases not involving actual all-out aggression the use of nuclear arms first by our side would presumably not arise; or, anyhow, it would be referred to the Council who would take a decision. In other cases, as I have said, if it was clear it was an all-out attack, they would be employed almost automatically. I do not really think that, in practice, we can push the matter further than this. The great thing is that there should be the fullest discussion possible in the Council.
My Lords, what seems to me much more dangerous for the West than such hypothetical situations is the expansion of Soviet or Communist influence and its economic and social propagation in those newly-independent States which have not yet had direct experience of the practical results of the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat, sometimes charmingly referred to, I think, as "social engineering". How can the Free World as a whole best organise itself so as to counter this menace? What economic and social measures should be agreed in common? Is N.A.T.O. itself one of the instruments which could be used for this purpose? And, in particular, could effect be given within the N.A.T.O. machine to the last sentence of Article 2 of the Treaty (which hitherto

1241
has been something of a dead letter), which reads:
"They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them."
Now I know that this, again, is a moot point, and I must not be too controversial in a maiden speech, but I think the answer to the last two questions must, in principle, be: No. The essential purpose of the Atlantic Alliance is to defend members against physical aggression by the Soviet Union. It must, therefore, as indeed it does, concentrate principally on maintaining its panoply in as efficient a state as possible, and on trying to arrange that the financial and economic burdens of these arms are equitably distributed. It must also, naturally, try to co-ordinate the political policies of its members by various means, given the obvious fact that some of its members are much larger than others, and that the immediate objectives of all are obviously not the same, Thirdly, it could (and I am sure it does) co-ordinate the various anti-Communist propaganda lines of members, and make suggestions for suitable counter-propaganda themes for use in the area and elsewhere. Then, again, it can do great work in co-ordinating all scientific activity—for instance, in encouraging the production of scientists and technicians. Finally, it certainly should be responsible, as I see it, for all strictly cold war economic operations—what can be called, in fact, "economic warfare". In other words, as I see it, anything which tends to fortify the Alliance as such should come within the N.A.T.O. sphere—which, after all, I should have thought, was vast enough.
But whether N.A.T.O. as such should actually take on the vast work of co-ordinating the external economic, financial and social policies of members, of helping emergent nations and (whether this is the declared intention or not) of defeating the attempt of international Communism to out-flank the whole Free World, seems to me to be something which is much more doubtful. Of course, the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians—that wholly admirable body which, may I say, has done so much to bring real life into the Alliance—will continue. I think, to consider all these problems at their annual meeting; but for the purpose of
1242
actually handling them on the technical level, some other body than N.A.T.O. seems to be required.
It cannot be the United Nations, because, after all, the United Nations includes a good number of Communist countries—although, naturally, aid could, if so desired, be channelled through the United Nations, and notably through such organisations as the World Bank. It could scarcely be a body comprising all the non-Communist world, for the simple reason that the so-called non-committed" non-European countries would not join. Besides, by the very nature of things it would have to be a body of givers, one would have thought, rather than receivers. Moreover, if it is to be something comprised within the term "Atlantic", it must somehow approximate to a given area, I should have thought, and perhaps to a certain civilisation.
My Lords, such a body exists. It is true that, for political reasons, it cannot call itself an Atlantic Community, but that, in effect, is what it is. I refer, of course, to O.E.C.D.—the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—the twenty members of which comprise all non-Communist European States this side of the Iron Curtain save Finland, plus the United States and Canada. It does not at present represent a unity—some of its members are members of military alliances, and some, most emphatically, are not—but it does represent a common, and basically Christian, tradition, an ethnic affiliation, a geographical area and an economically homogeneous group. Australia and New Zealand are the only really similar countries in the world which are not included, and they, after all, are situated many thousands of miles away from the Atlantic. Six of the members of O.E.C.D. are already on the way to becoming unified. Others may (and, personally, I hope they will) join that unity. But that will not harm O.E.C.D.—rather the reverse.
Eventually, I hope, it will become rather more coherent. Some day, no doubt, with the aid of those excellent N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians, I trust it will develop an Assembly of its own. At this point it might well even absorb the Council of Europe. But all this is for the future. At this moment, the rather anonymous Organisation for Economic

1243
Co-operation and Development is as near a thing to an Atlantic Community as we can achieve. It is true that I have just been elected, as the noble Baroness who spoke before me has said, a member of the policy committee of a body called the Atlantic Institute. It is one of the tasks of that committee to try to think out what the Atlantic Community might possibly be, but pending a meeting of my committee I should perhaps speak with all reserve.
Perhaps I could resume my thoughts in the following way. I am really not very pessimistic about the present state or the future of the military alliance known as N.A.T.O. It is adaptable, and has shown itself capable of adaptation. As an animator, it fortunately possesses a wonderful Secretary General in the person of the dynamic Paul-Henri Spaak. The essential thing is that, pending the achievement of controlled disarmament, there should be an organised and considerable inter-Allied conventional force of some kind in Western Europe with nuclear backing, including, of course, the Americans, the Canadians and ourselves: and this for the simple reason that, if it were not so, the other side might be tempted to take chances in the hope that general war would not follow some forward move. Such a force must obviously have nuclear weapons behind it, if only because the Russians have such weapons behind them. In the event of real hostilities, these weapons would be used. But before using them first, there would clearly, on our side, be discussion in the Council, during which the normal control of the participating democracies could be exercised. With the proviso mentioned, it does not perhaps matter very much whether General de Gaulle objects to the principle of integration, or whether French troops in Germany are temporarily reduced. Of course, if France left the Alliance altogether it would be disastrous, but I think we can be pretty confident that it will not come to that.
For the rest, we can safely rely on the balance of terror to preclude hostilities in Europe. Mr. Khrushchev may well provoke a crisis over Berlin, where he seems to believe that his position is strong, in order to achieve certain limited objectives if he can: but such ill-advised action will not, as I see it, result in
1244
war. The mounting hysteria about the international situation, the constant assertion that unless we can achieve complete disarmament we shall all shortly be blown up, seems to me to be most misguided. Naturally, a measure of disarmament is essential, if only because of the effect on the economy of both sides of our unrestricted arms race. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs referred to that, and I entirely agree with him. Partial, balanced disarmament is perhaps the answer. But I do not feel in the least that we shall all shortly be blown up. I did feel like this during the few years before the last war—a kind of hopeless feeling of inevitable doom. But, as I say, I have nothing approaching the same feeling now.
My Lords, is it because I have become less sensitive or less perceptive during the last 20 years? Perhaps; but I really do not think so. I know, after all, as much about the international situation and the appalling nature of modern arms as most people, but if I am alarmed, I am certainly not alarmed by the prospect of an imminent holocaust. To say the least, I am not so alarmed as Mr. Khrushchev would like me to be. I am alarmed because I feel that somehow the Western World may be led to think that the cold war—tension, if you like —can, as it were by some magic, be abolished; whereas in truth our only hope lies in taking up the challenge thrown down by the Communist world. I am alarmed because I fear that even if we do accept this necessity we may not have the courage and the imagination to fight the cold war as it should be fought, collectively; that is to say, with concerted intelligence combined with generosity. Because we may not, for instance, collectively accept the consequences, undesirable, no doubt, from certain points of view, of pushing up the prices of raw materials which alone, in the long run, might prevent the emergent nations from accepting the grim disciplines of Communism.
I am alarmed not because I despair of our country making sacrifices as such —rich and poor are quite capable of doing that, if only they believe they are making them in some worthy cause—but because I fear that the real issues may never become clear to the people. I am alarmed because I have the impression, coming back after a long absence abroad,

1245
that this nation as a whole does not at the moment know where it is going, or what exactly it wants to do. The détente has not materialised and an acceptable alternative policy is not as yet clearly defined. "Where there is no vision, the people perish". The process of "de-colonisation", as it is called, however desirable and necessary, seems to have left us without any very positive and generally accepted notion of our position in the world and of the rôle which we should play, either alone or in conjunction with the Commonwealth and our neighbours. It looks as if our ex-Imperial nation might have to devise some new national ideology. If it does not, there seems to be a danger that the very real idealistic forces always inherent in these Islands may be channelled into such quicksands as the campaign for the complete nuclear disarmament of the United Kingdom.
My Lords, I do not want to get into the sphere of the controversial. Perhaps in some future speech I may be more entitled to say what, if anything, I think should be done. To-day I am only giving expression to a few ideas which might perhaps govern our general thinking with regard to N.A.T.O. and the world situation generally. One thing I can say in conclusion, as a result of my long sojourn abroad—and it is comforting up to a point: expressions of public opinion in this democracy, and still more, of course, speeches by Ministers, and in the first instance by the Prime Minister, have a foreign audience quite out of proportion to the apparent political and economic importance of these Islands. We still, in fact, have a great deal of good will, which means that our voice still counts for much in international gatherings. But if we want to retain this form of leadership, we must, as things are, be very certain of our real objective. It is not enough to say that we are in favour of peace and controlled disarmament; that we support the United Nations; that we regard N.A.T.O. as the cornerstone of our policy. The real things that have to be defined are our attitude toward the cold war and our attitude toward Europe. But I feel I have said quite enough for one day and I should not wish to commit any impropriety. So I end merely by thanking your Lordships for your extreme indulgence.
5.24 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, it is my privilege to be the first Member of your Lordships' House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, upon his maiden speech; and I do so with particular pleasure because we have been contemporaries throughout our lives. We were usually in the same division at Eton, the only notable difference being that he was invariably at the top of it and I was invariably at the bottom. We were at the same College at Oxford. We went to the same tutor, the late Sir Lewis Namier; and I detected a few echoes of Sir Lewis Namier in the remarkable speech to which we have just listened. Last, but not least, I was his best man. I feel that this qualifies me to extend congratulations on behalf of your Lordships' House to the noble Lord. I do not think your Lordships will expect me to say any more than that not only did his speech come up to all our expectations, but it far surpassed them. It was a remarkable performance, in view of the fact that he is suffering from an affliction that all but deprived us of the chance of hearing him at all. But for his great physical courage, I do not think we should have been able to hear him to-day.
My Lords, while on my feet, perhaps I might be allowed also to extend my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Crathorne, who sat with me for many years in the House of Commons, upon his wholly admirable maiden speech. In fact, so good have the speeches been to-day that I feel the sooner I sit down, the better!
Nevertheless, there are one or two things that I can say which I feel might add to your Lordships' information, even if you should not altogether agree with them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I do not take an unduly alarmist view of the situation. And, like him, I have not the same sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that I had in 1937, 1938 and 1939—that world war is inevitable. I do not feel that at all. But however we look at it all is not well. For five years the West has been in slow retreat in many parts of the world, especially on the psychological and economic fronts, in this continuing struggle against the forces of Communism. Why? Because, as I have said

