Sitting of 7 March 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TRUNK PIPELINES BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Timber Imports
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for encouraging increased imports of timber for Yugoslavia; and whether he will bear in mind the present difficulties of the home-grown timber industry.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The Government do not encourage the importers of timber to buy from any particular country. My right hon. Friend is not aware that imports of timber from Yugoslavia are a source of difficulty for the home-grown timber trade.
    Mr. Digby: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind in the future the difficulties of the home-grown timber industry, where production is increasing, at lot of it as a result of the investment of the Forestry Commission, at a time when foreign competition is very difficult?
    Mr. Erroll: I will look into the points which my hon. Friend has raised. We have not had any recent major complaint from the home-grown timber industry.

    Consett
    Mr. Stonesasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 14,500 jobs promised for the County of Durham during the next few years will
    226
    be made available within the exchange areas of the Consett constituency.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): About 800. But in regard to the replies to this and Questions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 63, I should like to explain that the jobs referred to are not "promised", but are based on the estimates of the firms themselves. Moreover, information as to jobs in prospect is classified by employment exchange areas, the boundaries of which in many cases do not correspond with constituency boundaries. For these two reasons the replies should, I suggest, be accepted with reserve, even though they have taken a very considerable time to prepare.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stones.
    Mr. Willey: On a point of order. Was the Minister replying to these Questions, Mr. Speaker, or was he merely referring to them?
    Mr. Speaker: I think from what the Minister said that he was explaining that he was going to answer, but was making a qualification which applies to one and all so that he will not have to repeat it.
    Mr. Manuel: It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, when a Question is on the Order Paper and when the Minister gets up and reels off quickly six or eight Question numbers and one is not sure whether one's own Question is included. I appeal to the Minister to read them again a little slower.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sure the Minister will help by repeating the numbers of the Questions to which he says that his qualification applies when he comes to give his Answers.
    Mr. Macpherson: These Questions relate only to Durham. They are Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 63.
    Mr. Stones: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that quite a few hundred men and women are unemployed in my constituency and quite a lot of people have to travel outside the district ten and more miles to their employment, thereby lengthening their working day, not to mention the increased travelling expenses? Is the Minister also aware that my division is

    227
    largely a coalmining area, inevitably declining, and that I am sure the constituents in my division would be very appreciative if his Department could do anything possible in the way of siting new industries in order to provide alternative employment for redundant miners now and in the future?
    Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend will certainly do his best to bring industries to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but he must, of course, under the Local Employment Act, give preference to development districts, and the hon. Gentleman's constituency has no development districts in it.

    Sedgefield
    Mr. Slaterasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 14,500 jobs promised for the County of Durham during the next few years will be made available within the exchange areas of the Sedgefield constituency.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: About 2,200.
    Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what he had to say in reply to my Question on 21st February and what he has had to say today in no way allays my fears in regard to employment for the people in a part of my constituency which is in the Sedgefield rural district? Is the Minister further aware that if the redundancies continue to take place in the mining villages we are going to be faced with a situation where we shall have villages without any form of alternative employment whatsoever? What is going to happen to the people who are resident in these villages if there is no alternative employment for them? I certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend will do everything possible to give some form of assistance by bringing alternative employment to these villages in my constituency which will be seriously affected?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am quite aware of what the hon. Member says, but we are certainly watching the employment situation, in the mines particularly, most carefully. There are two employment exchange areas which are development districts covered by his constituency to some extent.

    Chester-le-Street
    Mr. Pentlandasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 14,500 jobs promised for the County of Durham during the next few years will be made available within the exchange areas of the Chester-le-Street constituency.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: About 825.
    Mr. Pentland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in replying to all these Questions his Answers have been based on hypothetical information? Is he aware that in my constituency there are available splendid industrial sites which have every advantage in facilities and amenities? In view of this and the fact that up till now the Local Employment Act has been a dismal failure in the county, will he tell us what the Government intend to do to introduce stronger measures to bring industry to this part of the country?
    Mr. Macpherson: Again, the Local Employment Act does not apply so directly to the hon. Member's constituency as to other constituencies, as there are no development districts in his constituency.
    Mr. Pentland: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is not strictly correct—[HON. MEMBERS "That is not a point of order."]—I am seeking your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and drawing attention to the fact that the answer is not strictly correct.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not understand how that raises a point of procedure or order.
    Mr. Pentland: May I have this clarified? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some months ago I received an Answer from the President of the Board of Trade which stated categorically that in certain circumstances my constituency would benefit through the Local Employment Act?
    Mr. Macpherson: May I correct what I said? I apologise to the House. It is a fact that a small part of the Houghton-le-Spring Exchange area is within the constituency of the hon. Member.

    Houghton-le-Spring
    Mr. Blytonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 14,500 jobs promised for the County of Durham during the next few years will be made available within the exchange area of the Houghton constituency.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: About 330.
    Mr. Blyton: Is the Minister aware that, although great claims have been made about the Local Employment Act, unemployment in the Houghton-le-Spring area is well above the national average? Is there any hope that Government promises will bring employment to my constituency?
    Mr. Macpherson: It is not promises but industrialists who bring employment. What we are anxious to do is to encourage industrialists to go to areas such as the hon. Member's constituency, and we are doing our best to encourage that.
    Mr. Blyton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that promises have been made by the Government that under the Local Employment Act they will deal with serious unemployment in the various areas of the country, and that my area has a high rate of unemployment but the Government have done nothing? When do they intend to do something?
    Mr. Macpherson: What the Government have done is to provide inducements for industrialists to go to those areas. The hon. Member, I am sure, would not want us to direct industrialists to go to such areas.

    Blaydon
    Mr. Woofasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 14,500 jobs promised for the County of Durham during the next few years will be made available within the exchange area of the Blaydon constituency.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: About 120.
    Mr. Woof: Is the Minister aware that four collieries have recently closed down, carrying with them a considerable weight of redundancy in this area? Is he also aware that only one factory employing skilled engineers has been built since the war? In view of the preponderance of
    230
    those engaged in temporary employment, those registered as disabled unemployed and school-leavers who find it very difficult to get employment, what steps does the Minister intend to take to relieve this gloomy prospect?
    Mr. Macpherson: I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Member has said. He will appreciate that the unemployment in his constituency does not qualify it for classification as a development district.
    Mr. Jay: Does not the Answer to this Question and the previous Answers show that it would have been much better to have left the whole of the North-East Coast as a development area, as it was under previous Distribution of Industry Acts?
    Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir. I do not think so at all. The mere fact that, in spite of cutting down the areas which are eligible for treatment under the Local Employment Act very considerably, we are yet not able to bring all the industry we should like to bring to them, shows that it would have been folly to have kept much wider areas and so not have been able to concentrate the assistance we are giving.

    Durham
    Mr. Greyasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 14,500 jobs promised for the County of Durham during the next few years will be made available within the exchange area of the Durham constituency.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: About 780.
    Mr. Grey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the general feeling in my constituency that there is more uncertainty now than there has been since 1945 and that the working of the Local Employment Act is not to our advantage at all? How many years will it be before these new jobs are taken up?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am afraid I could not give a definite answer to the last part of that supplementary question. It might be two, three or four years, but during that period, of course, more jobs should be developing. One has to have regard to expansion as well as to new industry coming in.

    County of Durham
    Mr. Greyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give further details of the 14,500 jobs which have been promised for the County of Durham during the next few years.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: As the Answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Grey: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for promising to give those figures, may I ask if he is aware that in Durham County as a whole there are nearly 20,000 unemployed and that that represents twice the national average, but it is something about which the Local Employment Act is not doing anything whatever? If, as a result of the uncertainty I mentioned in my earlier supplementary question, people are leaving Durham in search of work, and if this trend continues over the next fourteen years 27,500 will be leaving, will the hon. Gentleman put some teeth into the Act to make it work and bite without difficulty?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am very much aware of many of the considerations the hon. Member has mentioned, which, indeed, he mentioned when he came with a deputation from Durham.
    Following is the information:
    The distribution of the 14,500 jobs which we estimate should accrue in the next few years in County Durham is as follows:

    North East Durham, comprising the Employment Exchange Areas of Birtley, Chester-le-Street, Washington Station, and Houghton-le-Spring

    1,125

    North West Durham, comprising the Employment Exchange Areas of Consett and Stanley

    830

    Durham Employment Exchange Area

    425

    South West Durham, comprising the Employment Exchange Areas of Bishop Auckland, Crook. Shildon, Spennymoor, Barnard Castle and Middleton-in-Teesdale

    1,635

    South East Durham, comprising the Employment Exchange Areas of Wingate, Haswell and Horden

    290

    South Tyne West, comprising the Employment Exchange Areas of Blaydon, Felling and Gateshead

    1,285

    South Tyne East, comprising the Employment Exchange Areas of East Boldon, Jarrow and Hebburn, and South Shields

    2,200

    Of these jobs about 9,000 are in development districts. About 9,500 are for men and 5,000 for women.

    Easington
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 14,500 jobs promised for the County of Durham during the next few years will be made available within the exchange areas of the Easington constituency.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: About 290.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that that is not enough? Is he not impressed by this demonstration? Is he aware that if he does not get a move on we shall be on his tail until he does?
    Mr. Macpherson: I can assure the right hon. Member that we are as anxious as he is to bring new industry to the area.
    Mr. C. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend say what deep sympathy he has with all those who naturally are anxious about unemployment in their constituencies? Also will he say to them that, in a free society, no Government can guarantee full employment since we cannot compel the foreigner to buy British when he will not buy our exports?
    Mr. Macpherson: I think that there is a very great deal in what my hon. Friend has said. I hope that I did not express any lack of sympathy with hon. Members who have asked these Questions.
    Mr. Pentland: On a point of order. Is it in order for a back bencher to answer for a Parliamentary Secretary?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I hope that we may get on with Questions.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that if the Local Employment Act is not sufficient to enable suitable employment to be found for people who need it, something ought to be done by the Government either to revise or amend the Act in some way, or to introduce new legislation?
    Mr. Macpherson: The Act has been in force for less than a year. I think it fair to let the Act prove itself for a little time yet, at any rate.
    Mr. Jay: Are the Government now, like the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne), abandoning the assurances of full employment contained in the 1944 White Paper?
    Mr.. Macpherson: By no means. Unemployment on the average has remained at a consistently low level, and even in Durham the unemployment level is lower than it was a year ago.

    Garages (Motor-Tyre Pumps)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take powers to provide for the regular testing of air pressure gauges used with motor-tyre pumps at public garages.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any reason why he should do so.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable difference in the readings of pressure gauges at different garages? Is it not fraudulent to give a wrong reading to motorists who have to pay to have their tyres inflated? Will not my hon. Friend agree that in these days when motorways permit high speeds with modern cars it is essential, in the interests of safety, for motorists to know what pressure is in their tyres and to know it accurately?
    Mr. Macpherson: Questions of road safety are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. On the other part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, in this case one would be measuring physical conditions and it is not anticipated that we should be able to take such power as things are, even under the Weights and Measures Bill which is before the House

    Government-Financed Factory, Stockton-on-Tees
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the President of the Board of Trade how many inquiries he has received since 16th February, 1961, regarding the tenancy of the empty Government-financed factory at Stockton-on-Tees.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: None since I replied to the hon. Member's Question on 16th February.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a shocking waste of public money that this large factory should be standing idle when it could be used for engineering, thus employing some of the people in constituencies adjoining Stockton-on-Tees, about which Questions have been asked today? Is it not wrong for the Minister to give false hopes to the people in Durham about 14,000 jobs, when that figure is based on estimates of employers, who always double the number they think they will employ in order to get the Government interested? When will this factory be allocated to a tenant?
    Mr. Macpherson: I do not agree with the second part of the supplementary question. On the first part, it is not a waste of public money, as the factory is still on lease to its previous tenant.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Although the factory is on lease and the rent is being paid, it is standing idle when it could be used for industrial purposes, thus helping our position in the export market. What priority is the hon. Gentleman giving to this? Is he satisfied merely to receive the rent and see the place going to rot?
    Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman must realise that this factory has an area of 150,000 square feet. It is not easy to find tenants for a factory of that size.

    North Tees Industrial Estate
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the President of the Board of Trade how many men and women, respectively, are employed on the North Tees Industrial Estate; and how this compares with a comparable date in 1950, 1955, 1959 and 1960.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Has there been any substantial increase in the numbers over this period? Is it intended to build any additional capacity on the estate?
    Mr. Macpherson: There was an increase, but there has been a slight decline since 1955.
    Following is the answer:

    M.

    F.

    Total

    December, 1950(i)

    167

    674

    841

    November, 1955

    184

    860

    1,044

    November, 1959

    177

    526

    703

    November, 1960

    204

    570

    774

    January, 1961(ii)

    211

    608

    819

    NOTES:
    (i) The method of collecting returns differed in 1950 from that used more recently; there is no comparable figure for November, 1950.
    (ii) Returns are made quarterly; November, 1960, is the date of the most recent return; the January figure is provisional.

    The Hartlepools
    Commander Keransasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 14,500 jobs promised for the County of Durham during the next few years will be made available for The Hartlepools constituency; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: About 790.
    Commander Kerans: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there are still large areas vacant on The Hartlepools Trading Estate? Will he give the greatest publicity to the lack of trade in the North-East and also to the facilities the North-East can offer?
    Mr. Macpherson: We shall certainly continue to do our best for this part of the country.

    Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Thorntonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many approved applications under the Cotton Finishing Reorganisation Scheme Orders have been made direct to the Cotton Board; how many have been made through realisation companies; what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the closing down and scrapping of production units; and what percentages of the whole cost will be met by
    236
    the Exchequer and by statutory levy on the industry.
    Mr. Thorntonasked the President of the Board of Trade if the minimum figures required to attract compensation from public funds have been reached in respect of the Cotton Finishing (Yarn Processing) Reorganisation Scheme Order, 1960, and the three subsections of the Cotton Finishing (Woven Cloth) Reorganisation Scheme Order, 1960; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The information is not yet available, since the Cotton Board has not yet completed its scrutiny of the applications. My right hon. Friend understands that it will do so shortly.
    Mr. Thornton: Will the accounts of the realisation companies subsequently be subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General?
    Mr. Macpherson: That is another question, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will table it.

    Tobacco and Cigarette Manufacturing (Monopolies Commission's Report)
    Mr. Darlingasked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish the Monopolies Commission's Report on tobacco and cigarette manufacturing.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The Report is now being prepared for publication and my right hon. Friend hopes it will be published about the middle of this year.
    Mr. Darling: Is it possible to speed up the work of the Monopolies Commission and the publication of its Report? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it seems that the Commission will take up to four years to complete its investigation and publish its Report? Is it lack of staff or an inability to get the panels together to complete the work? What is holding up the Commission's work.
    Mr. Macpherson: The main consideration is the very great detail into which the Commission has to go. As for publication, the Report is lengthy and my right hon. Friend has a duty under Section 9 of the 1948 Act before publishing the Report to see whether anything should be taken out of it in

    237
    the public interest. These are the reasons. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

    Linen Goods (Import)
    Mrs. McLaughlinasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the growing concern among Irish linen manufacturers and merchants regarding the large quantity of linen tea towels and towelling imported from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary; and if he will make a statement regarding the possibility of making it necessary to state the country of origin on such items even if a small amount of finishing is done on these goods in this country.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is aware of the views of Northern Ireland linen manufacturers and merchants. The Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887–1953, prescribe the conditions in which imported goods should bear an indication of origin: my right hon. Friend does not think that any change in this respect is needed.
    Mrs. McLaughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that Northern Ireland manufacturers do not think that it is sufficient that the Ministry should be aware? In this problem there is a growing need for understanding of the fact that more and more Iron Curtain countries will be sending to this country materials which will have a small amount of finishing done on them and will then go out as if they were British goods. That practice is a contribution towards unemployment in an industry which badly needs help.
    Mr. Macpherson: What my hon. Friend says may be true, but if it is, it will probably be compensated by added exports. In the last three years we have increased our exports to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia by £10 million. The main answer to my hon. Friend's anxiety is that at present the question is certainly not one of vast scope. The amount of retained imports of towels and towelling from the three countries in question in 1959 came to only 21 per cent. of the total production of linen and union cloth in Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. McLaughlinasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to alter the quota basis of linen goods imported from other coun-
    238
    tries so that it is based on yardage and not on money value as at present.
    Mr. Erroll: Quotas for trade with the eastern area are normally exchanged on a value basis and my right hon. Friend sees no advantage in suggesting any alteration of that basis for linen goods.
    Mrs. McLaughlin: This is very difficult. My right hon. Friend must be aware of the importance of this to home producers of linen and cotton goods. When the quota basis is money value, to gain currency many countries will send in more goods at a reduced price. If the basis is yardage, there will be a limit on the number of yards a country can send. Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again, because it is important to a small industry which must build a good home market if it is to have a good export market also?
    Mr. Erroll: I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of the industry, but a value quota puts a limit on the value of what may be brought in. Importers naturally wish to sell their goods for as high a price as possible.
    Mrs. McLaughlin: Will not my hon. Friend look at the matter again and bring yardage into it, because that will mean that we shall get a better quality of goods from other countries and know exactly what we are up against instead of, as at present, having no idea?
    Mr. Erroll: The figures clearly show what we are up against. This is a relatively small import, but I should like to give my hon. Friend additional information.
    Mrs. McLaughlin: I give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall do my best to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Warranty Labels and Seals of Approval
    Mr. Darlingasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will examine the institutions that issue warranty labels and seals of approval for consumer goods and services to see whether legislation ought to be introduced in order to restrict the issuing of such labels, warrants and seals to approved institutions.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The Committee on Consumer Protection has announced its intention of considering the case for regulation of markings implying test, guarantee or approval, and my right hon. Friend proposes to await the Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Darling: As this Committee will not report for some time—in fact its report looks like being very much delayed, for some reason which we cannot go into—cannot action be taken now to find out what the situation is? My Question merely asks the hon. Gentleman's Department to collect facts and information. That would not be too big a job. We could then see whether legislation is needed.
    Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has considered this, but he is of the opinion that it is essential to await the Committee's findings, because it would be quite impracticable anyway to take action while the Committee is still sitting.

    Furniture (Hire-purchase Agreements)
    Mr. Albuasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from either side of the furniture industry for the abolition of the present restriction on add-to hire-purchase agreements.
    Mr. John Hallasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the present position of the furniture industry, he will remove the present embargo on add-to hire-purchase agreements.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of letters from individuals in the industry and I have received a deputation from the British Furniture Trade Joint Industrial Council. My right hon. Friend carefully considered these representations before making the Order on the 20th January lengthening the period of repayment to three years. "Add-to" facilities may, in fact, be provided by extending an original agreement up to that limit. My right hon. Friend concluded that it would not be right to go further in the particular case of the furniture industry.
    Mr. Albu: Does not the Minister realise that this is a particular source of concern to the furniture industry, because the practice has always existed in the trade? In view of the fact that at any rate the production side of the industry has been working on short time for a considerable period now, does not he think it is time to remove this very annoying restriction?
    Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend was well aware of these considerations when he made the Order extending the period to three years, and he does not feel that it would be possible to make a particular exception to a general rule for a general purpose in favour of the furniture industry.

    North-East
    Mr. Shortasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state each project which has been approved in the North-East since the operation of the Local Employment Act; and where they are located.
    Mr. Popplewellasked the President of the Board of Trade how many projects have been approved in the North-East since the operation of the Local Employment Act.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: About 150 projects have been approved in the Counties of Northumberland and Durham and the North Riding of Yorkshire. The details of individual projects are confidential.
    Mr. Short: Does the Minister realise that all of us on this side of the House and some hon. Members opposite, together with everyone in the North-East with knowledge of the situation, regards the Local Employment Act as an utter and dismal failure when set against the problems in an area like the North-East? Does he realise that, since the Act came into operation, in two industries alone in the North-East, ship-repairing and coal mining, there have been 50 per cent. more redundancies than there have been jobs provided under the Act? When will the Government do something to prevent the tragic migration from the North-East which, as this year's census will show, is just as great now as it was in the 1930s? If he wants

    241
    information about this, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will tell him all about it.
    Mr. Macpherson: I am aware that the Local Employment Act has, perhaps, not been quite so successful in the North-East as it has been in other parts of the country in attracting industrialists to the area. But the Act is there and we are doing our best to offer the inducements and get industrialists to take them.
    Mr. Popplewell: The Minister puts it very mildly when he says that the Local Employment Act has not been successful in the North-East. Will he now apologise to the representatives from Durham whom he met a short time ago and told that there were 14,500 jobs in the pipeline, since his Answers today indicate that there are fewer than 7,000? That was a deliberate misstatement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, a deliberate misstatement, and I am asking the Minister to apologise. Does he realise that there are between 35,000 and 37,000 unemployed in the North-East and, at his present rate of progress, there is absolutely no hope of those people getting a job? Also, is he aware that there is a wastage of 10,000 men in the mining industry in Northumberland and Durham, and that his Answers today indicate that he is doing absolutely nothing for them? Will he be honest with us?
    Sir Richard Pilkington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are not supplementary questions far too long this afternoon?
    Mr. Speaker: Very often, I think they are too long every afternoon.
    Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two separate things. The Question asks about what jobs are available as a result of the Local Employment Act. The 14,500 jobs for Durham are all the jobs which are in prospect, whether available under the Local Employment Act or not.
    Mr. Woof: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to take it from the Minister's reply that the jobs he has referred to are drawn out of a lucky dip?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Popplewell: I wish to give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I shall raise this whole series of matters at the first opportunity on the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: I have to require the hon. Member to specify one particular Question. Otherwise, I do not know what the subject is.
    Mr. Popplewell: Unemployment in the North-East and the prospects available, Sir.
    Mr. Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the north-east of England's share in Government loans to industry since the beginning of the present financial year; and the number of jobs this expenditure of money has now provided.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: £320,000, or about 6 per cent. of the loans offered for England and 1½ per cent. of those offered for Great Britain. The firms concerned estimate that employment will ultimately be provided for 1,900 persons. The amount of loans actually paid in the North-East during the present financial year is £832,000, of 17·3 per cent. of total loans paid in Great Britain.
    Mr. Milne: As previous Questions and Answers this afternoon have indicated, this is merely tinkering with the problem. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that flying visits by himself and the President of the Board of Trade, flying in and out again in an hour or so, are no way of examining the tremendous unemployment problem in the North-East? Will he give an assurance that, instead of making promises about the future, he will do something about it from this moment?
    Mr. Macpherson: I have been at pains to point out that we have not been making promises at all. The jobs of which we were speaking are the estimates of the firms themselves. As to our visits, we were extremely well received, and we hoped that they would do good. That was the object of the visits.

    Dunbartonshire
    Mr. Benceasked the President of the Board of Trade what new industrial enterprises planned for Dunbartonshire

    243
    will be in production by 1962; and what estimated increase in employment these are likely to produce.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Eight, including two expansions, to provide 1,952 jobs.
    Mr. Bence: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that by 1962 this will be hopelessly inadequate if the new town at Cumbernauld expands at the rate expected by the Secretary of State for Scotland and if the overspill agreement with Kirkintilloch results in expansion there? Another 1,900 jobs by 1962 will not even catch up with the increased number of school leavers in that year.
    Mr. Macpherson: It is some time till 1962, and we are hopeful that the inducements we offer will be taken up by industrialists in the meantime and will add new jobs.