1247
to your Lordships before, we have been fighting the centrally directed forces of Communism without any effective centralised organs of political decision of our own; and, therefore, without any policies devised and pursued in common.
This has been said so frequently that it has become almost to sound like a cliché; but I want to give your Lordships a classic example, which is 1956. In January, 1956, a conference was held in Washington between Mr. Dulles, President Eisenhower, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd and Sir Anthony Eden (who was then, of course, Prime Minister) to discuss the question of a common policy in the Middle East. At the end of the conference a communiqué was issued designed to give the impression that agreement had been reached upon a common policy in the Middle East. Not to put too fine a point on it, it was a lie; and every journalist in Washington, including myself, knew that it was untrue. They had not been able to agree upon a policy at all, though what they had been able to agree upon was that friendship, brotherhood, comradeship, and all the rest of it, were admirable objectives which we should always, and ever, hold in front of us, and that, with God's help, we should achieve those great ends. But that did not mean an agreed common policy for the Middle East. And the net result was the Suez crisis. It was the inevitable and direct result, due entirely, in my view, to the fact that we had not been able to work out a common policy; and it was followed by an immense deterioration in the position of the West as a whole throughout the Middle East. I do not think anyone can deny that fact.
I do not want this kind of thing to happen again. I have a great deal of sympathy for the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who said am paraphrasing his words) that he regarded the speeches made by military leaders on political subjects as, on the whole, a "pain in the neck". I think that was roughly the impression he conveyed, and there is something to be said for that point of view. But I find an irresistible attraction in some of the observations of the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. I have long been an addict of his, and
1248
have repeated these two phrases to your Lordships before; but they are so good that I think they deserve repetition. The noble and gallant Viscount said, some years ago:
"The task before the nations of the West is primarily political. Economic fusion and military strength will not be obtained until the political association between the group of nations concerned has first been defined. …"
We have never done it. He went on:
"The first task of Western leadership must be to strengthen N.A.T.O. politically, and to give it that leadership and unity which it has always lacked."
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, was for many years a Deputy Commander in N.A.T.O., and I feel that on this subject he ought to know what he is talking about. I believe that the Command structure does stand in need of radical revision. Both General de Gaulle and the noble and gallant Viscount, who, as I have said, ought to know something about it, have consistently and severely criticised it. I do not want to go into details this afternoon; indeed, I am not qualified to do so. All I want to say is that the primary purpose of N.A.T.O. remains what it has always been, and what it has generally been agreed to be by noble Lords this afternoon, the prevention of war in Europe, and therefore a world war, and that the present machinery of N.A.T.O. is becoming increasingly inadequate for this purpose.
I want to make two brief points. First of all, no clear directives have yet been laid down to govern the use of nuclear weapons, and no effective political authority exists at present to supervise it. Secondly over the past ten years we have achieved (and here I quote Mr. Spaak) practically no results in the vital matter of standardisation of weapons within N.A.T.O., and the consequent dispersal of effort and waste of money on the part of all of us is almost beyond description. It has gone on now for the last five or six years.
I do not intend to deal this evening, as my noble friend Lord Gladwyn did, with the economic side of the question. I entirely agree with him. I believe that O.E.C.D. is an admirable instrument and organisation for this purpose. I think that it would be better than N.A.T.O itself. It would be putting too much of a burden on N.A.T.O. to ask it to undertake all this work. O.E.C.D. is by its

1249
composition, in my view, much better qualified to do it. And could. So far as Europe is concerned I have already expressed my views to your Lordships, and they remain quite unchanged. I have no doubt what we ought to do about that; but I submit that, so far as N.A.T.O. is concerned, at the present moment the supreme need is for a common nuclear policy.
Now I want to put to your Lordships once again, if I may, the two "64,000-dollar" unanswered questions. The first one is: do we want a series of more or less independent and more or less vulnerable nuclear deterrent forces within the N.A.T.O. Alliance? Or do we want a single, unified and comparatively invulnerable—in the sense of being securely based—nuclear strategic force for the West as a whole? This is a really vital question, but nobody has ever quite faced up to it yet. I myself have no doubt about the correct answer. I think that it should be the latter. I agree with the view of Mr. John Strachey, in the remarkable Fabian pamphlet which he wrote the other day, that a vulnerable nuclear force is a provocation rather than a deterrent, because, although it has little capacity for retaliation, it nevertheless presents an intense menace to the enemy. The ultimate weapon must be secure in its base. If the father of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, were with us this evening, he could tell us quite a lot about that because he found himself, in the year 1914, in supreme command of the ultimate weapon without a secure base—and that was not a very happy situation for him, or for any of us. We got through: but it was a very rough period indeed, and I should not like us to have to try to go through that again.
The second question has already been asked, and practically answered, this afternoon: is there a comprehensible line to be drawn between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons? I believe not. In a debate in another place on December 13 the Lord Privy Seal was asked by Mr. George Brown how it was realistically thought that a Polaris submarine could hurl a half-megaton warhead 1,200 miles into the heart of metropolitan Russia and be called "tactical". The Lord Privy Seal replied that it depended entirely on the target at which it was aimed. To which my answer is: suppose
1250
it went to a target at which it was not aimed? Coming out of the depths of the ocean from a submarine, that is surely not outside the bounds of possibility. It might be rather rough on all of us.
Mr. Heath has been criticised, and even ridiculed, for this observation; but I think that in making it he rendered a great public service. Because it is, in fact, impossible to distinguish between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, as he clearly demonstrated; and I feel that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who not only endorsed Mr. Heath's view but almost went beyond it, came very near to this position in his speech this afternoon. I believe that, in the absence of any precise agreement on the matter with the Soviet Union, which is improbable, this attempt to make a sharp distinction between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons is a mathematical formula, if carried on indefinitely, for unlimited nuclear war. Because the first atomic explosion—and here again the Secretary of State came very near to saying this this afternoon—will put us on the escalator which could easily lead to the destruction of the whole world. If we start making these fine distinctions where do we land? I cannot think that it is a very good plan.
I turn next to what has been called the "shield force". General Norstad said at the N.A.T.O. Conference the other day:
"Stated in its simplest terms the particular task of the N.A.T.O. forces in Europe, the so-called 'shield forces ', may be identified as follows: first, to contribute to the deterrent. To do this we must be in a position to prevent, if possible, an act of aggression, large or small, intentional or unintentional, by the presence of effective defending strength. If such an act were to take place we must, as a minimum, be able to force a pause and. during this break, to establish clearly that the action is aggression, to emphasise the cost and the consequences of such aggression. The aggressor would thus be required, in the light of these considerations, to make a conscious decision as to whether or not he would extend the incident or the involvement so that it would constitute an act of major war."
Applied to conventional forces, this argument could not be better put, and seems to me to be quite unexceptionable; but applied to nuclear weapons, whether they are called strategic or tactical, it does

1251
not seem to me to add up. For the time being, it may well be necessary—and I admit this at once—to retain small-scale tactical atomic weapons, of limited size and with a range of about 100 miles, in the forward areas. And so long as this is the case, I think that it would be far better to leave the control of warheads where it now is, with the original source or ownership—that is to say, in nine cases out of ten, with the United States Government—and not try to set up or alter the form of control which already exists over these tactical weapons. It may be an anomaly; but I think that this is probably the best way through, the most feasible form of control we have. But surely we must aim, in the long run, to withdraw all these tactical atomic weapons from the forward areas of N.A.T.O. on the Continent of Europe and rely instead on conventional forces with adequate air mobility. I am talking now of the forward areas on the Continent of Europe; and 30 divisions would do it. That is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
If these two basic premises are accepted—and I think that they cannot very easily be controverted—we shall have to face up to their implications, some of which are not very palatable. The first one is the gradual reduction of N.A.T.O.'s dependence on nuclear weapons on the ground on the Continent, which must mean larger conventional forces. The question is not so difficult as it may seem. Germany's conventional army is growing in size. We all hope that the present Algerian trouble will be over, so that a number of French divisions can be released. It could mean —and I do not want your Lordships to rule this out—a reintroduction of some form of selective National Service in this country, but I think that, for the provision of adequate conventional forces on the Continent of Europe, if we are to play our full part, and if other countries decide to play a full part, that would be a small price to pay. The second implication is the withdrawal of the basic strategic nucilear force to the oceans and, for the time being, to this Island; but ultimately, so, far as land based weapons are concerned, to the North American Continent. To the cost, and in the control of this force, both this country
1252
and France would have to play their full part, in co-operation with our N.A.T.O. Allies.
There is another point that I should like to make here. Anybody who knows President de Gaulle will realise that he is not going to go back on the policy of developing nuclear weapons in France; and we have to accept General de Gaulle—indeed, I think my noble friend Lord Gladwyn would agree with this—as a partner in the strategic nuclear force behind N.A.T.O. in order to ensure the co-operation of France in the future. As the co-operation of France is essential, I think we have no alternative but to do so.
The objection to this has been mentioned by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: that if we create this single nuclear strategic force, under the effective direction of ourselves, the United States and France, at a considerable distance—and the distance may be increased as time goes on and the missiles are improved—a nuclear attack on Western Europe would not involve necessarily retaliatory action by the United States. I think this is a risk that has to be accepted, and that it is neglible by comparison with the alternative risks. I am old enough to remember the Grand Fleet in 1918, when it was still the ultimate weapon upon which the whole military power of the Allies was based. I saw it, as a boy, riding at anchor in a secure base. The Sixth Battle Squadron was comprised of capital ships of the U.S. Navy, serving under the flag of Sir David Beatty.
That is a precisely similar and analogous position to the position that our strategic nuclear force would occupy in relation to the United States in the future, if the kind of development that I have in mind came about. Furthermore, Western Europe occupies to-day in relation to the United States exactly the same position as the Low Countries have occupied to Britain for the past three centuries. The truth is, as the Secretary of State pointed out, that we are absolutely inter-dependent. The United States depends upon the security of Western Europe for her own security, and vice versa. We never failed to go to war when we saw that the Low Countries were in danger of occupation and control by a single Power; and I have no

1253
doubt at all that an attack upon Western Europe by Russia to-day would meet with instant retaliatory action by the United Sates. To those who say that it would not, I say that it is a risk I am prepared to run.
THE EARL OF HOME: I have not interrupted the noble Lord before, because this is interesting, and it is almost impossible to deal with it shortly in question and answer. But we are in this dilemma. The noble Lord suggests that it might be possible to meet a tactical attack against one of the N.A.T.O. countries by having only conventional weapons, or a great proportion of only conventional weapons. Is not the dilemma this: that if you have weapons which are exactly comparable to those of your enemy, and you fire off, say, a corporal, then you risk repeated escalation until you get the exchange of the thing? But if you do not, you may be overwhelmed even more quickly and brine the big thing into operation faster than you would if you had been in a position to enforce a pause. I am not sure that this problem is quite so simple—and I do not mean by that to say that the noble Lord put it simply. But those are the considerations, and that is the dilemma.
LORD BOOTHBY: I see the dilemma, and I did say earlier in my speech that I thought that, for the time being, these tactical weapons should be retained by N.A.T.O. on the Continent of Europe under the existing control. Then, of course, I suppose it all depends on the extent, if any, to which you can get agreement with the Russians (a) about what a tactical weapon is; (b) about possible disengagement in Central Europe; and (c) about possible disarmament. But as to the argument that we are dependent for our ultimate security upon the United States, I feel sure that I carry the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary with me when I say that that is the position now. We really are inter-dependent. But this does mean that full political control of the ultimate weapon is essential; and, therefore, the setting up of machinery for swift, joint political decisions. I see no reason why this should not happen as the result of the Council meetings which are going on, which will presumably be
1254
followed by reports to the Governments and inter-Governmental consideration.
I should like to say one further thing before I conclude. I do not think we should completely ignore President Eisenhower's final warning to the Congress, that the supremacy of the civil power must be maintained. What he actually said was:
"In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
I suppose that he had in mind particularly the Pentagon. But it is a danger. I think it was significant that this warning should have come from President Eisenhower, who has such vast experience in this field. I believe that there has been—and probably the Secretary of State would agree with me—a certain disinclination on the part of all the N.A.T.O. Governments to think these problems through. Obviously the general objectives can be agreed by all of us: disarmament, leading to some kind of world order; strengthening of the United Nations—which is at the moment no more than a confrontation of the two great Powers struggling for the mastery of the world before a rather alarmed audience, of whom I was one the other day. That is what the United Nations is. But I would rather have a confrontation than nothing at all; because, in addition to being a confrontation, it is a point of contact.
The immediate objective must surely he a relaxation of tension. I believe unrepentantly—and I would remind your Lordships that Sir Anthony Eden was the man who first put forward this idea—that some measure of physical disengagement in Europe would represent the greatest hope of all for an immediate relaxation—a greater hope, perhaps, than disarmament.
As President Kennedy has said, we have to
"prove whether our society, with its freedom of choice, its breadth of opportunity, its range of alternatives, can compete with the single-minded advance of the Communist system."
To end on an optimistic note, I should like to say to your Lordships that we all have a pretty powerful common interest —the United States, Soviet Union, Western Europe and ourselves—which I think nobody felt they had in the same way