    Northumberland
    Mr. Owenasked the President of the Board of Trade how many projects under the Local Employment Act have received consideration by the County of Northumberland; how many have been approved; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Seven projects, of which two have so far been approved.
    Mr. Owen: Does the Minister realise that seven projects in the County of Northumberland do not touch the problem in any way? It is a county where the major industry is contracting and where there is a considerable drift from the land. Is it not necessary and urgent now that more definite action should be taken by the Government?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am aware that industry has not been going to that area to the extent we should like, but we are nevertheless doing our best to encourage it to do so.

    Motherwell and Wishaw
    Mr. Lawsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what new industrial enterprises planned for Motherwell and Wishaw are likely to be in production by 1962; what is the estimated increase in employment these new enterprises will produce; and what proportion of the new jobs provided will be for youths under 18 years of age.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: In reply to this Question and Questions Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 50, 51, 55, and 56, I shall give the number of new enterprises— —
    Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Before I hear the point of order, I wish to hear what the Minister is saying.
    Mr. Macpherson: I shall give the number of new enterprises, including expansions, likely to be in production by the end of 1962, and the number of jobs which the firms themselves estimated would ultimately be provided. The firms do not supply us with an estimate of the number of youths likely to be employed.
    The number of new enterprises in Motherwell and Wishaw is three, including one expansion, and the jobs to be ultimately provided are 250.
    Mr. Lawson: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a host of Questions relating to different parts of Scotland, and it seems quite impossible to deal with them all on this basis. Is it in order for the Minister to treat Scotland in a manner which is less considerate—I do not complain about that, of course—than the manner in which he treated north-east England?
    Mr. Speaker: Unless I misheard, this is intended to follow the same pattern throughout. There will be individual Answers to Questions but with a protective qualification which the Minister relates to each of the Questions named. I do not think that it is out of order.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister answered Questions about employment prospects in individual constituencies in the north-east of England. Not one of the Questions which he has now lumped together asks about employment prospects in a single constituency. They all refer to whole counties most of which have several constituencies within them. Is it really in order for the Minister to exercise what power he has to lump all these Questions together and, therefore, to fail to give the information which is considered essential for a better consideration of these problems in Scotland?
    Mr. Speaker: With respect, I do not think that is quite fair. It depends what is meant by the phrase "lumped together". I do not understand that the Minister intended to answer all these Questions in a lump but to give individual answers subject to the qualification which he expressed as applicable to them all. I do not think the House would want the qualification repeated every time. We would never get on.
    Miss Herbison: Further to that point of order. In Question No. 37 I ask about the new industrial enterprises planned for Lanarkshire. From the reply which the Parliamentary Secretary has given to this series of Questions, I am no wiser about what is the answer to this Question. For that reason— —
    Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I think that I should do so in the interests of other hon. Members. I understand that in due course I shall have the honour of calling the hon. Lady. She will then receive an Answer to Question No. 37. I do not think that the Minister has purported to answer it.
    Mr. Short: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you will observe that there are two considerable protests made in Questions on the Order Paper, one from Scotland and one from the much older kingdom of Northumbria. Both protests reveal great concern in those areas. Therefore, should not the President of the Board of Trade be present instead of the Parliamentary Secretary?
    Mr. Speaker: Some hon. Members do not seem able to distinguish that which is a point of order from that which is not. I do not address my appeal to them. To those who can make the distinction, I hope that we can cease this business of bogus points of order, using up our time.
    Mr. Lawson: As there are only three new projects in hand, will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that we expect that in 1962 about 1,400 youngsters will be leaving school, an increase of one-third on the 1960 figure? If jobs are to be provided for them, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there must be much more sign of new work coming to this area than there has been in the past?
    Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the jobs to be provided
    246
    to which I refer will arise from these new enterprises. In the meantime, there is no reason why there should not be considerable expansion within existing industries.

    Edinburgh and Midlothian
    Mr. Willisasked the President of the Board of Trade what new industrial enterprises planned for Edinburgh and Midlothian are likely to be in production by 1962; what is the estimated increase in employment these new enterprises will produce; and what proportion of the new jobs provided will be for youths under 18 years of age.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Twenty-two, including fifteen expansions, to provide 1,417 jobs.
    Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the youth employment officer in Edinburgh forecasts a very high level of unemployment among boys for the next four years? Will the hon. Gentleman do something about the matter?
    Mr. Macpherson: That high level of unemployment has not yet materialised, and we do not believe that there is any reason why it should.

    Dundee
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what new industrial enterprises planned for Dundee are likely to be in production by 1962; what is the estimated increase in employment these new enterprises will produce; and what proportion of the new jobs provided will he for youths under 18 years of age.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Eight, including five expansions, to provide 1,012 jobs.
    Mr. Thomson: Is it not true that the Government have completely failed to bring any new major firm to the Dundee development district and that all the firms which are expanding went there during the period of the Labour Government? Is it not scandalous that the Minister should have no information about the amount of employment to be provided for young workers under the age of 18? Are not the Government betraying those young people who had the misfortune to be born in the year 1946?
    Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir. The information arises when application is made for industrial development certificates. It is inevitable that at that time the information about jobs which will arise must be in a fairly round figure. It cannot be particularly accurate and it cannot be divided between particular age groups.

    Scotland
    Mr. Hoyasked the President of the Board of Trade what new industrial enterprises planned for Scotland are likely to be in production by 1962; what is the estimated increase in employment these new enterprises will produce; and what proportion of the new jobs provided will be for youths under 18 years of age.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: One hundred and seventy-six, including ninety-nine expansions, to provide 24,286 jobs.
    Mr. Hoy: Is not the Minister aware that even if all these jobs were available —and we are getting a little tired of their being described as being in the pipeline —they would account for only one-third of the people at present signing on at the employment exchanges? Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is making no impact on the unemployment figures. In view of the considerable wastage taking place, which has to be offset against this figure, cannot the hon. Gentleman do something further to meet this appalling problem in Scotland?
    Mr. Macpherson: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The jobs now being provided often form the nucleus of further employment. If these jobs materialise, it is virtually certain that a great many more ancillary jobs will also materialise.

    Ayrshire
    Mr. Manuelasked the President of the Board of Trade what new industrial enterprises planned for Ayrshire are likely to be in production by 1962; what is the estimated increase in employment these new enterprises will produce; and what proportion of the new jobs provided will be for youths under 18 years of age.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Ten, including six expansions, to provide 2,241 jobs.
    Mr. Manuel: I take it that the hon. Gentleman means that there have been four new enterprises and six expansions. Many of us will be disappointed that he cannot give the proportion of youths under 18 years being recruited into industry. This is the crux of the whole problem. Will he consult his right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour to ensure that the apprenticeships are tied to the occupation which the youngsters enter so that they do not return to the labour market because they are not tied to an apprenticeship when they are engaged?
    Mr. Macpherson: I will take note of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. In answer to the first part, I think that it is well to point out that most of the new enterprises arising are expansions in enterprises either already in Scotland or elsewhere in Great Britain.
    Mr. Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many of these new enterprises are in respect not of people presently unemployed in Ayrshire but of overspill and which, therefore, will not affect the problem in Ayrshire?
    Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir. I have not that information at present. The hon. Gentleman should take a Question on that point.

    Fifeshire
    Mr. Gourlayasked the President of the Board of Trade what new industrial enterprises planned for Fifeshire are likely to be in production by 1962; what is the estimated increase in employment these new enterprises will produce; and what proportion of the new jobs provided will be for youths under 18 years of age.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Nine, including five expansions to provide 562 jobs.
    Mr. Gourlay: That is an extremely disappointing Answer which is in line with all the other Answers the hon. Gentleman has given this afternoon. At present in Kirkcaldy there are fifty unemployed young persons below the age of 18. Some of them have not had a job since they left school. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the main industry in Kirkcaldy, linoleum, there is a considerable amount

    249
    of redundancy and short-time working? Will he take positive and drastic steps to ensure that young people who leave school in 1962 have employment?
    Mr. Macpherson: We are doing our best in that respect, and so are the Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    Glasgow
    Mr. Smallasked the President of the Board of Trade what new industrial enterprises planned for Glasgow are likely to be in production by 1962; what is the estimated increase in employment these new enterprises will produce; and what proportion of the new jobs provided will be for youths under 18 years of age.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Thirty-five, including eighteen expansions, to provide 1,130 jobs.
    Mr. Small: Is the Minister aware that opportunities for jobs in shipbuilding on the Clyde are on the decline and that they will decline still further? It was said by the Minister of Labour in answer to a Question recently that 1,200 jobs will be required for school leavers this year and the following year. Will the hon. Gentleman treat this matter as urgent?
    Mr. Macpherson: Experience shows that young school leavers are normally absorbed into industry. However, I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says and realise his anxieties about shipbuilding.

    Lanarkshire
    Miss Herbisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what new industrial enterprises planned for Lanarkshire are likely to be in production by 1962; what is the estimated increase in employment these new enterprises will produce; and what proportion of the new jobs provided will be for youths under 18 years of age.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Twenty-one, including eleven expansions, to provide 4,530 jobs.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that the figure which he has just given will not cope in any way with the number of unemployed and particularly with
    250
    the increase in those who are leaving school? Further, is he aware that the complacency which he has shown in answer to all Questions today, particularly supplementary questions, is not shared in Scotland by responsible people, youth employment officers, teachers or industrialists? Will the hon. Gentleman do something worth while to bring work to where it is most needed?
    Mr. Macpherson: We are frequently called upon for leadership. To show pessimism would be the worst form of leadership. I am optimistic about the future, and I believe that, by and large, the Press in Scotland reflects that optimism.

    Stirling and Clackmannanshire
    Mr. Woodburnasked the President of the Board of Trade what new industrial enterprises planned for Stirling and Clackmannanshire are likely to be in production by 1962; what is the estimated increase in employment these new enterprises will produce; and what proportion of the new jobs provided will be for youths under 18 years of age.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Eight, including seven expansions, to provide 398 jobs.
    Mr. Woodburn: Has the Minister seen the rather gloomy prophecies of the school and youth employment officers that in the next two or three years there will be a big increase in the proportion of youths among jobless persons? Has he any comment To make on these prophecies?
    Mr. Macpherson: I think that that is a rather different question from the one on the Order Paper. I should not like to comment on that aspect.

    Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade what new industrial enterprises planned for Aberdeen are likely to be in production by 1962; what is the estimated increase in employment these new enterprises will produce; and what proportion of the new jobs provided will be for youths under 18 years of age
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Five, including three expansions, to provide 150 jobs.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister in touch with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and is he aware of the recent visit of Lord Polwarth to Aberdeen? Is he in touch with Lord Polwarth and what is he doing to develop the trade and industry of Aberdeen, as has been promised for so long but without any concrete results?
    Mr. Macpherson: I assure the hon. and learned Member that we are in the closest touch with Lord Polwarth and the Scottish Council. In conjunction with them, we are doing the best we can to further the interests of Aberdeen and other places.
    Sir J. Duncan: Meanwhile, can my hon. Friend say to what extent unemployment has fallen in the last month and how the reduced figure compares with what it was a year ago?
    Mr. Macpherson: In January, 1961, 3,580 persons were unemployed in Aberdeen, as against 4,327 a year previously—that is 3·6 as compared with 4·4 per cent.

  UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  Mr. Fellasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the current operation of his policy of interdependence of Great Britain and the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The policy of interdependence which I set out some years ago was intended to cover co-operation, in various fields, not only between Britain and the United States, but between all the nations of the Free World. While much remains to be done, much has already been achieved.
  Mr. Fell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that illuminating Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that consultation is absolutely essential if inter-dependence between the United States of America and ourselves is to work? Has there been consultation between President Kennedy and my right hon. Friend on matters concerning American policy with regard to Colonies in Africa and also in regard to the United States attitude towards the Congo?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, there are close consultations through diplomatic channels at various levels on all these matters. I am also hoping to discuss them personally with the President in a very few weeks' time.

  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (MR. MENNEN WILLIAMS)
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make representations to President Kennedy about the intervention of United States officials in the affairs of territories for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible, in view of the recent activities of Mr. Mennen Williams, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, during his visit to British territories in Africa.
  Mr. Fellasked the Prime Minister whether he will make representations to President Kennedy about the interference by Mr. G. Mennen Williams, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, in Her Majesty's Government's colonial and Commonwealth affairs in Africa, during his tour of British Colonial Territories.
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister what representations he has made to President Kennedy about the visit to British territories in Africa by Mr. Mennen Williams, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.
  The Prime Minister: I have made no representations to President Kennedy about this affair, and I do not think that any are really necessary.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the utterances of Mr. Mennen Williams are so much soap down the drain? Is he further aware that Mr. Mennen Williams is not really to be blamed in view of President Kennedy's rather insulting pledge, given in his inaugural address, that
  "one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny"?
  Will my right hon. Friend tell President Kennedy that British colonial rule is not, and has not been, tyrannical and that Europeans in Africa are not expendable in the interests of American economic expansion?
  The Prime Minister: While not accepting the implications of my hon. Friend's question, I tried to the best of my ability to put a defence of the long and splendid story of Britain's expansion overseas when I spoke to the United Nations in September last.
  Mr. Fell: Whilst I realise my right hon. Friend's difficulty on this subject, nevertheless it is surely the fact that the people of this country feel that Mr. Mennen Williams insulted Britain by what he said in Africa, particularly as some of his statements were made in a British territory while an election was in progress. Will not the Prime Minister reconsider taking up the matter directly with President Kennedy and ensuring that there are consultations before the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs embarks upon some new American policy sponsored by President Kennedy?
  The Prime Minister: We have to take a balanced view of these affairs. Foreign travel is full of pitfalls, as we all know. I shall shortly have an opportunity of discussing these matters in a friendly, personal way with the President.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Whilst not wanting to interfere in the Conservative Party brawl, may I ask the Prime Minister to disregard the ill-conceived advice of his lukewarm friends below the Gangway and take up with our friends in the United States the possibility of their giving a real contribution in economic development, so that some of the positive ideas in Mr. Williams's speech can be developed?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful for that suggestion. I would not inquire too deeply whether it has a multilateralist, unilateralist or any other basis.
  Sir G. Nicholson: Is it not a fact that last night Mr. Dean Rusk paid a great tribute to British colonial policy?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I understand so.
  Mr. Fell: To borrow the brilliant phraseology of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary, it is more in pain than in anger that I tell the Prime Minister that I shall try to raise this matter on the Adjournment—
  Mr. Lipton: In view of what?
  Mr. Fell: —in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies.

  No. 10, DOWNING STREET
  Mr. K. Lewisasked the Prime Minister when he expects to return to No. 10, Downing Street.
  The Prime Minister: All being well, either before or perhaps just after the next General Election. Anyway, the work is going on well.
  Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we will be glad that he should be back there both before and after the next General Election? Is he further aware that I have noticed that a very large Government office is being built alongside No. 10, Downing Street, and that the Prime Minister's residence is being maintained in its old historic and intimate form? Is my right hon. Friend aware that very soon, probably before the next General Election, there will be a report from a Local Government Commission suggesting the creation of new large counties? Will he, therefore, extend this very good principle and ensure that the County of Rutland is maintained in its small, independent and intimate form?
  The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that no large public office is being built near Downing Street. The old Treasury—one of the most historic buildings in London, with its inner court dating from Tudor times, with the great room where the Monarch last presided over the Cabinet in 1713 and with the beautiful Kent front on to Horse Guards —which was terribly injured by bombs in 1940, is at last being restored, and I think that everybody will feel that that is a right thing to do. With regard to the analogy of the County of Rutland, I was wondering a little why the Question was put down. While I have every sympathy for my hon. Friend, one must not press analogies too far.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister care to elucidate his original Answer, which was a trifle obscure, by giving us the date of the next General Election?
  The Prime Minister: At a suitable time when the circumstances are the most favourable.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Prime Minister assure us that Mr. Cecil King will not be in No. 10, Downing Street before him?
  The Prime Minister: There would have to be a very special arrangement with the Daily Herald to ensure that.
  Mr. Lipton: Will the ventilation arrangements in the new No. 10, Downing Street provide adequate facilities for the winds of change?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member cares to make a visit there he will be able to see what arrangements we are making. I think that, like all modern ventilation, they tend to produce cold feet and hot heads.

HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT, SCOTLAND (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the Glen Nevis scheme and hydro-electric development in Scotland.
It is eighteen years since the Cooper Committee submitted the Report which led to the setting up of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. Since then the Board has developed Highland water power resources effectively and with general approval. It has so far connected 92 per cent. of the present potential consumers and has brought great benefits to the area it serves. During these years there have been technical advances in other methods of generating electricity and, while the relative cost of thermal generation is taken into account when individual schemes are under consideration, there has been no general examination of the whole subject since 1942.
The stage has now been reached where the basic issues involved call for careful and thorough examination in principle rather than in the context of a public inquiry into an individual scheme. I have, therefore, decided that the general interest would best be served by the appointment of a Departmental Committee which would review the general arrangements for generating and distributing electricity in Scotland, and I am glad to say that Mr. Colin H. Mackenzie, C.M.G., former chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Federation of British Industries has agreed to act as chairman.
The other members of the Committee will be:
Sir Josiah Eccles, Deputy Chairman of the Electricity Council.
Professor Alan Peacock, Professor of Economics at Edinburgh University.
Mr. James Keyden, Director and General Manager, Pressed Steel Co., Linwood.
Mr. James Craig, County Clerk of Aberdeen.
Mr. James Grant, Editor of the Stornoway Gazette.
The Committee will have the following terms of reference:
To review the arrangements for generating and distributing electricity in Scotland having regard to

(i) the availability and cost of hydroelectric power and of other sources of electricity;

(ii) the rate of increase in the demand for electricity;

(iii) the needs of the remoter areas;

and to make recommendations.
The appointment of this Committee will not preclude the simultaneous consideration of the specific objections which have been lodged regarding the Glen Nevis scheme and I am considering whether a public inquiry into these objections should be held at an early date. No final decision to proceed with the Nevis scheme would be made until the Departmental Committee's report had been received and considered.
Hon. Members: Shocking.
Mr. T. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be very considerable concern in Scotland that he has already decided that there will be no final decision on the Glen Nevis scheme till this Committee's report is received?
Many of us would not have objected to there being another look at this whole business of the generation and distribution of electricity, but it seems quite wrong to hold up a scheme which is much needed for the economic development of the Highlands till this further inquiry has been completed.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Cooper Committee inquired into electricity development and electricity distribution in the north of Scotland only? Is there any significance

257
in the fact that this new Committee will consider the generation and distribution of electricity over the whole of Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that under the 1943 Act, which was the first Act to give us nationalised electricity and was for the north of Scotland only, a very special duty was put on the Hydro-Electric Board to look after the economic well-being of the Highlands?
May I ask him further, whether there will be any possibility of a scheme other than the Glen Nevis scheme, for instance, the Maree scheme, being proceeded with before this Committee concludes its work?
May I, finally, ask him why it is that on a Committee of this character, and bearing in mind the appointees he has mentioned, he has not seen fit to invite one or more representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress?
Mr. Maclay: I will try to deal with all those questions, if I remember them. First, I am glad that the hon. Member agrees that there is a case for studying the whole economics of the generation of electricity in Scotland. On the question he asked about whether this applies to the whole of Scotland, the answer is that it does apply to the whole of Scotland, because, as hon. Members know, the problem of generating electricity by hydro methods is linked very closely with the use of electricity so generated for the relief of peak loads in the South. There is a continual crisscross of movement of electricity at different times of day and to meet different conditions.
The hon. Member asked me if this would hold up any other scheme. There is no other scheme before me at the moment and I cannot make any comment on that, because it is a hypothetical question. This simultaneous inquiry is being carried out deliberately so that we lose the minimum amount of time, but, clearly, it would be extremely difficult to make a decision on one individual scheme, the Glen Nevis scheme, and on the economics of it, when another body was studying the general economics of hydro-electricity. I do not think that there need be very much delay, because these inquiries are simultaneous.
I have tried my best, in inviting people to join this Committee, to get a proper balance of people who represent no par-
258
ticular interest, but who will take an objective view of the issue before them as a whole.
Mr. Fraser: Does what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about keeping the Glen Nevis scheme in abeyance till this report is received mean that he could not possibly approve of any new thermal stations being built in Scotland till he has received the report?
Mr. Maclay: My remarks applied only to the scheme at present before me, which is the Glen Nevis scheme, which is the subject of a statutory inquiry anyway.
Mr. Nabarro: While congratulating my right hon. Friend most warmly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, who have pressed him strongly in the matter in the last two years, may I ask him whether he will say, first, whether the report of the Committee of inquiry will be printed for the consideration of the House: secondly, whether any volunteer willing to give evidence to the Committee will be acceptable—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—oh, yes, I shall offer to do so at once—and, thirdly, what length of time he anticipates the deliberations and inquiries of this Committee will occupy?
Mr. Maclay: Yes. The report of the Committee will be made public. Secondly, it is up to the Committee to determine its own methods of working. I am sure that it will welcome the evidence of anybody who cares to give evidence to it, including the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). It is very difficult to estimate at this time how long the Committee will take. I do not think that it would necessarily be very long, but it certainly must be a matter of six to nine months.
Mr. Woodburn: Does the Secretary of State not think, in view of the fact that Lord Cooper was recognised as a quite impartial chairman of the former Committee, that it is a slight mistake that anybody so clearly representing the Federation of British Industries—I do not know the gentleman personally—should be chairman of this Committee, when there has been such a campaign by the Aims of Industry to sabotage hydro-electric development? It has been alleged, and, I think, with some truth,