1255
before the outbreak of the last war: and to put that common interest quite simply in one word, it is survival.
5.48 p.m.
LORD ABINGER: My Lords, I am well aware that there are many of your Lordships who are far better qualified to speak in this debate to-day than I am. My intervention will be a short one, and on speaking for the first time in your Lordships' House I should like to ask for the indulgence which you are so generously accustomed to extend to maiden speakers. I am encouraged to speak at all only because I have been very much interested in the development of N.A.T.O. since its inception over ten years ago, and I have enjoyed many informal conversations with men of all nationalities in the Alliance about the problems facing the Alliance.
It has been suggested in the debate to-day that the machinery for the political control of N.A.T.O. should be altered in various ways. I can only give it as my view that the machinery as it exists at the moment is very good indeed, and I feel sincerely that any alterations to it may well cause more problems than they solve. I particularly like the fact that much of the more important work of negotiation at N.A.T.O. headquarters is done by professional diplomats. I think we owe a great debt to the ambassadors of all nations who have been appointed to N.A.T.O. headquarters. I sometimes feel that the professional diplomats—ambassadors and others—are not allowed the scope and initiative which their great experience, knowledge and training would justify. But I am glad to say that I do not think that mistake has been made at N.A.T.O. headquarters.
If I have a criticism of N.A.T.O. as it is at present constituted it is this. The Alliance is described as being a defensive Alliance. I intensely dislike the words, "defence" and "defensive". No contestant in a conflict can hope to succeed if his outlook is purely defensive; and there is, of course, the greatest possible conflict of ideas between the N.A.T.O. Powers and their opponents. I feel that the Alliance should seek much more aggressively to impose its views on the world. Unless we do this, it seems Ito me that there is the gravest danger that
1256
the Alliance's will, the Alliance's views, will go by default, and that those of its opponents will prevail. No one would suggest, of course, that the Alliance should act to this end by any hostile activities. Article I of the North Atlantic Treaty makes that expressly clear. But there are other ways in which the Alliance could seek to act.
I think the key to the problem lies in propaganda—a much more sustained, vigorous and better co-ordinated propaganda. This is a big subject in itself, which has been discussed in your Lordships' House before, and in the course of a short speech I cannot hope to throw out more than a few suggestions. First, I personally have never very much liked the name "North Atlantic Treaty Organisation". I think it is cumbersome, a little misleading and very uninspired. I should have preferred a name like "Associated Free Nations"— A.F.N.—the Associated Free Nations of the West, but I imagine that it is too late to change it now. A name like that would at least have carried a message—the message that powerful nations in the West are associated in the cause of political freedom.
I should have thought that our experience in the last war would have taught us just how powerful a weapon, and what a source of comfort to the politically afflicted, radio propaganda can be. At the moment, individual nations in the Alliance have their international propaganda transmissions, but I should like to see N.A.T.O. itself sponsor radio programmes, possibly using the transmitters of its member States, or even owning radio stations itself, and transmitting night and day, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Could not N.A.T.O. sponsor its own international newspaper—a paper of the highest quality and merit, something perhaps on the lines of the Christian Science Monitor or the Osservatore Romano, again a paper published and printed in several languages and with a world-wide distribution?
I have in my pocket a pamphlet—I think you would call it a broadsheet—which has been sent to me with the compliments of some comrade behind the Iron Curtain, by some Agency in Eastern Germany. It is one of several

1257
such pamphlets I receive every year. It is, of course, Communist propaganda, and I should like to think that I am as likely to be influenced by the rubbish in it as I should be to sign a compact with the devil. Nevertheless, it is a good example of the thoroughness with which our opponents work in these matters. Could not N.A.T.O. itself perhaps tighten up its own publicity material and sponsor a campaign of direct distribution of pamphlets, papers, magazines and brochures, directly addressed to Parliamentarians and others in responsible positions behind the Iron Curtain and in the uncommitted countries?
If propaganda is to be effective, the message must be brief, crystal clear and inspiring. I suggest that N.A.T.O. has such a message ready to hand—the message of political freedom as it is enjoyed in the countries of the Alliance and which is so lamentably lacking in the countries behind the Iron Curtain, however much it may be desired there. However, it is not primarily the message nor the means by which it should be disseminated with which I am concerned. It is the principle of the vast importance of propaganda: the suggestion that this should form a fourth arm of the services for N.A.T.O., arid the hope that the whole subject will be organised and supervised, not just from some subordinate information office at N.A.T.O. headquarters in Paris, but by a proper directorate of overseas publicity and information.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would say this. I genuinely believe that in spite of the tragic waste of treasure, of physical and mental energy with which the countries of the Alliance are faced even to defend the integrity of their territory and their way of life, they nevertheless draw great indirect benefits from their association. There is the healing of old wounds, the easing of old enmities. There is a greater co-operation in all the higher fields of human endeavour, social, economic and financial, as well as military. There is a greater awareness of the indivisibility of prosperity, not only between nations but between sections within nations. Let us hope that these things will continue to flourish, just as we pray that out of the nettle, danger, the Alliance will succeed in plucking the flower safety.
5.57 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have been privileged to-day in having three maiden speeches of extremely high quality, and speeches which, if I may say so, have sustained the high quality from first to last. I am sure your Lordships will join with me in congratulating the noble Lord who has just spoken. The fact that he was the third in a row of four Magdalen men who spoke is to be noted, but unfortunately his "Magdalene" had an "e" at the end. But the quality of his speech was of the highest, and I find myself in complete agreement with him. I believe he is actively concerned in this field in some way or another. I believe he is connected with Atlantic House, and clearly it is only his modesty which concealed the fact, which was apparent from what he said, that he spoke with a great practical knowledge.
Like many of your Lordships, I am fairly hopeful about the situation. Indeed, I am more optimistic, if that. were possible, than the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, because, despite the misfortunes in the Middle East, particularly connected with and resulting from Suez, I do not believe that the West is on the retreat. In many ways—and I do not wish to suggest that he pressed that point very hard—our position has, I think, been consolidated, and it is clear that the policy which gave rise to the creation of N.A.T.O. continues to be successful. It has been one of the most remarkable achievements in history that a policy of this kind has been established and maintained by international agreement, with strength and determination, and without any signs of faltering. It would be a mistake—and I am sure none of your Lordships would fall into it—to think that any major change at this stage is necessary in our policy in regard to N.A.T.O. The danger may well be if we try to tinker with it too much.
Here, of course, we get into the difficulty—we get into the difficulty into which everybody gets when discussing hypothetical situations—that we do not really know what a "tactical nuclear weapon" is. It is probably a weapon which would be tactical if it were not nuclear, and this is the sort of confusion in which we find ourselves. I remember the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, trying Ito give us his account of an

1259
independent deterrent. The trouble is that all these terms change their meaning according to how you use them. We flounder among them, and the Government do not really help us, because they do not know any more—and I do not blame them. It is exceedingly difficult to hit on the nice, clear-cut policy we all want. Here, again, I must disagree to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, even though his views have been reinforced from such an admirable source as a Fabian pamphlet written by another Magdalen man. The fact remains that we are already, rightly or wrongly, committed to tactical forces on the ground, and it is going to be exceedingly difficult to turn the clock back and indeed to build up strong conventional forces of a kind that would have a significance for more than the shortest period in the event of a serious outbreak. We are all searching for terms, for words that will make us happy, words that will enable us to avoid looking some of the more unpleasant facts in the face. And nobody is more prone to do this than are members of my own Party. This I fully admit. But they are not the only ones capable of being deceived in the situation.
I think it is far better if we look, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did, at the broad picture, however we may hair-split or take a position on one side or another, because no one clear, single policy, either with regard to the control of nuclear weapons or the type of forces to be used, can in fact be taken. So long as we realise this and concentrate on the broad issues, I think N.A.T.O. will continue in the direction we want and continue to keep the peace of the world. It is obvious now that the dangers to peace are very much greater outside Europe and outside the N.A.T.O. organisation. It would not be for me to widen the debate further into a discussion of world affairs and how we deal with Africa and Asia and the problems of place like Laos. But I should like to take issue on one matter with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. He suggested, in that extremely sensible speech of his, that it would be more logical for O.E.C.D. to indulge in some of the activities that N.A.T.O. and the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians in particular are inclined to follow in regard to economic, scientific
1260
and other fields. But I think that if we were to confine N.A.T.O. to its purely military aspect it would lose a quality which rather shines out and rather informs its discussions. There is something more than a desire to be purely military there. Whereas it may he argued that this is purely a psychological sop to make people feel happy, none the less sometimes good results come from such chance arrangements. Whereas I would wholly agree that O.E.C.D. would seem to be the more logical body, since the noble Lord himself did not seek to talk more than common sense I think common sense points to the fact that we should encourage the N.A.T.O. organisation to develop in these fields.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I should like to intervene to say that I did not mean to suggest that N.A.T.O. should confine itself entirely to military matters. I managed to indicate a good many non-military matters with which it might occupy itself. But I ventured to suggest that since O.E.C.D. had on its Agenda the matter of aid to underdeveloped countries and co-ordination of all economies, it would be rather otiose for N.A.T.O., 100 yards away, to be at the same time dealing with exactly the same matter. I also said I was sure the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians in their assembly would consider all these economic matters on their own.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sorry that I undoubtedly to some extent misrepresented the noble Lord. With that very precise statement I am not wholly in agreement. I am not wholly in agreement that N.A.T.O. should not concern itself in such matters. In the last resort it will be the taxpayers of the various countries who will provide the money, so it may be it is something of a euphemism to say that it is N.A.T.O. or any of these institutions. I fully concede that the noble Lord said that there were other activities in which N.A.T.O. should concern itself, and I would mention one matter which has been near my heart for a long time; that is, the development of international co-operation in the field of space research. Similar institutions are being set up. Co-operation is going on through a number of international bodies. But this is a positive side which I think might well be continued to be developed there, and,

1261
as has already been said in the debate, some attention has already been given to it.
After the many extremely well-informed and wise speeches which we have had to-day, I have little to contribute. I should like to follow certain noble Lords in the discussion of actual details of military arrangements, but we are, of course, coming up to the season of Defence debates arid the Service Estimates. I would say only one thing in conclusion, and this, again, is to my noble friend Lord Boothby: when he compared the position between America and ourselves or ourselves and the Low Countries he said he was convinced that America would always come to our aid, and that he is not afraid in that respect. It is not a question of whether or not he is afraid that they will come to our aid; it is a question of whether the other side know they will come to our aid. Whatever comfort he may derive from the fact that America will always come to our aid, he may not be there to enjoy that comfort. The important thing in regard to our defence arrangements is that they must be exceedingly clear and credible; and that is wily we want, so far as possible, the maximum clarity in our N.A.T.O. and alliance arrangements, not only for our own satisfaction, so that we may know which particular finger to remove from the safety catch at the right time, but so that other people may know it also.
6.8 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it has sometimes seemed to me that our debates on foreign affairs range, or rather sprawl, over rather too wide an area—,from China to Peru. But it is valuable that periodically your Lordships should focus attention on one particular aspect of foreign affairs, and that is why I particularly welcome Lord Ogmore's Motion which we are discussing this evening. May I also add my congratulations to those which the noble Lords, Lard Crathorne, Lord Gladwyn and Lord Abinger, have already and so justly earned? To me those most unmaidenly maiden speeches were of particular interest. It has been my pleasure to serve twice under Lord Crathorne as a delegate to N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conferences. And as a former member of the Foreign Service it has been my pleasure to sit vicariously at the feet
1262
of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. It is clear from his speech to-day how much authority he will add to the Cross Benches.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how one sits vicariously at somebody's feet?
EARL JELLICOE: I find it rather difficult, now that the question is posed to me, to say how one does. But I sat with pleasure, though at a distance, from Lord Gladwyn's feet. As I was saying, I feel that he will greatly contribute to the authority of the Cross Benches on which he is now sitting; or I think one should rather call them now the Diplomatic Benches, since so many former high diplomatic persons are now congregating there. Former, but more lowly, diplomatic persons tend to take cover behind the Church, but unfortunately its protection is not covering me this evening.
It is rather late, at least for us, and there are other speakers to come. Other speakers have uncovered expertly some of the ground which I was thinking of ploughing. I shall therefore try to be brief and to confine myself to a narrow front, and for that reason I hope I shall be operating from a fairly secure base. I shall confine myself to one tangential but, I think, important aspect of N.A.T.O.'s activities—namely, its concern with the development of science and technology within the Atlantic community. That concern found expression, in a practical form, in the establishment, in December, 1957, of the N.A.T.O. Science Committee, under the impact of the first Sputnik, originating, it is perhaps worth noting, from a proposal made by the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference.
I am touching on this question of science and technology by reason of having been a member for a couple of years of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians Science Committee. I confess that my knowledge of these matters is slight, although I find some confidence in hoping that perhaps the knowledge of some of your Lordships in these matters may be even slighter. Recently a high-level Study Group of scientists from the N.A.T.O. countries was asked to report on how science in the West could best be strengthened and developed. The quality of this Study Group can, I think,

1263
be best gauged by the quality of its chairman, Mr. Louis Armand, of France, and that of the British representatives, Sir John Cockcroft and Sir Solly Zuckerman. That Study Group has now reported, and I think its Report is a valuable and significant document. Most of its recommendations call for action by national Governments, and I hope that this action will be taken.
One of these recommendations, however (and it is the one to which I particularly wish to refer), calls for international action; that is, the proposal to create in Western Europe an Atlantic Institute of Science and Technology. It is not the same as Lord Gladwyn's Atlantic Institute. But it is an Atlantic Institute, in this case for science and technology. As I understand it, the project is to establish on this side of the Atlantic an Institute comparable in scope and quality to the great American institutes like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It would be a centre for advanced scientific studies at which the students drawn from our intellectual elite would concentrate their studies and research, not only in the traditional scientific disciplines but also in the new disciplines, and above all, perhaps, what I think the scientists call the cross-disciplines, on the very frontiers of existing scientific knowledge.
The N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference have endorsed this bold and, I think, exciting project. I hope that the N.A.T.O. Governments also will back it. There is no such Institute at present in this country, or indeed in Western Europe as a whole, comparable with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is a serious lack, as anyone who is familiar with the work of M.I.T. or the California Institute of Technology "Caltec"—would admit. But such an Institute is a vast undertaking, even in terms of finance. I doubt whether its creation would be within the resources of any of the European members of N.A.T.O., acting alone, without entailing a cut-back in the resources which they are already making available for scientific education and research. But, as the Armand Report makes clear, there is no reason at all why the countries of Western Europe, acting together, could not establish such an Institute at least equal in scope and quality to M.I.T.
1264
Again, there are many important branches of science, as this year's Annual Report of the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy (which we debated in November) made clear, which lend themselves to, and indeed call for, the international approach. But perhaps my most important reason for urging that this project should be pursued is that I believe it would be a practical, but imaginative and human, way of helping to advance the unity of our efforts in Europe and in the Atlantic Community. I should add, of course, that the Armand Committee included distinguished American scientists who have fully endorsed this particular recommendation.
As I conceive it, this Institute would house some thousands of the intellectual elite of Europe and, indeed, of North America. Their experience of living, working and researching together would help to cement the unity of our societies, albeit perhaps in a small yet, I think, significant way. I gather that a further and smaller Committee, headed this time by the President of M.I.T., and on which Sir John Cockcroft is to be the British representative, is now looking into the project in more detail. If their Report is favourable, I hope that we can be assured that Her Majesty's Government will support this scheme.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt my noble friend, or indeed to cast any doubt on the excellence of the Institute which he is suggesting. It has not received Government consideration at the moment. I think, however, he would be a little unpopular if he tried to say to Imperial College that there was no institute in this country which is doing work comparable to M.I.T. And I do not think that Imperial College would be the, only place where he would be unpopular.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, naturally I should wish in part to defer to what our noble Leader has said; but while I have no Ecclesiastical protection, I would shelter behind the Report of the eminent Committee on which both Sir John Cockcroft, the Master of Churchill College, and Sir Solly Zuckerman, the Minister's own adviser, served. They themselves have made it quite clear that in their view there is no Institute in Western Europe at present comparable in scope, and perhaps

1265
it would be right to say also in quantity, to M.I.T. I do not think that Imperial institute, for all its value, is an Institute of the size and range of M.I.T.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl is now getting into really deep water. It is not the Imperial Institute, for a start; it is Imperial College. Secondly, it is a matter of profound interest, which I hope we shall debate when we come to debate science and scientific technology, and there are many noble Lords and educationists who would not agree with this proposal on educational grounds.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, again I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. If the depth of the water is to be measured by my terming the Imperial College the Imperial Institute, I am quite happy to be swimming in such deep water.
Nevertheless, since the noble Lord has so kindly interrupted me, I should perhaps refer to the project for a N.A.T.O. space research programme to which I think he alluded in his speech. It is true that the N.A.T.O. Science Committee has recommended such a programme—a fully integrated N.A.T.O. programme for peaceful space research —-both last year and this year; and both those recommendations were endorsed by the full Conference. Again, as I think has been mentioned earlier in this House this evening, they also endorsed recommendations for a greater concentration of effort in the study of Asian and African languages, which I believe is a very important matter. But to me the interest of these two particular projects in this context is that on neither, so far as I know, has the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference received any firm indication of what are the N.A.T.O. Governments' views.
That leads me to my penultimate point. I agree with what all previous speakers have said about the value of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference. I also entirely agree that the value would be diminished if it lost its unofficial and, to some extent, informal character. Nevertheless, I believe that its effectiveness as a Conference, as an aid to N.A.T.O., would be increased if some technique, informal perhaps, could
1266
be devised whereby the Conference, could be given some assurance of receiving indications of the fate of its recommendations. At the present time, I believe the experience of some of the Committees of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference is that their recommendations go, as it were, into orbit; but once they are in orbit they are not necessarily recovered.
May I, in conclusion, say why I feel the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is so particularly timely? There are two reasons. The first is that the N.A.T.O. Powers are now confronted with a whole complex of unresolved and vastly important problems. There are the strategic and military problems to which much attention has been paid in this debate. There is the great politico economic problem of bow best the relations of the West with the developing and uncommitted countries should be organised—a vast, intricate and vital problem. There is the problem of political consultation; and, perhaps above all in this rag-bag of vital and pressing questions, there is the problem of how best agreed policies should be formulated and executed by the Alliance, especially in relation to regions outside the N.A.T.O. area. To my mind all these problems are important and all are pressing; and their resolution is overdue.
In certain epochs the essence of statesmanship may consist in letting sleeping dogs lie. But we live in an age of revolutionary change, and every day we are confronted with the phenomenon which has been so aptly termed the acceleration of history. If we do not take events by the forelock they are only too likely in these days to overtake us. In short, while quieta non movere may have been wisdom in the age of Walpole, it may be folly in the new dynamic age of the two Ks—Khrushchev and Kennedy—if it is not irreverent so to term them. My second reason concerns that second K, the new and able President of the United States. A rather hard-headed, pragmatic and, I suspect, in certain ways rather ruthless generation is taking over in America. I believe that the new American leaders will judge their Allies quite unsentimentally, and their judgment on us, and hence our influence on them, will be diminished if we are in any way unclear about the ends of our policy.

1267
The more our material power contracts, in relative terms, the more clearly defined must our policy objectives be, and the greater must be our skill and determination in their pursuit—of course as loyal partners. I was much impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, had to say this evening on this score. But I was reassured by the precision and clarity of the remarks of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary. In any event, I am sure that we must be very clear these days about our precise purposes in the world; and nowhere, in my view, is this more important than in our policy in and towards N.A.T.O.
6.26 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I propose to address your Lordships very briefly; in fact, I rise at all only to do two things: one is to offer a few congratulations, the other is, having attended the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference three times in the last four years, to say that I feel that I should make some little contribution in return. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, after a very long afternoon, has just had to leave the Chamber. Nevertheless, I should like to congratulate him most warmly on his maiden speech. Looking hack forty-two years to when we were at the same school (as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has already said he was, too) I seem to recall, unless I am very much mistaken, that the noble Lard, Lord Gladwyn, was then Master of Beagles, a post he held with distinction, as he has held every post since. I am sure I am voicing your Lordships' feelings in saving that we should like to hear from him very often in the future.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, has served in the Royal Regiment of Artillery in the rank of lieutenant-colonel, and therefore is well qualified to speak on matters of this kind. Again, I am sure we all hope that he will come and speak whenever he can on Service and other matters. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, was our leader in Paris last November and performed his task with the efficiency and charm which one associated with his predecessor, Colonel Walter Elliot. I should like to congratulate him also on his maiden speech, and hope that it will be by no means the last time that I shall have
1268
the pleasure of serving, however inadequately, under his banner.
I would congratulate the mover of this Motion if for no other reason (and I have several reasons for liking the way he moved it) than that he took just under eighteen minutes, which seems a short time. Usually movers of Motions of this importance go on very much longer than that, but I think that during that short time he made the points he wanted to make clearly, shortly, and fairly. I would congratulate him also on his Motion, if for no other reason than that it has given us all the pleasure of hearing a succession of first-class speeches, not the least of which was from the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary himself.
There are two points which occur to me in connection with to-day's debate and I shall deal with them very briefly. It is not often that I find myself agreeing with the noble Viscount who leads the Labour Party in your Lordships' House; in fact, my utterances more often than not are apt to be quite bad for his blood pressure; but on this occasion when he spoke of important statements being made by senior military commanders I agreed with him. There is no doubt that General Norstad's speech on the first morning of a six-day conference was of such far-reaching importance that it overshadowed the whole of the week; and although I do not disagree with what General Norstad said, nor even perhaps with his right to say it, it is a question of the timing of these things. I feel it was a pity that an utterance of that importance, receiving that amount of publicity, should have been made right at the start, before anybody knew he was to make it, because the subsequent proceedings seemed comparatively unimportant. We had all gone there full of energy and zeal, and to some extent it rather took the importance out of the rest of the week.
While I was in Paris I wrote a short memorandum which I passed to the Secretariat through the leader of our delegation, in which I suggested that perhaps the Chiefs of Staff of N.A.T.O.—that is to say, General Norstad, the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, and the Strategic Air Commander—should put out a paper some months before to the various military committees of the various nations attending, to