259
that certain Highland landowners are mixed up with the Aims of Industry to protect certain interests in the Highlands.
Should the Secretary of State not have thought that, instead, a judge, or somebody who is clearly impartial, would have been the best person to have been the chairman.
Finally, would the right hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend's question and say why, if industry is to be so strongly represented, the Trades Union Congress has no representation on this Committee?
Mr. Maclay: I can well understand the reasons for the right hon. Gentleman's first question. I did give very careful consideration to whether this was a Committee which should be headed by a judge. Considering that this Committee is to look into the technical side of the matter, although I know that judges are suitable people for dealing with technical and all kinds of matters, I came to the conclusion that this was one occasion, and that this was very much a type of body, when the chairman should be someone like Mr. Mackenzie, for although he has been connected with the Federation of British Industries that does not imply that he is partial. We have to have someone who will take a dispassionate interest in the subject.
I repeat, I considered very carefully the composition of the Committee and came to the conclusion that this composition was just about right.
Mr. W. Hamilton: Wrong.
Mr. Hendry: Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that pending this inquiry the extension of rural electrification will not be held up?
Mr. Maclay: Matters will proceed exactly as they are proceeding now. There is no implication of any delay in connections or of their being held up pending this Committee. My hon. Friend knows the present position of the Hydro-Electric Board in this matter.
Mr. Grimond: Does this mean that no new schemes will be entered into for the remoter areas, even when they are not dependent upon water power, until the Committee has reported?
Mr. Maclay: I repeat that the only scheme that I have mentioned in relation to the inquiry which will have to await final decision until I have the report is the Glen Nevis scheme.
Mr. Eden: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not seek to increase the borrowing powers of the Board at any rate until the Committee has reported?
Mr. Maclay: That is a matter on which I should like more notice than I have been given.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that the connecting of the remoter consumers to a supply depends on the Board being able to go ahead with its new projects? While hydro-electricity is being developed very speedily in the Soviet Union and in other countries, is it necessary for the Government to conduct this kind of inquiry? Is not this a retreat in the face of pressure from Aims of Industry, which employs the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) as one of its paid propagandists? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance— —
Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I must require the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) to withdraw that observation.
Mr. Thomson: I will withdraw if there is any implication against the hon. Member for Kidderminster— —
Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has just said that if there were any imputation— —
Mr. Lawson: Is it not true?
Mr. Nabarro: On a second point of order. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has just said, "Is it not true?" May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to call on both the hon. Member for Dundee, East and the hon. Member for Motherwell to withdraw unreservedly these imputations, on account of the fact that I have no pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board, or in any other branch of the electrical industry?
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that this matter should be treated quietly. The particular allegation which I invited the hon. Member for Dundee, East to withdraw was, if I remember, that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was a paid propagandist of Aims of Industry. I am not quite sure that that has been completely withdrawn because of the prompt interruption, but I am sure that the hon. Member was in the act of withdrawing it.
Mr. Thomson: I made the comment because I believed that I was stating a fact, but in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that there was an implication in such a statement, 1, of course, in obedience to your Ruling, absolutely withdraw that remark.
What I was going on to ask the Secretary of State was whether he had taken steps to ensure that none of the business members of the Committee which he has set up has any connection whatever with the Aims of Industry which is playing such a sinister part in these matters?
Mr. Maclay: The answer to the last part of that supplementary question is Yes". I resent any implication that I have been influenced by anybody or by any consideration other than my desire, which ought to be shared by hon. Members opposite, to be sure that our arrangements for generating and distributing electricity are those which in the light of the latest developments are best calculated to meet the economic and social needs of the areas which we all want to serve.
Mr. G. Brown: I hate to interrupt, because I think that this is important business, but, Mr. Speaker, you seemed to me to make a Ruling which I would like, and I am sure that Ruling House would like, to be clear.
A term was used by one hon. Member of another hon. Member that he was a paid propagandist of a named body. You did not require evidence that the allegation was true or untrue before proceeding to invite the withdrawal of the term. Are you ruling that the term "paid propagandist" of a particular body, if true, is an unparliamentary term?
Mr. Speaker: The imputation, I thought, was of an unavowed motive,
262
and whether it be true or not is, for this purpose, quite irrelevant, because if such an imputation was to be made it would require a specific Question before the House. It was on the basis that on the particular issue at the moment—which is nothing at all, and we shall have to come to an end of it soon—that I ruled that at this particular moment it is not proper to make an imputation, whether true or no.
Mr. Brown: I do not quite see this. There are, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, propagandists on behalf of bodies, both paid and unpaid. It is a very ancient craft in this land, if "craft" be the right word. There must have been very many hon. Members of this House, at all stages of its history, of whom it was proper to say that they were propagandists for a particular body, and there must have been some of whom it was true to say that they were paid propagandists.
Aims of Industry is a well-known body which exists for particular purposes and conducts campaigns, and, while it would be wrong to say of an hon. Member that he was a paid propagandist if he was not—and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has not said that he is not— I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the matter again. It may be that you may wish to take time to consider it. I ask because this seems to me to introduce a completely new Ruling to our proceedings, where one is forbidden to say of an hon. Member, if one believes it to he true, that he is a propagandist of a particular body, or that he is paid to be a propagandist of that body.
Mr. Speaker: I have considered this as carefully as I can and I do not want to start new hares or create difficulties at all. It would be a great nuisance. But what is right—and I am afraid that the House sometimes forgets it—is that all I may permit on a statement is a limited number of questions and that what one cannot do under our rules relating to questions is to make imputations against hon. Members in a question.
As to the meaning of the words "paid propagandist" for a body, I am left to my knowledge of the English language. For me, to say that an hon. Member is a paid propagandist in this place contains at least the tang of saying that he

263
is paid for expressing the views that he expresses here. Of course, if others interpret the English language in a different way, and do not feel that it has that implication, I am wrong, but this is the principle on which I have acted in relation to a question.
There is no Question before the House and we clearly cannot debate this matter now. I mean by that not my personal error, if there was one, but the Minister's statement.
Mr. Lawson: May I say to the Secretary of State that it seems to me that this matter of appointing as chairman a former chairman— —
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I indicated, and I think that the hon. Member did not hear me, that we could not debate the statement further now as there is no Question before the House.
Mr. Gaitskell: You are, I think, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter further. I wish to say that as far as we are concerned "paid propagandist" does not necessarily mean that an hon. Member is paid to speak in a certain way in this House, nor, I think, was that in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) at all. The matter, of course, could be easily cleared up if the implication, as you call it, is false and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) can reply to it.
Mr. Speaker: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he really has not followed what I have been putting. Whether it is true or false is irrelevant on the basis that this was an imputation of the kind that I thought it was and it was made in a question when, even if it were true, it would have to be made on another occasion. I do not think that we should waste time in arguing about this. I have said that I will look carefully at what I have said, and I will. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Dundee, East for withdrawing the implication purely in obedience to my request on behalf of the House to enable us to get on with business.
Mr. Maclay: I wish to make one slight correction in what I said earlier, Sir. I said that I was certain that no member of this Committee was connected with Aims of Industry. I know
264
for certain about the chairman, but there is one member about whom I should have to check finally before I could say that no member is connected with that body.
Mr. Hector Hughes: May I put a point to you, Mr. Speaker? Questions about the personnel of this Committee were rather sidetracked by the various points of order. I do not propose to raise a point of order, but may I ask a very important question about the personnel of the Committee?
Mr. Speaker: No. I am sorry. I have reached the conclusion that we ought not to debate the statement further now without a Question before the House.
Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given us two reasons for your request to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) to withdraw. One was that what he said was inappropriate to the proceedings before the House. The other was that it contained a tang of an imputation. It was this latter point which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took up—that it would be, in our view, extending the range of what was unparliamentary. It was that that we were asking you to consider—not whether it was appropriate to the proceedings before us, but whether or not it was unparliamentary in the way that you implied.
Mr. Speaker: I followed the point which the Leader of the Opposition put. It is a question largely of the English language, of implications, if hon. Members prefer that. But I will consider it firmly and dispassionately, as best I can.
Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A most important statement for the people of Scotland has been made by the Secretary of State. We have had very little opportunity to put probing questions. Will there be an opportunity to debate the statement, which is of supreme importance? Or is it to come into operation before we have a right to speak on behalf of our constituents?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer the hon. Member's question, because I do not arrange the business of the House.
Mr. Manuel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that

265
Ruling, do you not think that, as this is the only opportunity we have, some back benchers should have an opportunity of putting probing questions?
Mr. Speaker: No. I am in the difficulty which I always meet. On these occasions I have to ask the indulgence of hon. Members. When there is a statement, some questions are allowed. But there is no Question before the House, and there does come a time, unless we are to disrupt other business, when the Chair has the difficult duty of deciding when to stop questions. I cannot claim to be always right. I have to reach a decision, and I have reached it.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for rising again, but, since I was involved, can I clarify my position? I withdrew, as you requested, any imputation. I intended no imputation on the hon. Member for Kidderminster in the sense of implying that he was a paid propagandist in this House of an organisation. I was stating what I believe to be a fact—that he is paid to be a propagandist by this organisation by writing outside the House.
Hon. Members: Let the hon. Member for Kidderminster deny that.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Nabarro: Listen to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I understand what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) is saying to me. I am grateful to him for saying it. I suggest that we do not bother about matters which do not relate to what happens in this House.
Mr. Gaitskell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had no intention of saying any more, because I understood that you would consider the matter further. But do I take it, from what you have just said about not being concerned with what happens outside the House, that that does not mean that you are going back on your undertaking to consider the matter, and that you have not changed your mind and will still give us your Ruling tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: I have most certainly not changed my mind. I do not understand
266
how I contrived to give that impression. It is obvious that I did, but I do not understand how I did. I had in mind that investigating here whether someone was a paid propagandist in the sense of being paid to do something outside this House should not be a matter that should detain us further.
Mr. T. Fraser: The relevance of bringing up the question of this organisation, Aims of Industry, is that this is an organisation which has conducted a campaign throughout Scotland in favour of holding up the work of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board, and, in particular, of stopping any progress on the Glen Nevis scheme. It was in that context, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is employed by this organisation, that it was reasonable, surely, to request the Secretary of State to bear that fact in mind in listening to anything the hon. Member had to say in respect of the statement that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: I follow that, and it may be so. But I promised to look at this matter. I must look into the precise context in which the matter arose, which, I confess, is now rather confused in my mind. I do not desire to initiate any new doctrines whatsoever. I intervened in what the lion. Member for Dundee, East was saying because I thought that in doing so I was following the ordinary practice of the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  PROTECTION OF TENANTS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES)
  Bill to provide security of tenure for tenants of local authorities, authorities owning or managing new towns, housing associations, housing trusts and other similar bodies, presented by Mr. Dingle Foot; supported by Mr. Leslie Hale, Mr. James MacColl, Mr. James McInnes, Mr. Prentice, Mr. Reynolds, Sir Leslie Plummer, Mrs. Barbara Castle, Mr. Michael Foot, and Mr. Desmond Donnelly; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 24th March and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

TELEVISION (HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE)
3.56 p.m.
Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Higher Education Service on television.
My proposed Bill is a modest little Measure, which is supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education. So far as I know, the only person who has considered the matter and is opposed to it is the Postmaster-General.
The Russians have twelve times as many science and applied science teachers as we have, yet their population is only four times as large. If we were making a comparable effort in teaching science, technology and engineering, the correct figure would be for the Russians to have only three times as many science and applied science teachers as we have.
On the other hand, we have at least twelve times as many television sets as the Russians have. While they have been following a rigorous policy of capital investment, we have been having a consumer spree. I am proposing, in my Bill, that we should use our vast army of television sets to better purpose without interfering with existing programmes.
Apart from schools broadcasts, television is, broadly speaking, restricted to 50 permitted hours a week. Any adult or advanced educational programmes have to come out of these permitted hours. As there are likely to be minority programmes, neither the B.B.C. nor commercial television is very willing to cut out regular entertaining or serious programmes to make way for them. With commercial television there is the additional disincentive of possible loss in advertising revenue.
For the most part, on Saturday and Sunday mornings the screens of both are not in use. Both the B.B.C. and commercial television are anxious to use these times for adult educational programmes, properly sponsored by educationists. But the Postmaster-General refuses them permission.
In America, Russia and Czechoslovakia, tremendous efforts are being
268
made to supplement other forms of technical, scientific and adult education by television. In Britain, there is terrific enthusiasm among educationists to do the same, but the Government, in the shape of the Postmaster-General, are deliberately stopping them. He is not even moved by the plea of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, who said at Swansea, on 16th September, 1960:
"Would it not be a very good thing if television programmes of adult education were put out on Saturday mornings? This is a period when millions of people have time to look in, say from 9 to 10. I hope we shall see Saturday mornings used for this purpose."
Unless the Postmaster-General changes his attitude, the Minister of Education will have to wait a very long time before we do so.
What can be done in these periods? Many eminent scientists believe that our shortage of science teachers, for example, is so great that it is essential to make good some of the deficiency by using television. Sir Harry Massey, Professor of Physics at University College, London, and a very distinguished scientist, emphasised to me again only this morning that he attaches very special importance to using the television medium in scientific education. He authorised me to say that, in his view, there was an ever growing scope in the work which could be done in television in this direction—incidentally, work vital for our advance and survival.
The B.B.C., always the pioneer in these matters, is commendably starting, it hopes next month, a half-hour programme for adult education on Saturday mornings. To do this, the B.B.C. has had to take five minutes a day off its normal weekday programmes. Otherwise, that obscurantist gentleman, the Postmaster-General, would have refused permission.
All the commercial companies have substantial departments working hard on devising schemes for scientific and adult education, but they are not allowed to start. Associated Television has told me that it would at once go into action with an hour of adult education programmes on Saturday morning if it was allowed to do so. It would like to begin with programmes for teachers at training colleges, which it has been asked to provide by its educational