1269
serve as a sort of basis or agenda for the military committee meetings, because at the moment these committees consist largely of people who have very little naval or air knowledge whatever; in fact, some have none. The result is that the agenda consists largely of pious hopes, hopes that we shall all continue to support N.A.T.O. (obviously we do or we should not be there), and things of that sort. They are broad generalisations passed on from year to year and produce, in my opinion, very little.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, quoted M. Spaak, the Secretary General himself, saying that standardisation of weapons (just to take one point) had been recommended year after year by the Military Committee but nothing whatever had been done. I do not know whether an idea of that sort would commend itself to the Secretariat. They still have my paper; perhaps it will never get any further. But I believe that "staff duties", as it were, at Conferences of this sort are extremely important, otherwise the whole thing can go wrong almost before it has started.
I have only one other point to mention before I resume my seat. It is this. Monsieur Spaak addressed us on the Saturday, and in the course of his remarks he said as follows, if I may quote a few lines:
"The question with which the Atlantic Alliance is faced to-day is whether the scope … ought not to be considerably extended. I think I can go so far as to say here that there is no N.A.T.O. country which still thinks that the Free World and Western civilisation can he effectively defended if we confine our attention to Europe and the North American Continent,"
He went on to say a little later:
"It is all very well to defend ourselves along the line of the Elbe; that was and continues to be of immense importance. But what would be the use of our being strong enough to face a frontal attack, if we could be taken in the flank in the Middle East or in the rear in Africa?"
M. Spaak is not a man who says things without a very good reason for saying them. He makes: no special recommendations; he mentions no names, but one wonders a little what was at the back of his mind when he used those, in my view, well-advised words.
The present boundaries and membership of N.A.T.O. were laid down twelve years ago. It is possible to lock the
1270
stable door after the horse has gone. If our opponents see fit to leapfrog those boundaries, as they may well have done in Cuba and Africa, it is no good our saying, "That is not fair. You are out of bounds'". I cannot help feeling that the time has come when not only the scope—the geographical scope—but also the membership of N.A.T.O. and, in fact, its terms of reference should be gone into most carefully with a view to bringing them up to date where necessary. A member of our delegation—I will not mention him by name but he sits with some distinction on the Front Labour Bench in another place—said to me when I spoke of this to him, "It is all very well for you in the Lords. You do not have to worry about constituents. But I have the greatest difficulty in 'selling' the idea of N.A.T.O. to my constituents at all. If you try to change it about and to bring in other people, it will be hopeless." When I asked him about the position when Greece and Turkey joined, he admitted that he thought his constituents never even noticed it, which seemed rather inconsistent. However, those are the points which occurred to me, and therefore I have brought them to your Lordships' notice as briefly as I can.
6.35 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, we have had three maiden speeches and it would be invidious for one such as myself to distinguish one from another. I would only say, after listening to them, that although they were maiden speeches they did not give the impression of being made by maiden speakers. I will not take up very much of your Lordships' time. I have not had the benefit of belonging to this excellent club of N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians. I have had only the facilities which, of course, are open to all of us; and they are facilities to make ourselves acquainted with this very formidable stream of literature that pours out from the information service of N.A.T.O. at Porte Dauphine in Paris. I am not going to refer in any way to problems of defence. Indeed, I have not yet sorted out in my own mind the confusing issues of whether or not it is advisable to have nuclear tactical weapons in the forward area, and whether or not we can distinguish between tactical and strategic weapons. I always find myself in agreement with the last speaker who

1271
has dealt with the matter. So I am leaving the defence issue entirely.
What I should like to do is to touch on political co-operation, an aspect of our problem which was developed by what I might refer to as the old Etonian team on the Cross Benches, which is now not here. From this literature stream we learn that there is a very high degree of political co-operation; but at the same time, wisely, it is recognised that a great deal yet remains to be done. I have been carefully through this little handbook, N.A.T.O. 1960, and from the information available it is difficult for a layman to deal with the existing machinery. Yet on their own admission there is a gap in achieving political co-operation and it is up to somebody such as myself to say where we think the gap exists. I do not believe that there is a gap either inside the operation of the Atlantic Council or within the various committees.
If and when the Council are seized of a difficulty, of a disagreement, as between one member or another, it seems that they are perfectly capable of solving such a problem themselves. They quote the case of Cyprus. I think in that particular case we are justified in claiming some credit ourselves, bearing in mind particularly, perhaps, the skill and perseverance of the Prime Minister himself Nevertheless, I think we should all agree that there is an extremely friendly and free atmosphere at headquarters in Paris, and I am quite sure that when things go wrong, when members disagree and fall out with each other, agreement is achieved against a background, a basis, of a personal relationship which I think has been largely built up by Lord Ismay. But, my Lords, this satisfactory state of affairs refers to situations after they have arisen and before subsequent solution. It would seem to me that a lot of trouble could be avoided if situations could be anticipated and if those concerned could be got together before the event—before we, so to speak, wash dirty international linen in public, with sometimes the assistance of the Press, whether it be in a spirit of responsible criticism or, as often as not, in a spirit of mischievous irresponsibility.
I am going to give your Lordships for a few moments an example of just such
1272
a case: of a situation which has not yet arisen, which might embarrass the Atlantic Community if it did arise, and which, I believe, the Atlantic Council should be seized of at this moment. In your Lordships' House on occasions we have questions asked about Krupp's, and the future of Krupp's. Under an existing order, now some eight years old, Herr Alfried von Bohlen is under an obligation to sell his enormous holdings, his shares, in the great Rheinhausen steel and coal industries. An international committee set up in 1954 considers the routine appeal every year—an appeal for an extension of time made in what appears to be a genuine effort to sell assets which amount to some £150 million. The committee grant the extension. They are not empowered to end this situation: they can only judge the merits of the appeal to extend the time; and, so far as one can see, being an international committee, they make their judgment in complete impartiality.
The only authority that can end this absurd situation is the authority of a joint decision taken by the three Allied Powers concerned—the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Now I am not going into the merits of this case, or to say whether, in a juridical sense, von Bohlen is justified in resisting a ruling which was given in 1953. I resist the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" approach which some people would press home to its conclusion. Instead, I am going to state this as an objective fact: that if this matter was pressed home to such a conclusion, it would be regarded in Germany by all political Parties as a challenge in their attempt, as they see it, to establish themselves as loyal Europeans and as loyal members of the Atlantic Community; and, whether or not This makes legal sense, from a political point of view, in the interests of the Atlantic Community, it would be sheer lunacy.
Now this seems to me to be just such a case as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation might be seized of, and the question arises as to whether or not the appropriate committee (which I imagine is the Committee of Political Advisers) is adequate Ito deal with such a situation. Here, my Lords, I am going to put forward a definite suggestion, a proposal. It is this: that there is a place for yet

1273
another council of experts from the fifteen States, one member from each. We have had good work from "Three Wise Men", and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation it should be easy to find fifteen wise men. These men should he men of status, respected and known in their own countries, and (I think this is very important) should be capable of divorcing themselves entirely from the day-to-day political interests of their own country and identifying themselves completely with the interests of the Atlantic Community as such. This council would operate outside the stream of the North Atlantic Organisation and its responsibility. They would be independent of it, yet they would be recognised by N.A.T.O. as an institution whose judgment would carry weight and conviction, not only in the N.A.T.O. Council but also with the fifteen Governments concerned. Their proceedings would not be conducted in secrecy or detachment from the public; on the contrary, the more publicity they could command the better. Their operation would have to be known and would have to come to be respected by the man in the street if their operation was to be effective.
Now in the case which I am quoting, of Krupp's, assuming I am right in saying that the only way to end this situation is by a joint decision of the three Western Allies and their Governments, it would be up to such a top-level body of independent judgment to say so—and, indeed, if they could say so, it would surely make the task of the Western Powers in taking such a decision much easier. The process which one might describe as "losing face" would not arise. If, in such cases, an independent council could state its view clearly and loudly, it is possible that it would come to be recognised by the public over time as a voice demanding to be listened to. It could then be said that we were moving forward to that happy condition when we were educating an Atlantic Alliance public as such; because until we can educate the wider public in these matters it is rather difficult for conscientious Ministers and for Cabinets to take decisions which may not be understood and which are therefore unpopular with the electorate.
Now for the body that I have suggested I can think of yet another task. Ministers
1274
in all countries have a habit, sometimes, of saying very stupid things—stupid, that is to say, from the point of view of the interests of Western unity—and a council which could pull up a Minister when he says a stupid thing, which could act as a kind of mental audit on public statements when a Minister is off his guard, would certainly come to be regarded with respect, though not necessarily with any affection. The same applies, indeed, in regard to the free Press in a country. Suppose that a stupid article appears in The Times, using words to the effect that Berlin is a millstone around the neck of the Allies, as appeared some six months ago. A remonstration from a publicly-recognised, high-powered body would surely have its effect. And a Minister of a member State might come to think twice before dropping a political brick if he knew that an independent body of men, judging his statements in the light of their effect on Atlantic unity, were watching him from a distance.
My Lords, we have noted the plans to set up an Atlantic Institute—I think I am referring to the Gladwyn Institute, and not to the Jellicoe Institute—and there was a resolution at the last meeting of N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians asking that the process be hastened. If such a body as I have suggested could be established, it would seem to me logical that it would find its place within the whole set-up in association with such an Institute; hut, naturally, I am in no position to give any positive views as to exactly how and where it would fit in.
Finally, it has been stressed that the main responsibility for keeping the public of the North Atlantic Community aware of the many problems that arise, of the difficulties in solving those problems and of the machinery available to solve them —and, indeed, of the, whole aims and objectives of the North Atlantic Organisation—rests with the Governments concerned. Here I should not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alpnger, when, as I see it, he advocated a kind of central Press to be initiated at headquarters in Paris which would find its distribution among all the N.A.T.O. countries. It seems to me obvious, and in the nature of things, that we cannot create yet more massive machinery than already exists; and yet we know well enough that the public interest and

1275
knowledge is not sufficient. This, indeed, is recognised on the last page of this little handbook.
In the normal functioning of a Western democracy, the great instrument for creating public opinion is still, of course, the Press. It is therefore interesting to note the facilities that are provided for the Press at N.A.T.O. headquarters. On page 63 of this little book we read:
"Since 1953, over 700 representatives of the Press and other individuals capable of influencing public opinion have participated in information visits to N.A.T.O. countries".
I am not quite clear what they mean here. Knowing how impressive and thorough are the briefings which one receives on these visits to N.A.T.O. headquarters, I am of the opinion that the more pressmen and information agencies which can find their way to Paris headquarters, the better. A mere visit to a N.A.T.O. country cannot carry the same significance as a visit to the centre itself. If, as one must assume, 700 in seven years represents the rate at which the Press of the whole North Atlantic and Western European countries visit headquarters, then, of course, we are only scratching at the surface of this problem of creating Atlantic unity with a united purpose. In my own country I find myself wondering how often the staff of the Daily Express have received or accepted an invitation to visit N.A.T.O. headquarters in Paris. Surely, if we are thinking in terms of making an impact on millions we have to think in terms of at least thousands of pressmen going to N.A.T.O. headquarters and receiving the excellent brief which is provided there.
In a few days' time we have a conference here in London staged by the British Atlantic Council, when we shall go more fully into the details of these matters, and I hope we may come to some constructive conclusions. But in so far as I have judged it extremely important to concentrate on this matter of creating a public opinion, I have, I hope, helped initiate the process in your Lordships' House and have also assisted in creating the climate for our conference. Naturally I also hope that the two matters I have mentioned will be looked at by Her Majesty's Government, and in that hope I am extremely grateful to
1276
the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for providing us with this opportunity to discuss so vital an aspect of the international life of this country.
6.53 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I rise with a feeling of some difficulty. It is always difficult to speak in a debate when one has not been present all the time, and unfortunately this afternoon I had to be in another place. My difficulty is even greater because of the quality of this debate. Unfortunately, I missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, but as I entered one of the corridors of the House I was immediately told that the noble Lord had made a truly remarkable speech. I was fortunate enough to hear the two other maiden speeches. I must say that I was very surprised, on seeing the list of speakers, to see a capital "M" against the name of Lord Crathorne; and, as I told him at lunch, I regard him as a very doubtful maiden because the noble Lord is a man with some experience in political matters. He led the British delegation, both at Washington and in Paris, at the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference. He led us with kindness. He never allowed any strain to develop between the delegates who came from opposing Parties, and I remember an occasion when I was having some slight argument with colleagues of his Party in the Economic Committee and he lent me gentle support.
I also enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Abinger. He dwelt on the question of propaganda. My only query about his speech, possibly, would be about the use of propaganda. Personally, I hate it. Propaganda is very suspect. Propaganda is often lies. What we have to do—and here I sympathise with the noble Lord; I know what he meant—is to tell the world the truth as to what this country's Alliance means. I should certainly agree with him that we do not do anywhere near sufficient, particularly in this country, to tell the truth to the peoples of the world.
I am reminded of a thought that I had some time ago. As the House knows, I have some affection for the Chinese. I have heard and read, as no doubt have your Lordships, of the terrible conditions which now prevail in China. Through drought, there is famine