269
advisory committee in the Midlands. Associated Television also has even more ambitious schemes than that. It has a project for producing a programme which would be a kind of university year to be viewed in conjunction with specially issued booklets. It would also like to undertake industrial and technical college educational programmes.
A.B.C. wants immediately to launch an hour's programme every Sunday morning at a time which would not interfere with churchgoing. Its aim is to provide adult education for people who left school at 15 and went into industry. It has been working out its plans with the Workers' Educational Association.
Imaginatively used, the television screen could supplement and give an enormous boost to the work admirably done in the past by the Workers' Educational Association. The number of people willing to sit in classrooms late at night is now fast diminishing, but the number willing to stay in and take in educational material on the television screen is fast increasing.
Both the companies I have mentioned are willing to provide programmes without any advertising whatsoever. They will be a free gift to the nation. Granada has similar proposals for advanced and higher education if only the Postmaster-General would give it the go-ahead. It would put out at least one extra hour a week on a weekday and the educational programmes would not have any advertising material surrounding them.
As might be expected, the B.B.C. has been giving tremendous thought to the same problem. It would give high priority to programmes on atomic energy and other aspects of science as well as providing a number of series of programmes offering courses in particular subjects and aimed at a definite audience.
No one is trying to replace teachers by television. What they want to do is to experiment with the production of programmes to supplement the deficiency of teachers and extend the range of technological advanced and scientific education to the interested adult population generally.
Why is the Postmaster-General withholding his consent? He says that he is waiting for the Report of the Pilkington
270
Committee, but at the very earliest that Report cannot be ready for a year and it will not be debated until the summer of 1962. No action will be taken on it for at least two years.
If the Bill were proposing a new educational channel, or something complicated and expensive like that, I could understand the hesitation, but I am not proposing anything of the sort. What the Bill would enact would be an alteration in the powers of the Postmaster-General to compel him to allow any television service, whether commercial or B.B.C.—which wished to provide adult or higher education outside the permitted hours, and at its own expense and without the inclusion of advertising, to do so.
The Bill also provides for the Postmaster-General to be advised by a small committee of educationists as to whether the programmes proposed were of educational significance. That is to avoid the danger of extra hours being obtained for programmes purporting to have educational value, but which were not really backed by any educational institution and which had no connection with a serious and defined educational project.
As I understand, any fear that the B.B.C. might have that commercial television would take an unfair advantage of any extra hours by putting out pseudo-educational programmes would be removed by that provision. But my inquiries also make it clear to me that the B.B.C. and commercial television now mean roughly the same thing by "adult and higher educational programmes", even though they differed on the subject two or three years ago. There is nothing whatever today to prevent the Postmaster-General from going ahead.
My Bill would also provide for special financial assistance to the B.B.C. if lack of money hindered any worth-while educational series which it would like to produce. The B.B.C. has not asked for this, and nor would I insist on it if there were any substantial opposition to it, but it could be very helpful.
Adult and higher education by television is a new field which needs a great deal of experiment before the right answers are found. No one supposes that he has the ideal solutions ready made, but the only way to find out is by putting out some programmes and

271
building on the results obtained and the reactions received.
If the Postmaster-General would listen to the Minister of Education—as I hope he will—much valuable ground work could be done between now and any conceivable time that action might be taken on the Pilkington Report. The experimenting has to be done anyway and the sooner we get on with it, the less likely we are to fall behind other nations who have been very quick to seize on the educational opportunities arising out of television.
We seem to have got into the habit, in many areas of our national life, of taking no decisions but shelving them all on to committees. Surely, in a simple matter like this, we do not have to lose two years waiting for a committee to tell us that the nation ought at once to have something of enormous potential value at no cost to the public Exchequer.
The B.B.C. and the commercial television companies are ready to go ahead. Only the lazy Government, paralysed by complacent inertia, lag behind.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wyatt.

TELEVISION (HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE)
Bill to provide for the establishment of a Higher Education Service on television; presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 5th May and to be printed. [Bill 87.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1961–62

  VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 283,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962.
  4.7 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): What I have to say to the Committee this afternoon will all, of course, be against the background of the £507 million, which I am asking Parliament to approve as expenditure on the Army during the forthcoming financial year. I have to justify the huge bill which I am presenting to the taxpayer—nearly £24 million more than last year. But before I start to talk about manpower, about building, about equipment and all that sort of thing, I want to say something about the importance of the Army itself and about its image in the public eye.
  I know that there is widespread difference in the Committee on matters of defence. Last week's debate made that quite clear again. But on the importance to our country of the Army and the position it occupies in our national life, I do not believe there is any substantial difference at all.
  From its inception, the Army has played a continuing part in our fortunes; once as our masters, otherwise as the nation's faithful servants; lauded and prized in times of danger and war—taken for granted and often ignored in times of peace; but always part of our life, our heritage, even our family, for men have passed on the traditions and pride to their sons. What made men join? Desire to serve! A longing for adventure! The lure of secure employment! These were among the reasons. The last of these incentives is no longer a lure. The second

  273
  exists only in part, and the first now needs encouragement. So things are different today. But that is not the only difference. Once upon a time, war was regarded as a logical extension of diplomacy and when a boy joined the Army, he joined to go to war. Today he joins to preserve the peace. A different task and a different atmosphere. In days gone by, the greatness of the British Army had its basis in its comradeship and its sense of purpose. We must keep those qualities alive today.
  The Army is just emerging from a period of very great strain. National Service has certainly provided substantial benefits to the country, but it has not helped cohesion and esprit de corps of the Army. Nor have the reorganisations which have been imposed upon it since the war.
  Disbandments and amalgamations. Fourteen regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps have had to be merged into seven. Two battalions of Foot Guards, both with the most distinguished histories, have had to disappear. Thirty regiments of infantry of the line have had to merge into 15; 21 regiments of the R.A. and five regiments of the R.E. have been abolished. This was, indeed, major surgery and it has not been brought about without a great deal of distress and grief to all ranks. It is a great tribute to the Army that the operation has been so successful.
  The last National Service men have now joined up and we are all set for the final reorganisation into an all-Regular Army again. Now is the time to remould the true spirit of comradeship and pride of purpose, which cannot flourish fully with a conscript peace-time Army. Our National Service men have given loyal and valuable service, but the Army is only an incident in their lives. If we want a cracking good Army, in which we all have pride, then we have got to treat our soldiers right and do them well, for the young men of today have been born into a Welfare State; into conditions of full employment and dignity of the individual, and, whilst those who choose the Army must be prepared for a tough life of discipline, they will not put up with treatment and conditions of a substantially lower standard to those in other walks of life, even for the honour of serving Queen and country. It is against this background that
  274
  I ask the Committee to consider my Estimates and the general proposals that I shall set before hon. Members.
  Ever since the decision was taken to end National Service, there has been widespread speculation as to the Army's chances of building up its Regular strength by the time National Service comes to an end. I recognise that this matter is still one of considerable concern. I can only report that all the figures and calculations which are at my disposal lead me to be reasonably confident that we shall reach our minimum target on time. I should like to tell the Committee how I think it will work out. I do not want to oversimplify it, because I think that there is a danger in that.
  I know fairly well, and with reasonable accuracy, how many Regular soldiers, officers and other ranks there would be in the Army at the end of 1962 assuming we got no new recruits at all, and that the wastage continues as at present. I know the number of boys who are coming on and I can calculate fairly closely the wastage and retirement figures. This shows me how many recruits we have got to get to reach an other ranks total of 146,000, which is what is needed for an Army of 165,000, between now and the target date. Divide that up into months and take into consideration the reasonal changes, and I can tell whether the monthly recruiting figures are on target, or above or below it.
  I am glad to tell the Committee that the January figures show that we are above the target figure. I am bound to add that the February figures look as if we shall be just below target figure. But, as hon. Members will realise, the effect of the recruiting drive has still to be taken into consideration. I hope that this explanation will help the Committee to realise why I am planning for success and not for failure. I shall know, with much greater accuracy, what the position is towards the end of the year and that would be the time when we should have to consider, if my calculations were all to go awry, what steps the Government should take to fill the gap.
  But, some say even if we get 165,000 or 182,000, we still will not have enough men to discharge our obligations. Well,

  275
  of course, that is an argument against ever having brought National Service to an end. Personally, I have no doubt that the decision was right, but you could do it the other way. You could keep a vast standing Army. How many ought we to have and what should we give up to pay for it? The strategic deterrent? Or our contribution to the battle for men's minds in the uncommitted countries? Hon. Members opposite say that they want to increase our effort in this sphere. Perhaps higher taxation or cuts in the social services? Or roads? All will have their ideas, but few will agree.
  Even if they did, there is the manpower question. Would it really be in our national interest to stifle our productive effort by keeping thousands of able young men away from industry, just so that they could sit around and wait for something to happen? How our enemies would laugh as we gradually sank into bankruptcy. But you could do it. Now the Government have sought how best to balance a number of conflicting arguments and have decided that 182,000 men are the right answer for a well-trained increasingly mobile all-Regular Army. Today, therefore, the Army has as great a purpose as ever in its long history: first, to prevent war; secondly, to prevent war spreading; and, thirdly, to defend us, if, unhappily, war should occur.
  For the prevention of war, Her Majesty's Government have entered into various commitments with our allies: N.A.T.O. CENTO and S.E.A.T.O., but we have another equally important responsibility for the internal security of our family of nations.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what he said on this point? He said that the January figures were a bit above the target and that the February figures might be a bit below it. Was it the figure of an Army of 182,000 which he had in mind?
  Mr. Profumo: No. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am working at the moment on the target I have to get at the end of 1962, which is 165,000 men. We have to get there first, and we will go on to what I propose to do afterwards.
  276
  Let me ask hon. Members to address their minds to this point. What are the circumstances that we are most likely to have to face? There is the bomb. We might have a situation in which, suddenly, an enemy were to drop a thermo-nuclear bomb. I suggest that it would not matter very much what was the size of the Army we had if that situation occurred. But what is much more likely is the sort of situation which festers into a limited war. This would give us a bit of time. The forces which we have strategically posted all over the world are there to deal with the first stages, but they are not intended, as some hon. Members seem to think, as the sum total of our contribution—of our potential—call it what you will. Each theatre has a reserve. Then, here in the United Kingdom, we have three brigades of the Strategic Reserve, highly trained and ready to move by air with its equipment at short notice. In addition to this, we have got theatre stockpiles of some of the heavier equipment, like tanks and so on, which are still not practicable to move by air.
  But some say that our units abroad, including B.A.O.R., are all seriously under strength. Yes, some of them are under strength. I admit this, and they will continue to be under strength for some time, and this is not unusual in peace time. It is certainly not as alarming as some hon. Members are making it out to be, and I suggest that if any hon. Member talks to any old Regular soldier or senior officer, or even a Chelsea pensioner, he will not find one who will not say that during the whole of his service the Army, to a certain extent, had been under strength.
  In fact, I go as far as to say that with the Strategic Reserve which we now have in this country, for the first time in our peace-time history the proportion of units in the British Army which are up to or near their establishment is at this moment higher than ever before. If any of these formations, dotted around the world, becomes involved in active operations, it can be brought to full strength and then reinforced, and if the situation were to become still graver we have the Army Emergency Reserve, with its pre-Proclamation liability, in Category I. That is there for the very purpose of