1277
to-day in many parts of China. I thought that, instead of trying, by propaganda, to show the Chinese that we in the West are people who have no evil intention toward them, this might be an opportunity for a great gesture. We have in the world to-day considerable stocks of food—food which, for one reason or another, is not being distributed. What a wonderful gesture would he made, not as an individual country but as an alliance, or as united nations, if we tilled up as many ships as we could with food and sailed them to the port of Shanghai, into Canton! That would be a gesture which, if it were accepted by the Chinese Government, would be understood by its people not as a propaganda trick, but as a moral, humanitarian gesture, one which we should try to make within our own community should tragedy hit us.
My Lords, the only reason for my speaking this evening is that I have been a member, as I have said, of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference. As I listened to some of the debates, both in the committees and in the plenary sessions, I felt that sometimes we were going through a period of self-criticism. It is true that we can be critical: of ourselves in particular, and of the Government, as my noble Leader has said, for its failure to provide the defence that this country requires in the present day. But it would be quite wrong for us to allow criticism to cloud the achievements of N.A.T.O. It is a fact, which cannot be denied, that since N.A.T.O. was formed on April 4, 1949, as a result of the Washington Treaty, there has not been one act of aggression in Europe: its boundaries have remained intact.
There are some who believe that this has been achieved purely as a military operation. But Communism is not the old-style national aggression: Communism can attack from without it can attack from within. Side by side with the military protection that we have given, we have created stability in Europe through our own economic and social growth and development. In the military field, the Americans, in the early days, paid a great price by providing military equipment and forces. To-day the burden is being relieved by our own economic growth and contribution to defence. But we must also remember with
1278
some gratitude—and I wish that our German friends, in particular, would remember this—that it was mainly American aid, Marshall Aid, which created the foundations for Europe's present economic strength, and in particular that of Germany. If America now finds herself in some temporary financial difficulty, it is time that her friends who received aid in their time of need should contribute so far as they can.
I do not wish to say a great deal on the military side. I am much perturbed about the question of the balance between conventional forces and nuclear capability. I do not deny to our forces in Europe the means of carrying out their task. I believe that they must have a nuclear capability. But what concerns me is the integration of nuclear capability with conventional forces. The purpose of N.A.T.O. was to provide a shield force of conventional weapons to retain any local aggression in Europe. I believe that that is still the need, but N.A.T.O. is very weak in conventional forces. General Norstad himself has complained bitterly many times about the quality of arms given to his forces. If these forces cannot hold a local attack—it may not even be a Soviet attack, but an East German attack—if we do not have the conventional forces, can we expect the unanimity which would be required of the fifteen member countries of N.A.T.O. in giving instructions to the military commander to use tactical nuclear weapons, particularly in a heavily populated area?
I feel that we are reaching a very serious situation. I believe that we must increase our conventional forces and give them the most modern weapons. Certainly we should have a nuclear capability, but do not let us have it integrated so that its use becomes practically automatic. As my noble Leader has said—and what he said should be driven home—we of the West will never use a nuclear weapon before the other side do. Let us remember that the Russians are just as frightened as we are If they think we would use the weapon there is more possibility that they themselves will say that they will have to use it.
But, my Lords, I believe that stability in Europe is not merely military; it is also economic. There are two large trading blocs, the Inner Six and the Outer

1279
Seven, which do not include the major Allies of N.A.T.O.—namely, the United States of America and Canada. At present, these two trading blocs do not conflict, but they are developing fast, particularly the Six; and unless we can bring them together, we may find that these blocs will come into conflict with each other, and that would be a very serious matter to the Western Alliance. Economically, Europe must expand to a far greater extent if it is to find the means to sustain a military effort, an effort that will cost more and more money as the years go by.
But we also have the seeds of a future war lying in Asia and Africa. The hunger and misery, the hopelessness, of the people in these continents will not be overcome by the efforts of individual countries. This can he achieved only by a combined and co-ordinated effort of the West, and we are far from attaining, that co-ordination to-day. I hope that in O.E.C.D. we have an instrument; but we must create a stronger instrument for trade and investment, so that we can attack the evils that lie in Asia and Africa. We cannot just rely on our present progress; and time is getting short. At the moment, the peoples of Asia and Africa are uncommitted politically, but once they lose hope and say that the West has failed, we shall have lost them; and like the people of China, they will fall under the domination of a Communist Government.
7.7 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the first part of his speech. It seems to me that opportunities like the one he mentioned are too easily missed in the world to-day, yet they can do an enormous amount of good. I venture to take up a few minutes of your Lordships' time, though I am a little off my ground, but I think that I am entitled to express an opinion on the matter to which I am now going to refer.
In the first place, I should like to say that what I welcomed most in the debate this afternoon was what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said in deprecation of people who go about in terror of nuclear war and atomic bombs and who do more harm than anybody else. I entirely agree with that. I have never found any man
1280
who could act or think wisely when frightened. I think that what he said on this point should be said not only in your Lordships' House but also through a trumpet to the whole country. He also said—and I partly agree with him, from my humble standpoint—that he did not think that there was any immediate danger of war. That may be so, but men pass and others succeed them, and I have lived through two wars made by men who thought that their resources were so great that it put them above the ordinary claims of morality. I do not think that it is impossible that that may happen again, because it does not seem to me that the general level of human conduct has been improved by the two wars through which I have lived.
It has been said often enough in this debate that N.A.T.O. is there to prevent war. But, as I understand it, it is also here to provide ready action in the event of war. That is one of its most important functions. War may be sudden and completely unheralded—a kind of Pearl Harbour. In such a case, war is touched off by the event. It is essential to the success of an Alliance of this kind that every member should have complete and absolute confidence in every other member, confidence in the complete fulfilment of what has been arranged. It is not enough to have correct diplomatic relations with other members of N.A.T.O. Relations must be cordial and very friendly, whatever their political complexion may be—what in this debate has, I think, already been called political co-operation.
So far as I know, until recently, at any rate, that has existed between us and all our Allies in N.A.T.O., including the Government of His Majesty the King of the Belgians. But recently, as we know, that Government found it necessary to institute austerity measures in consequence of losses suffered in the Congo, and these were followed by a general strike, with the avowed intention of bringing down that Government by violence or of forcing the Government to abandon its desires. I believe it is the case that the strike is now drawing to an end, chiefly due to the good sense and temperance of the people of Belgium. During the strike it was announced that the T.U.C. would send £50,000 to Belgium to assist the strikers, and that this transfer of funds

1281
would require Treasury sanction. Later it was announced that the money was earmarked for the support of the families of the strikers; and then, later again, that Treasury sanction had been given for the transfer.
My Lords, it seems to me that to transfer money to a movement which is calculated to bring down the Government of a friendly country can hardly be called a friendly act. The necessity for Treasury sanction is really due to the war—it was a war-time regulation —and probably it would be unreasonable to exercise it in the case of any private party wishing to transfer funds to another country. But I do not think the T.U.C. can claim to be a private party. The T.U.C. publicly admonishes and advises the Government of the country on almost every subject. I used to say to myself that it had usurped a right which hitherto I had thought belonged only to Members of Parliament and to women—that of raising one's voice in controversy on every subject under the sun, whether one understood it or not. It seems to me unfriendly to allow such funds to be transferred to war Allies, with Treasury sanction, and I cannot see that it would have been wrong to exercise Treasury sanction to prevent that transfer.
My argument is reinforced by the fact that the money was destined to aid the families of the strikers. That is clearly an excuse, as money so transferred would merely release other Belgian funds for purposes of a more militant nature. Now that the strike is over it may be that these funds will find a destination rather different from that which the T.U.C. possibly envisaged. I think I can bring this home to your Lordships by reference to recent history. When the Civil War in Spain was over, our Government of that day (and it was a peace-time Government; this was not a war-time measure) forbade the transfer of funds to Spain. A great many people in this country who sympathised with the new Spanish Government, or for other reasons—some of them were horrified by the slaughter of the priests which accompanied the Republican régime—wished to transfer funds to Spain; but they had no pressure group and were not able to do so. What a great many of them did was to transfer money to Spanish institutions in this country, and
1282
thereby, in exactly the same way, they released funds in Spain for the Government's own purposes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to know what all this has to do with a debate on N.A.T.O.
LORD SALTOUN: It has a great deal to do with N.A.T.O., for this reason: that anything which impairs complete and absolute co-operation of the member countries of N.A.T.O. and the Governments which compose them is striking at the very efficiency of N.A.T.O. My point is that all our institutions must back our Government in foreign affairs and must not take political actions which impair the complete and mutual confidence of N.A.T.O. If noble Lords will think of what happened in the 'thirties, and take a lesson from that, then I think it may be good for us.
7.15 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I cannot think that the last remarks of the noble Lord opposite have very much to do with the subject under discussion, be cause there are many financial arrangements between people in different countries. I wonder whether he would have been so upset if it had been some capitalists transferring money to help the capitalists to defeat the workers in Belgium. I do not think that subject really belongs to our debate to-day. I can assure the noble Lord and everybody else that if the Government had prevented funds from being sent to help these women and children in a strike it would have had a far worse effect on the relationships between Belgium and this country than what was done by the T.U.C.
We have had a well worth while debate this afternoon, with three notable maiden speeches. We have often heard the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, in another place; of Lord Gladwyn we have often read when he has spoken at U.N.O.; Lord Abinger is, I think, new to us in this House. We hope that we shall hear them all often.
I do not intend to say much in this debate, but I want to refer back for a moment to when we first founded N.A.T.O. and what its purpose was. Its purpose was to check an imminent

1283
danger which existed at that time of enormous Russian land forces that might have been used to overrun Europe. It was valuable at that time, and it has continued to be a valuable form of defence. But, as has been emphasised in this debate, conditions have changed very much. I liked the Foreign Secretary's categorising of N.A.T.O. as Mark I, Mark II and Mark III. I do not think the difference that came over the scene with the adoption of tactical nuclear weapons is fully realised. That seemed to me to destroy the whole position. The noble Earl called N.A.T.O. a tripwire. Well, you may have a tripwire which prevents someone from trespassing on your property and that would be one thing. But if that tripwire were attached to a spring gun or a bomb, it would rather change its character. It seemed to me that the character of N.A.T.O. changed as soon as there was the introduction of these allegedly tactical nuclear weapons, and that once you had this there was nothing to stop an entire nuclear war.
It has been interesting in this debate to note how many noble Lords have emphasised the point that the contest between ourselves and the East is moving away from the military on to the political and economic plane. Mr. Khrushchev has said this himself. I welcome that, and it is what I am looking forward to. I have not the least fear of a contest between the West and the East in the ideological field, because I think we have much the better case. As I say, I am looking forward to it, and, indeed, it should he the natural outcome if we can get what we want—namely, disarmament.
The need for all-round disarmament is the second point that has been made by many noble Lords. But I do not think we are going to get that through N.A.T.O. We have to cling on to N.A.T.O. to-day to hold the fort, but the proper venue now for dealing with these matters is the United Nations. I do not think that any disarmament proposals which are confined to Europe and America will go very far, because the other factor which was not there when we formed N.A.T.O. is China. I do not see Russia agreeing to disarmament unless you bring in China, because you now have an anti-
1284
Pope in Peking—and a dangerous anti Pope—as against the "Pope in the Vatican" who formerly gave orders to the entire Communist world. Therefore it seems to me to rest on the consideration of broader aspects than just Europe.
I do not want to change this into a Foreign Affairs debate, but I suggest that if it is true that the Russians also, like ourselves, desire disarmament because they think they can beat us in the political and economic sphere, we should take them at their word and bring the matter up at the United Nations. It is right, of course, for us to do all we can in the economic field in helping the nations which might be exposed to Communist infiltration. You will have to do that if your fight is going on that line. But then you want disarmament. You will not manage disarmament just by some agreement by a committee in Europe. Disarmament conferences always break down on the question of security. Unless you can achieve that security by a more effective United Nations, I see little chance of disarmament. Until you have all-round disarmament you must cling to N.A.T.O. But we never regarded N.A.T.O as more than a prop to U.N.O.—the proper sanction preserving the world peace was the United Nations. We had to bring forward N.A.T.O. because of the position of U.N.O. at that time. I should like to see our Government and other Governments taking the initiative and getting ahead on this broad question of disarmament and world peace, and regarding N.A.T.O. as it is, only as a temporary prop at the present time, but no substitute for world order and a world law enforced by an effective U.N.O.
7.23 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, this has been one of the most important, interesting and, I think, stimulating debates that we have had in your Lordships' House in recent months. I know that I speak for my noble friend the Foreign Secretary when I say how useful the views which have been expressed this afternoon will be to him and to the Government when they make up their mind about the future policy to be pursued by N.A.T.O.
The debate has been all the more interesting because it has contained three