  277
  thickening out and reinforcing our military potential with the sort of supporting arms and technical people that would be required in these circumstances. I would emphasise, en passant, how extremely important recruiting is into the A.E.R.
  Mr. George Wigg: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about establishments he must tell the Committee what the establishment figure is. Two years ago the then Secretary of State for War told the Committee that an establishment of 635 was not sufficient, and that he proposed greatly to increase it. What establishment is the right hon. Gentleman talking about now—the figure of 635 for two years ago, or the higher one?
  Mr. Profumo: I am talking about the higher establishment figure. I appreciate the hon. Member's point, and I do not want to mislead the Committee. I was talking about the higher figure, but about the whole Army. In some places it is lower than in others. I did not want the Committee to feel that the position is as serious as it is sometimes made out to be. If any of these units comes into action we have this balance to pick it up fairly quickly.
  From time to time we are bound to make certain changes in the dispositions of our forces overseas, because we must always be seeking to use our resources to the best advantage, but I can only repeat what I said in the House on 25th November last, namely, that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of getting themselves into a position where they are not able to discharge their basic commitments.
  Last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence mentioned the situation we should have to face if we do not get the number of recruits we expect. He was only repeating what he had already told the House, what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has also said, and what I have told the House myself. In a matter of this importance it is ordinary prudence for the Government to consider alternative possibilities and not to run the risk of being caught unprepared if things should not turn out quite as we expect them to. All courses of action must be examined, including selective service, though I very
  278
  much doubt if what is commonly understood by selective service would, in any case, be the right remedy. I think that it would be too fundamental a measure for what would be, at the worst, only a small, short-term problem.
  There are lots of ways of alleviating shortages of the order with which we might be faced. There are adjustments in medical and educational standards, recruitment in overseas territories, and further civilianisation, and so on, particularly for technical jobs. Anyway, we can leave these decisions until the latter part of this year, when we shall see the situation much more clearly. Meanwhile, my task is obviously to go all out to get on the right side of 165,000 before the last National Service man leaves. We do not intend to stop there. We shall go on to 182,000. But the more that we can narrow the gap in time between 165,000 and 182,000 the better for everyone concerned, including myself.
  I will headline the plans that I propose to introduce at once and speak about them in more detail later. They are, first, a scheme to attract valuable National Service men to stay in the Army; secondly, an intensive publicity programme; thirdly, a campaign to bring the Army to the people; fourthly, more overseas training exercises, using modern weapons and air transport; fifthly, a plan to unite families until housing catches up with demand; sixthly, a save-while-you-serve scheme; and, seventhly, methods to prevent the heavy loss of recruits from discharge by purchase.
  I cannot stress too strongly the importance in all this of the Women's Services. There are many duties that they can undertake which must otherwise fall to men. We need, and we need badly, more nurses and more recruits to the W.R.A.C. to fill an ever widening variety of most interesting trades, to save manpower and to back up the fighting units, and we are going all out to make the Women's Services more appealing.
  Everybody's attention has been so riveted upon the overall strength figure of the Army that the real point has been overlooked, namely, shortages in individual corps and trades. As I have said, I believe that our recruiting plans will

  279
  work, but if we are short—and it would be only for a very limited period—it would be special wireless operators, drivers, nursing orderlies, clerks and electronic tradesmen whom we would have to lay our hands on. Our special problem, therefore, is to attract and retain a variety of skilled tradesmen, and we must not lose sight of the importance of retaining these people. If we can induce men who are doing their National Service now to stay in the Army, that is even better than taking on new recruits, because the former will have already been trained and equipped.
  In an effort to do this within the ranges and categories in which we are liable to face shortages I have decided to introduce a scheme of selective inducements. Any National Service man who is prepared to serve for a period of three years from a current date in the Regular Army in certain specified arms and corps will, if he is selected as a suitable candidate, be entitled to be paid as a Regular soldier from the date his National Service commenced, or from one year in arrears, whichever is the shorter.
  I now turn to the question of public relations. As hon. Members know, last autumn we carried out a pilot scheme in television advertising. The results were most encouraging. Recruiting figures in the areas concerned went up by about 18 per cent. as compared with those for the same period in the previous year—and at a time when the rest of the country was showing a decrease. I have, therefore, decided to go ahead with a major national campaign. It is due to start early next month, and we shall concentrate on the most promising times of the year. The campaign will be supported by advertisements in the Press, as well as by posters.
  Some hon. Members will have had an opportunity of seeing at least one or two of the films that we shall be showing, and if at any time any hon. Member of the Committee would like to look at these films he might like to watch his television programmes and to see the advertising films. I shall be only too glad to help in this matter.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: How much will this cost?
  Mr. Profumo: What does the hon. Member mean? Is he asking how much the films will cost, or how much the television advertising will cost?
  Mr. Hughes: I mean the total sum. As far as I can gather, his recruiting activities in Ayrshire have resulted in only about eight recruits in one month. Does he propose to spend a lot of money to obtain a very few recruits?
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member has been such a help.
  Mr. Profumo: I hope that the cost per man in Ayrshire is not out of line with the average. It would be much easier if the hon. Member would help me in my efforts.
  Advertising, even with the hon. Member helping, is not enough. It is only additional to and not instead of other measures. None the less, to keep the Army in the public eye is of considerable importance, and I am arranging for the normal Army exhibitions and public displays to be stepped up considerably this year. This is what I call "taking the Army to the people." Special regimental recruiting teams of up to 200 people will be putting on displays in their own recruiting areas in the summer months. Altogether, there will be more than 400 of these all over the country, and this autumn we shall stage a big exhibition of our most up-to-date equipment.
  I am most anxious that this shall have the greatest possible impact, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, together with the Press, will do their best to support this and other forms of recruiting on all appropriate occasions.
  Excitement and going abroad are two things which attract the would-be recruit, and 1960 was the first year of large-scale overseas airborne exercises. We have a far more ambitious programme this year. The Royal Welch Fusiliers are just finishing a three-weeks' training exercise in Cyrenaica. The Glosters leave today for similar training. Later, the Army will be training in Europe, the Mediterranean and Africa; and, for the first time in history, a battalion will fly aross the Atlantic, in Britannias of Transport Command, for a spell of realistic training in Canada.

  281
  This is, of course, a completely new step and I am grateful to the Canadian Government for their ready agreement. Training will be carried out under conditions which the soldiers would be likely to meet if they were called out for an operational task
  Mr. Brian Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend take great care to see that he is not held up in these vitally important exercises by trouble from the Foreign Office, as I understand that at times the Foreign Office has made it extremely difficult to get these exercises going?
  Mr. Profumo: My hon. Friend has cast a slight imputation upon me because, having been at the Foreign Office, I understand only too well how difficult it is sometimes to carry out exercises. For this purpose, I have decided to go to the new world and to carry out these exercises over as wide an area as possible to minimise the fears expressed by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. F. J. Bellenger (Bassetlaw): What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is very interesting, but he must give the whole picture. It is no good sending recruits without equipment. What equipment will be flown with them?
  Mr. Profumo: As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his own distinguished experience, the sort of equipment one sends depends on the sort of exercise which is to be carried out. Therefore, I cannot give an answer in each case.
  When I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) I was trying to say that the training would be carried out under conditions similar to those which the soldiers would expect to meet if trouble arose. That means that equipment will be provided as well. We shall not be able to send the heavier scale of equipment, but, normally, we try to carry out exercises where there is the sort of equipment which they would need, and Canada is such a place. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) can rest assured that these will not be paper exercises, but really touch exercises. We shall have them abroad and use modern hardware, and so on, and I believe that
  282
  will have an effect on the young men coming into the Army.
  When I was recently in the Far East I visited the new training area which is being developed in Kota Belud, in North Borneo. Early next year the Commonwealth Brigade will carry out the first large-scale exercise from Malaya in that new training area. I am sure that it is important that the Army should have close contacts with the country's youth organisation and so, in addition to extending our own training, this year, for the first time, we are to provide volunteers to help the national associations with Their adventure training schemes. This seems a far cry from the old-fashioned sand-table exercises and conventional soldiering, but I am sure that it is what the Army needs, and I believe that it will have a considerable effect upon our recruiting drive.
  I recollect that in the last debate on the Estimates my predecessor spoke in some detail about re-equipment. I entirely share his view, that the equipment of the Army should be second to none. That is my aim, as it was his, but development cannot be speeded up beyond a certain degree, no matter how urgently the task is tackled. Re-equipment is a progressive thing which never comes to an end.
  The Committee will have noticed that there is no spectacular rise in the money we plan to spend on hardware this next year. That does not mean that new and exciting items are not coming along now in quantity. Far from it. I can report substantial progress. Most of the new weapons and equipment are British, but we have tried to select the best of everything produced by our allies to supplement what we ourselves have developed. They come from the United States, Australia, France, Italy and Belgium, and all these weapons are absolutely first-class.
  In the sphere of conventional guns and ammunition, Great Britain is leading the world. The American Army is now buying tank guns and ammunition designed and developed by us. It would take too long to list all the weapons and equipment now under development for the British Army but I must refer to a few which are planned for production during the coming financial year.

  283
  At long last the Regular infantry is to say goodbye to the time-honoured Vickers machine-gun. Instead they are to have the Belgian air-cooled gun. It has a better rate of fire, it weighs only half as much and needs fewer men to work it. Another honourable old friend will soon disappear, namely, the 25-pounder. For limited war we are to use the Italian 105 mm. pack howitzer. This is much lighter and more portable, even by helicopter, and it comes into service this year. Trials on the British self-propelled 105 mm. gun start soon. This will have a range and accuracy far superior to any gun of its size and weight in the Western world. It is mobile over all types of country.
  In the anti-tank gun sphere there are a number of weapons, including conventional guns, rockets and wire-guided weapons. Present trials will enable us to choose the best of each type. There is the British Wombat. It can be carried in a Land Rover, and, in an emergency, can be fired from it. There are short-range Canadian and Swedish weapons, and Australia has developed for us the Malkara, a long-range wire-guided anti-tank weapon. It is powerful and accurate. The Chieftain tank is now completing development. It is the best tank in the world. It weighs less than the Centurion. It has an exceptionally powerful gun, first-class armour and long endurance. Initial steps have already been taken to lay down production lines. The armoured personnel carrier, which is equipped with a powerful Rolls-Royce engine, will undergo trials this year, and it looks like being a winner.
  In modern war, visual methods of observing the enemy's movements, locating his weapons and directing artillery fire are no longer good enough. Great strides have been made in the use of electronics for this purpose, and in the coming year a lot of gadgets based on these techniques will come into service. There are pilotless aircraft for photographing the battle field, new radar for locating unexpected mortar fire and a further instalment of equipment for controlling the fire of light anti-aircraft guns. Control on the battlefield also requires first-class communications. The issue of modern combat radio equipment
  284
  will continue, and by the end of the year almost all the field corps will have the new range. Deliveries of the Beaver light aircraft will be completed and we shall get our first Westland Scout helicopters.
  I hope that this short account—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can enlarge on it if the Committee wishes—will give the Committee a feeling of the momentum in the Army's re-equipment programme. We must and we will keep this up, for it is essential that every potential recruit, and his parents and indeed Great Britain's allies —and possible enemies—shall be quite clear that the new equipment of our Army is unbeatable.
  All this keeps a large staff in the War Office hard at work. Including the 2,600 people we took over from the Ministry of Supply, our staff at the War Office is now 8,300. Nevertheless, in spite of our increased responsibilities, the Army Council is determined to continue to cut down. Within the next three or four years we plan to reduce our present overall figure by about 15 per cent. If we allow for the Ministry of Supply staff, this will represent a reduction of 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. since 1956, when we started to plan the all-Regular Army. I do not pretend that this will be easy, but we are resolved to set an example of economy in the administrative field.
  Now I wish to talk about how the soldier lives. We have to see that the men are well housed, whether they are married or single, and in Vote 8 we see an increase of more than 50 per cent. over last year's figure for major new works. The first priority is to keep families together, and great efforts have been made to solve this problem. By the end of this month we shall have provided about 25,000 new married quarters since 1951, and 5,700 old ones will have been reconstructed. Two thousand five hundred new married quarters are now in the course of construction here at home, and a further 4,000 are in the planning stage. Abroad. 3,700 new married quarters ought to be ready in twelve months' time.
  All this activity also shows up in extra money from Vote 7, which we are to spend on making these quarters attractive with good furniture and with modern gay fittings. We are going all out to