1285
remarkable maiden speeches. It is rather impertinent of me to congratulate my noble friend Lord Crathorne, because for three years I had the honour to be his Parliamentary Secretary; and if I may say so it was as pleasant to serve under him as it was to listen to his speech this afternoon. I know that he speaks with great experience, and what he has said will have been listened to with great attention, because he has for the last two years been the leader of the United Kingdom group of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians, and I know that he has contributed a great deal to their work. My noble friend Lord Abinger has delayed a long time before making his maiden speech. Having heard him this afternoon, your Lordships will agree that we have missed a great deal by that delay. I congratulate him upon his excellent speech, which I shall read again, and I will draw to the attention of those most interested and most concerned the constructive suggestions that he made.
Then, of course, there is the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who has a vast experience of diplomacy and of the work of the United Nations. He was in at the beginning of N.A.T.O., arid probably, in his capacity as British Ambassador in Paris, he has had better opportunities than almost anyone else to observe, at one remove, the progress of N.A.T.O., its faults and its virtues. He made, as your Lordships will remember, a refreshingly optimistic speech. I know that I shall be speaking for everybody in the House when I say that those three noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches have greatly added to the significance of the debate.
The debate has covered a very wide field, and I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not even try to answer a good many of the points that have been raised. The speeches have ranged very widely indeed, and I should need a. great deal more time than is at my disposal if I were to do justice to them. I want this evening, in my reply, to concentrate on defence rather than ion politics. Defence, even on the national plane, is a subject on which many people have different views; and understandably so, since it is not a precise science, and the issues do not present themselves in clear-cut terms of black and white. Perhaps this is more so nowadays than it used to be,
1286
since the political scene seems to shift more often and more quickly, and weapons and methods of warfare are developing and changing with terrifying speed. That this is an even more complicated subject on the international level has been amply demonstrated by the differences of opinion voiced in the House this afternoon. But there has been one striking feature of all the speeches made, and that is the unanimous recognition of the value of N.A.T.O. Before we are too critical of its shortcomings, let us remember that it is no small achievement that fifteen nations of different language, background and tradition should have united themselves over the last decade in an alliance of such magnitude and such success.
In the days when I was growing up, the phrase "collective security" was to be heard on the lips of every politician. It might well be that if collective security, of which N.A.T.O. is such a good example, had existed in the thirties the Second World War might never have taken place I find it difficult to understand how those who then talked loudest about collective security should now advocate our leaving N.A.T.O.; or how, in the reported words of one prominent advocate of unilateralism, the abandonment of nuclear weapons in this Alliance could make our collective security no less secure. But none of these ideas has been ventilated in the House this afternoon, and the many questions which have been asked have had as their main purpose an increase in the effectiveness of the Alliance. If doubt has been cast upon some aspects of it, or upon the part which we have played in its affairs, it is, I think, because noble Lords would welcome a stronger Alliance and the fullest support for it by the United Kingdom. This Her Majesty's Government have always given in the past, and most certainly intend to give in the future.
A number of questions have been asked about the reviews of N.A.T.O. strategy and N.A.T.O. policy which have been mentioned in the Press and elsewhere in recent weeks. In some quarters it has been suggested that there is something surprising, or even alarming, in the need for these reviews, as if they reflected a dangerous lack of cohesion among the

1287
members of N.A.T.O. But there is surely nothing surprising about this. The Alliance has been in existence now for about twelve years, and it was surely inevitable, and I should have thought desirable, that from time to time we should take stock of the situation to see whether the plans and strategy which we had made fully measured up to the prevailing situation and to the future. It is right that every few years we should pause and take a closer look at the fundamental attitudes and policies of the Alliance; and that is what we are, now proposing to do in the form of the long-term planning programme proposed by the United States.
I have already spoken of the far-reaching developments in weapons and weapon system, both our own and those of the Russians, which have been taking place over the past few years. Twelve years ago, when N.A.T.O. was born, we had not entered the missile age. Indeed, there were some at that time who said that the ballistic missile was not technically possible. It was the age of the free-falling atomic bomb, possessed in quantity only by the United States, whose massive nuclear support for the Alliance tilted the balance heavily in favour of the West—a West hopelessly outnumbered in conventional weapons. But in the last few years the balance has been swinging the other way, and we are now entering what my noble friend called the era, the period, of nuclear equipoise, or nuclear sufficiency, a period in which both sides have the power to inflict massive damage on each other. This is a new situation which not only the European N.A.T.O. nations have to face but also, for the first time, the United States.
So long as the balance of military power gave a decisive advantage to the West, the danger of attack by Russia on any member of the Alliance was slight. Now that Russia has the power to retaliate with overwhelming force against the United States, the Soviet leaders might calculate—or perhaps it would be much more correct to say miscalculate—that America would not risk the wholesale destruction of her own cities by resisting with nuclear weapons an attack which was not directed against the American mainland. If the European members, who rely so heavily for their defence upon the American strategic
1288
nuclear deterrent, were to come to believe this, there would indeed be danger for the Alliance; and it is undoubtedly true that if this idea, which I do not believe is held by any responsible body of opinion, were to gain currency, then there might be a danger that the fabric of N.A.T.O. would start to crumble.
Against this background America has put forward her idea of a multilateral M.R.B.M. force for N.A.T.O. to give the European nations a share in the weapons necessary for their own defence and to strengthen confidence in America's intention to stand by them against any aggression by the Soviet Union in Europe. My Lords, all of us welcome this initiative and applaud the motives which have prompted it. It is a clear indication of the importance which the United States attaches to Europe and its N.A.T.O. Alliance. At the same time it raises problems to which we must frankly admit we do not yet know the answers. The two most important questions which your Lordships have asked this afternoon are first; does such an increase in the striking power of SACEUR confer upon him a capacity for strategic action which goes far beyond the purely tactical rôle so far envisaged for him? And, secondly, how is this new force, if it comes about, to be controlled?
Let me take the two riddles one at a time. Some noble Lords, though not many, have spoken of strategic nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons as if the difference between them were readily discernible. One can perhaps identify the largest of hydrogen bombs as a strategic weapon, because it would be used only on the largest targets whose destruction would affect a country's capacity to fight. At the other end of the scale, a bazooka with a nuclear warhead, and similar devices of which we read to-day, could have only a tactical rôle. But in between these two there is a whole range of weapons whose use could be strategic or tactical, depending upon the targets at which they are aimed. With these it is not so much a question of whether the weapon is strategic or tactical as of whether the target is strategic or tactical. What could be disturbing about it is the introduction of new types of weapons with the yield and range of Polaris; and that is the aspect which has worried your Lordships most.

1289
The proposal to include Polaris in SACEUR's armoury would certainly mean that he would have weapons which could be used in the strategic as well as the tactical rôle. But there has been no suggestion that SACEUR's tactical sphere of action should be in any way extended. Indeed, those who have expressed concern at the idea should remember that he already has coming into service Jupiter rockets, and other rockets with a similar capacity in Italy and Turkey. He has Valiants and Canberras, whose range could enable them to be used strategically. If these rockets and bombs were to be directed against strategic targets—which, of course, they would not be—they, too, might be said to be strategic weapons. And of course exactly the same is true of the nuclear weapons which are carried by the ships of the Sixth Fleet. So I think it is the targets and the boundaries of SACEUR's tactical sphere of action which make the weapon strategic or tactical.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, thought, rather derided this. It seemed to me that he was not so much saying that it was impossible to distinguish between tactical and strategic targets and weapons, as that the consequences of a large nuclear bomb on what we might all agree was a tactical target might, by its size or inaccuracy, lead to the same end as that of a similar bomb on a strategic target. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, gave it as his opinion that any use of nuclear weapons by N.A.T.O. would inevitably lead to massive nuclear retaliation.
LORD BOOTHBY: May I intervene? My point was that you cannot let the Russians know in advance what the orders are about targets and that something might go wrong.
LORD CARRINGTON: I quite agree, and I think this is a matter of enormous difficulty. The argument which the noble Lord advanced is a perfectly legitimate one, as is the one advanced by the noble Earl. It is, of course, one of the factors which has to be taken into consideration before we make our recommendations to N.A.T.O. on the new strategic and tactical policy. It might be said, however, that SACEUR already has these weapons, Canberras, Valiants.
1290
Jupiters and so on. Why, then, is it necessary to have Polaris too?
The development of weapons is always continuing. At present SACEUR relies very heavily on manned strike aircraft, which are becoming increasingly vulnerable on base and over target. The Jupiter and other land-based missiles which make up the rest of SACEUR's armoury are also becoming increasingly vulnerable, and it is this which makes a mobile rocket like Polaris so attractive. At the same time, to make the deterrent as comprehensive, and therefore as effective, as possible we should try to increase the types of weapons against which a potential enemy must guard, and make our shield forces as versatile as possible.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I point out that there is real substance in the actual reference to this matter in the speech of General Norstad, which seems to make it clear that he wants the Polaris type of warhead missile because there are places over the boundary into Russia which he would find very convenient for attack. And while I appreciate what has been said about the difficulty of distinguishing tactical and strategic targets, I must say that I have not got away from the idea I expressed: that I do not think there would he anything but an immediate reaction of the country so attacked with the use of the most powerful nuclear weapon.
LORD CARRINGTON: With respect to the noble Viscount, I do not think General Norstad said that. His tactical area is very closely defined. I think he was saying that he wanted Polaris because of the limitations which I have just described, of the other tactical weapons at his disposal.
The second difficulty is about control. Any arrangement which would give the European Allies of N.A.T.O., or the Supreme Commander, a wider share in the use of nuclear weapons must raise this question; and political control must certainly be maintained. But here we are in an obvious dilemma. On the one hand, the control must be, and must be seen to be, entirely effective. On the other hand, the certainty of instant military reaction against aggression must remain entirely credible. There can be no question of giving SACEUR undivided

1291
responsibility for the decision to launch nuclear M.R.B.Ms. At the same time, if the fingers of fifteen N.A.T.O. Governments were to be on the M.R.B.M. safety catches, the effectiveness of these weapons as a deterrent would obviously be greatly reduced. Some acceptable solution has to be found to this problem.
Your Lordships will recognise that both these are large questions and that they will not be settled in a day. On the other hand, they do make necessary this comprehensive examination of N.A.T.O.'s strategy to which I referred earlier. The communiqué of the ministerial meeting in December recorded that the permanent representatives at the N.A.T.O. Council were to study the United States proposals for a M.R.B.M. multilateral force and related questions in detail. We have suggested that this should be included in a comprehensive examination of the purpose, control and deployment of the whole of N.A.T.O.'s nuclear armoury, with the object of making the deterrent as effective as possible without waste of resources. This examination would, in our view, have been necessary in any case.
My Lords, as I said at the beginning, I think we can reasonably claim that N.A.T.O. has fulfilled its object more effectively than any other Alliance in history. From the outset the main purpose of the Alliance has been to deter aggression, and in this it has been completely successful. Since its inception in 1949, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton said, there has been no Communist advance in any part of the N.A.T.O. area. I believe that we owe this largely to the knowledge which the Russians have of the cohesion and unity of purpose of the fifteen member countries of N.A.T.O.
There are some who would argue that, although all this is true, there are now signs of disintegration among the N.A.T.O. Allies. But I really do not think that this is so. One has only to talk with European members of the Alliance to be conscious of how much store they set by it; what it has meant for their security, and how fully they support its continuance. Above all, the N.A.T.O. Alliance remains the cornerstone of the United States' foreign policy, and there is no evidence whatever to suggest that their attitude towards
1292
N.A.T.O. is weakening. Indeed, their suggestion for a multilateral M.R.B.M. force in Europe is a sure sign of their determination to stand by their European Allies and to participate fully in the common effort. We must all be thankful indeed for that.
While there may be many differences of view over some aspects of N.A.T.O. policy between France and her Allies, she continues on practical issues to support the common aims and plans of the Alliance. French agreement to participate in SACEUR's air defence plan has meant that this plan can now go forward. Then on the naval side, your Lordships may have seen only last week an announcement of a naval exercise in the Mediterranean where French ships were taking a full part. SACEUR's integrated air defence plan is an excellent example of the sort of planning which would have been unthinkable in former years. Perhaps some of your Lordships who have spoken this afternoon have rather underestimated the military integration which has taken place over the past few years. In this plan the United Kingdom is playing its full part, and we are assigning to SACEUR the whole of Fighter Command, while retaining as a safeguard the right to determine the rôle and deployment of these forces as we require. I think that this is a fine example of co-operation, and I am glad to know that there has been little criticism of the decision to assign Fighter Command to N.A.T.O.
Those who press us to support N.A.T.O. more fully cannot have it both ways. If you press for greater integration of training and logistic facilities, you should not, in fairness, criticise the suggestion that the troops of our German Allies should be trained in other N.A.T.O. countries. If you plead for greater co-operation in research and development and production, you must not protest when this co-operation leads to the adoption of a "foreign" weapon. You cannot ask for reductions in defence expenditure while calling for increases in our contribution to N.A.T.O. In fact, our contribution to N.A.T.O. is a substantial one. By far the greatest proportion of our defence effort is concentrated in the N.A.T.O. sphere. To the land forces we contribute the British Army of the Rhine.

1293
Here, perhaps I might comment on something said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when he introduced this Motion. He seemed to think that we were concentrating too much on nuclear armament in B.A.O.R. Perhaps I ought to remind him that B.A.O.R. is only one element in the N.A.T.O. defences in the West. I believe that the balance of nuclear and conventional units in B.A.O.R. is about right for the task which it is being asked to do. One must remember that the armies of many of our other Allies rely almost entirely on conventional weapons. But I do assure him that the balance of conventional and nuclear forces in N.A.T.O. as a whole will be one of the things which will be considered in the comprehensive study of N.A T.O. nuclear strategy to which I have already referred.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, that last remark is most comforting. But on this point I must point out that what I said was really repeating what General Norstad said. In his speech he said that the forces of Allied Command Europe must be organised, equipped, trained and deployed so as to be able to react promptly and effectively, with, first, conventional weapons when such weapons are adequate to the military situation, and secondly, with atomic weapons when the use of such weapons is necessary. That is the Supreme Commander, and what I said was that, according to the military correspondent of The Times this morning, we had not any adequate conventional support in Europe. I was asking the Government whether they were in fact, according to the Supreme Commander, not putting the second first.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I said that we think that we have the balance just about right. I do not want to carry this matter very much further this evening. I will gladly discuss it with the noble Lord, or he can put down a Question if he likes. All this is coming within the review, and it will be one of the things which will have to he taken into account. But of course it would be foolish to suppose that the Supreme Commander has not agreed to the balance of the British Army of the Rhine.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I certainly do not want to delay the noble Lord, but can he give an assurance which
1294
I think is important—namely that if B.A.O.R. were committed, its conventional forces would 'be sufficient to sustain it at least for a reasonable period before nuclear weapons were called for? I think that is the burden of our case. Are the conventional forces balanced, sufficiently equipped with conventional weapons, to sustain them in the field as a purely conventional force?
LORD CARRINGTON: I have already said that, in regard to the rôle which B.A.O.R. has to carry out, the Government are satisfied that the balance of conventional and nuclear forces is about right That is what the noble Lord asked me, and I have given him the answer.
My Lords, not only do we contribute B.A.O.R.to N.A.T.O., but we have at present a large air force in Germany, and we have strengthened it recently by assigning some Valiant. bornbers in place of Canberras. At sea, we make a large contribution of naval forces to SACEUR, SACLANT and to the Channel Command. With Fighter Command assigned to SACEUR, there are forces at home which are also committed to N.A.T.O. But at the same time, we do what we can to practise the principle of interdependence in our equipment programmes. From the other side of the Atlantic we already have the United States Corporal missile, and we are taking the Honest John and 8-inch howitzer. From Canada comes the Beaver light liaison aircraft.
We are also equipping our forces with material from our European Allies. We use the Belgian F.N. rifle and we are taking the 105-millimetre pack howitzer of Italian design, and the French Alouette 'helicopter. And the traffic is not all one way. The British 105-millimetre tank gun has been adopted by the American Army; the West German Navy has recently placed an order in the United Kingdom for two prototype fast patrol boats and is buying a number of the Royal Navy's new Seacat guided missiles for evaluation. In terms of money, we already spend more of our gross national product on defence than any other N.A.T.O. country except France or America, and I know that our Allies take this as evidence that we mean to go on playing our part in support of the Alliance, and that our policy remains

1295
to make the largest and most effective contribution that we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has construed the Government's approval to the transfer of £50,000 from the T.U.C. to the Belgian strikers as an unfriendly act towards a fellow member of N.A.T.O. I can assure the noble Lord that this was not so. It was a difficult problem, but Her Majesty's Government did not feel able to use the instrument of exchange control—which was devised for a completely different purpose—to prevent this transaction; and I am sure that the Belgian Government themselves have not misinterpreted our action and that relations between us remain as friendly as ever.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked about the International Institute for Science and Technology which he commended as something we needed seriously to consider. I would agree with him that concrete measures to increase the effectiveness of Western science are obviously necessary and would be welcome. It may be that something on these lines would be a good idea, but obviously we must be quite sure that the money which would be spent on such an institution would not be better spent on national programmes; and, as the noble Lord said in his speech, we shall not know that until the Working Group which has been appointed, and on which Sir John Cockcroft is the United Kingdom member, has reported. But the noble Earl can be sure that any recommendations made by a member as distinguished as Sir John Cockcroft will carry great weight.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I might interject for a moment, I did indeed ask the question, and I am grateful for the answer; but the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference as a whole endorsed the proposal.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I realise that, and I have mentioned it only because the noble Lord asked the question. I have not referred to all noble Lords who have made speeches this afternoon because if I were to do so my speech would be unbearably long: it is not because their speeches have not been of great interest to the Government. I assure your Lordships that I will examine these speeches again, and will write to
1296
any who have raised points, made suggestions or asked questions. An overhaul of N.A.T.O. is only to be expected after twelve years. I am very conscious that in what I have said I have not answered or in any way solved the problems which have been raised in this debate.
What we are doing at this stage is to define the problems which face us in the changing circumstances of the sixties; and your Lordships have certainly given us some problems to define. I have tried to sketch out the considerations which will be borne in mind when we come to examine these problems, and, as I have said, to those will be added the many points that have been made by those who have spoken in this debate. I am confident that, together with our Allies, we shall find answers to them. In the meantime, we can look back over the twelve years of N.A.T.O., twelve years in which N.A.T.O. has successfully kept the peace, and we reaffirm that Her Majesty's Government will continue to give it their full support. At the same time, we welcome the call in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for firm support of the Alliance by the United Kingdom Parliament. I have no doubt that it will be forthcoming.
7.53 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I can safely say that the object which I had in mind when I put this Motion down has been entirely satisfied—that is to say, to have an objective and thorough debate upon what I regard as one of the most important subjects to-day, one which vitally concerns us in this country and our colleagues in the North Atlantic Alliance. May I say I have listened with the greatest interest and, after the first speech, with the greatest enjoyment to all the speeches that have been made to-day, and I should like to thank everyone who has spoken and has added a contribution to a debate which I think, or at least I hope, will make a considerable impression upon our Allies. It is no good denying or disguising that there has been in N.A.T.O. a feeling that the work we do in the Conference when we meet in Paris is disregarded by the various Parliaments, and particularly by the United Kingdom Parliament. That, at all events, can no longer be said.
I would congratulate the three noble Lords who made their maiden speeches.

1297
It is no empty tribute on my part to say that we shall listen with the greatest interest to any contributions they have to make in future. They were three rernarkable maiden speeches. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary. There is no doubt about it, this House has been enlarged and has been made more important by having the Foreign Secretary among us. There is one thing I would say about him. We were contestants for years. I was the "shadow" Commonwealth Secretary when the noble Earl was the actual holder of that office. He had all the responsibility and the pay: I merely had the opportunity of criticism. But he is the same man now as he was then. I feel that he will tell us all he possibly can—and that has been by no means the case with former Foreign Secretaries, either in this House or in another place. He will always give us the maximum information he can. He does not try to hide anything from the British public because Bulgaria or some other country might be hurt if he were to reveal it. After ail, the main purpose of the Foreign Secretary is to look after the British public and not necessarily to look after the Bulgarian or any other public.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has done his best to give us some answers to the questions. At the end he said he had not been able to solve any of the problems. I did not expect that he would, and I did not put this Motion down in anticipation that it would solve any problems. What I wanted was to have the problems discussed, and, as he has said and as the noble Earl, the Foregin Secretary, kindly said, our deliberations will have an influence upon the Government when they come to make their contribution to N.A.T.O. I should just like to say a short word about my noble friend. Lord Windlesham. He came over especially from Dublin at my request for this debate and I am grateful to him for that.
Before I withdraw my Motion, there is just one comment I would make. I have made it for years past after debates of this kind and I propose to go on making it. I have been concerned to see that there is no Field Marshal or Marshal of the Royal Air Force present. One of the contributions this House can offer is that when we get a debate of a specialist
1298
nature people with great experience in the field who are Members of this House can make their contributions. Not one Field Marshal or Marshal of the Royal Air Force has even poked his nose into the Chamber, leave alone make any contribution—
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, may I say that I did see Field Marshal Lord Harding of Petherton here.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, he must have been very quick, because I did not see him. He must have come in by mistake; although I should like to say about the noble Lord that he is one of the Field Marshals who does contribute—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD OGMORE: —and I do not want to say anything about him, because have a fondness for him in that respect as well as for various other reasons. But, after all, some Field Marshals are never slow at making contributions outside this House; they appear on television and radio and all over the world at Press conferences, which must occasionally be an embarrassment to the Government. But when it comes to this House, of which they are Members. and where opinions can at least be challenged, they are always conspicuous by their absence, with the single exception of the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, who failed us to-day. With that, my usual criticism, which I voice on all these occasions, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  HOSPITAL BUILDING SCHEME
  HOSPITAL BUILDING SCHEME