  285
  give soldiers living conditions and comfort as good as they would get in any comparable walk of life. But, in spite of everything we are doing, some families will have to go on living in poorer accommodation than I should like for a bit of a while yet, and, what is worse, try as we may, there is bound to be a waiting list for married accommodation. But the position is improving considerably all the time and I was very glad to find nearly 90 per cent. of families of soldiers in the forces who were married and serving out there had their families with them.
  With the building programme we now have under way, I estimate that the present waiting lists in the United Kingdom and in the B.A.O.R. represent about two years' work. This is cold comfort for those who are still suffering, and, therefore, my colleagues and I at the War Office are using every device we can find to ease the immediate shortage. For instance, we are renting more furnished quarters than ever before, and we are again reviewing the allowance for a soldier who find lodgings for himself and his family.
  Over and above this, we are to allow a more extensive use of caravans at home and in the B.A.O.R. I did not at first like this idea very much, but I believe that the way we are to approach it will help to ease the problem during the short time which it will persist, and whereas it may be difficult to control civilian caravan sites, our scheme will, of course, be the direct responsibility of unit commanding officers. The idea is that caravan schemes will be run on a unit basis where the individual unit wishes to adopt the system. There will be no compulsion by us. The scheme will be on a self-accounting basis, and the soldier who wishes to live in a caravan and have his family with him will, of course, have to pay a rent. For our part, in the War Office, we will provide the ground and all the services.
  For other overseas stations apart from North-West Europe, I am working out conditions for a scheme whereby married men who are prevented from taking their wives with them on a tour of not less than two years' duration will be permitted one free leave passage to the United Kingdom during the course of their tour. I hope that all that will make things easier for those concerned.
  286
  I want to get to the stage when every young lad who is considering going into the Army can be sure not only that he will be able to get a jolly good house for his wife in the fairly near future and thereafter throughout his soldiering life, but, also, that he can make arrangements to provide his wife and family with a home when he finally gives up the Army. This is not always the case at present, but this is where the scheme to which I referred as "save while you serve" comes in. The Regular soldier's pay is now generally recognised as being pretty good, and in my travels I have found few complaints about it.
  We must take advantage of this situation by trying to induce the soldier to save up for a house or for a small business by an Army scheme which will make the mechanics of saving simple and easily understood. With the cooperation of building societies and insurance companies I hope to be able to arrange that any soldier who takes his opportunities will be enabled to save enough to get himself a home when he retires. In this way we shall remove two of the biggest drags on recruitment, the fear of separation from wife and children, and later, at the end of his time, no home in "civvy street".
  I hope that the Committee will feel it has been right to give priority to the problems of the married man, but the single man is not being neglected. The building of new barracks is now going ahead faster. In the coming year we shall start work on four times as many barracks as we started last year. I hope that hon. Members will look especially at the pictures in the Memorandum of the buildings we are putting up in Aden and in Hong Kong. We are going to great lengths to see that soldiers' homes are in attractive settings. Anyone who has been to Aden will realise that this is quite a problem there. Hon. Members may like to know that we think we have found a system of spreading the roots of shrubs so that they do not go down to the level of the salt at Aden, and if we can do this I believe we shall be able to have trees and flowering shrubs in an area which is at present a desert.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of Aden, which some of us

  287
  have visited, will he say how long it will be before this new Army village is created? Will it be done within the next twelve months, or over a longer period?
  Mr. Profumo: I could not pretend that we could wave a wand and build it in twelve months, but the point is that it is starting. It the hon. Gentleman looks at the Estimates, he will see that I have done a "before" and "after" picture—what it looks like at the moment and what it will look like at the end. It will take some time, but we are starting to build a completely new city to standards which will be comparable to anything one could live in anywhere in the world. It will take some years to complete, but we are getting under way with it this year, and when the hon. Gentleman goes to Aden again—I know that the soldiers will welcome him at any time—I hope that he will find some developments which he will be able to report to the Committee when he makes one of his delightful speeches here again.
  At the moment, I consider, and I hope that the Committee will agree, that the soldier is entitled to have good quality and well designed clothing. After all, everyone else does, and we must be sure that the Army is proud of its uniform. There cannot be many who will mourn the disappearance of the battledress, but the new uniform includes the Service dress which is illustrated in the Memorandum, as well as combat clothing and a raincoat. At present, the soldier has to "beetle around" in a tent-like ground sheet unless he puts on his greatcoat.
  We are also designing a new uniform for the tropics, and perhaps I might mention, by way of illustration of our campaign to try to cut down the time it takes a soldier to keep himself smart both off duty and on, that we are experimenting with several processes for retaining the creases in trousers. If we are successful, as I am sure we will be, hon. Members may care to consult me on how to smarten up after all-night sittings.
  I have left to the end the question of man-management—the creation of a happy working atmosphere in the Army —call it what one will. Without this, all our efforts to induce enough men to join the Army and stay in it are bound
  288
  to fail. I told the House only the other day that I had instituted inquiries into the reason for the present high rate of discharge by purchase by recruits during the first three months of their service. The comprehensive study is still proceeding. It is bound to take a considerable time, but I have had a lightning survey carried out, and I want to emphasise that this has of necessity been a survey on a very small scale.
  We found two things. Although I do not believe that they represent what is going on in the Army as a whole, I think that we must tackle them in the general interests of recruiting and the recruiting campaign. The first is that we are expecting too much to be done during the relatively short courses at training units. This is having the effect that in some cases the working day is lasting from reveille to lights out—sixteen hours or more—and I propose that in future the training schedules shall be altered so as to concentrate on trade training with a reduction in the basic training relying on units to complete that later, and to a large degree they do this at present.
  The second thing which our lightning survey shows is that in spite of what my predecessors have said and done about what goes by the odious name of "bull", some still lingers in odd nooks and crannies. In other words, it is a bull that is down, but not quite out. In some of the depots at which we looked unnecessary and senseless cleaning and general grubbing about still goes on. I am sure that we can and must correct this wherever it persists so as to ensure that young men should be introduced to the Army in a contemporary, sensible, and pleasant way.
  Generally speaking, recruits should always be allowed out of barracks after their first week, and I find that this is not always the case. They will be issued on an increasing scale with personal equipment which will require less cleaning than present types, and unnecessary household chores will be cut out.
  Our information indicates that most of the purchase out takes place in the first two months of service and that a considerable number of those concerned would probably have made good soldiers. In view of this, the Select Committee on the Army and Air Force Bill may well judge, after hearing expert evidence, that we

  289
  ought to protect both the Army and the would-he soldier by limiting the purchase out period to the third month, or thereabouts, of a man's service only, to give the recruit a real chance to shake down and know what he thinks before he decides what to do. If the Committee does come to such a conclusion, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air and I will be very ready to accept an amendment to the Army and Air Force Bill to this effect.
  All who are in senior positions in the Army are concerned with improving its man-management, and we intend to continue our efforts. Let me not be misunderstood, either here in Committee or outside. I am certainly not advocating a policy of mollycoddle; nor do I intend that the standard of necessary discipline and turnout in the Army shall be diminished, but it must be understood by all, both in the Army and outside it, that there is a clear distinction between proper discipline and time-killing, soul-destroying futilities. In fact, the mutual respect and admiration which must basically exist between all ranks of the Army cannot properly flourish or be established alongside a lot of "bull".
  If it is generally, even though erroneously, thought that life in the Army consists of a lot of waste of time, of pointless routine, of futile restrictions and of over-training, then no self-respecting soldier will recommend it to his young friends, and so we shall not only suffer a loss of recruits by purchasing their discharge but we shall also alienate an inestimable number of potential recruits.
  Whether we like it or not, there are some who still think that life in the Army is ill-balanced and out-of-date. What is so infuriating is that, taking the Army as a whole, this is not true today, but the failure to conform to modern standards of a small section of the Army is falsely affecting the reputation of a great Service. Once this idea can be seen to be incorrect in all parts of the Army, we shall get a significant rise in the number and quality of men wishing to join us.
  I hope that the Committee will feel that the plans we have for the new all-Regular Army and for the Reserve—plans laid by my predecessors—are those which are best suited to the tasks which lie ahead. The British Army has been
  290
  through many vicissitudes in the 300 years of its existence, and by no means only in times of war. The touchstone of its future is the impetus it gets from its corps, its regiments, its officers, warrant officers and sergeants.
  There are many people in our country who feel as I do, that some of the least attractive aspects of our modern life have come about through the lessening of the ties of our old-fashioned family life. I trust that the Army family life and all it stands for will reassert itself, because that is what is needed now, and only one other thing—that we, the people whom the Army serves and defends, shall give it pride of place in peace as well as in war.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: After last week's defence debate the Minister's statement on the Estimates was awaited, I think by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, with particular interest and anxiety. Serious questions were asked last week, on both sides, and, in particular, whether the Government were attempting too much with too little as far as the Army is concerned.
  I think that a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman has said will have been very sympathetically heard on both sides, particularly at the lower level, if I may use that term. A number of what seem to be sensible and constructive reforms were put forward by him. I am bound to confess that I felt slightly uneasy while the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the shrubs which he had got to flower in the desert and the trousers which he was to crease so beautifully.
  I was slightly uneasy that these things might not fit into the greater and more critical question of the manpower which we need for a successful Army. It is no good creasing a pair of trousers ever so beautifully if there is not a soldier inside to wear them. That is the problem that we have to face during this debate.
  I am not blaming the Secretary of State particularly for what I believe to be a critical situation. It is, after all, the Government as a whole who lay down what the tasks of the Army shall be, the number and nature of its commitments and who

  291
  set the limits to the powers of the Secretary of State to raise the number of men he needs. It is also the Government who put up the Secretary of State for Air to tell the right hon. Gentleman how easy the task is and how, really, there is no problem about it.
  I wish to associate my hon. Friends and myself with the general tribute which the Minister paid to the Army at the beginning of his speech. I think that we all recognise the many fine achievements which the Army has to its credit, and, though some of the operations in which it has been engaged, notably Suez and Cyprus, have provoked bitter controversy in the House, it has been the Government that we have had to blame and not the Service men. When we look back on the tasks which the Army has performed since the war, in Indonesia, Greece, Malaya, Trieste, Kenya, Jordan and Korea, we see that these tasks were splendidly carried out and made an obvious and solid contribution to the welfare of the people living in those areas and to the cause of peace.
  When we look also at the non-military work of the Army, and a very good instance was given by the right hon. Gentleman of the offer of help to youth clubs with voluntary instructors for their camps—an admirable ideawe see that the Army has a splendid record. A young man who studies it can see that the Army offers him a chance for a useful and successful career in a good cause. It is precisely because we on this side wish the Army well that we are critical of the Government in the present situation in which it finds itself. We, and, I think, hon. Members opposite, are determined that the Army shall always have the strength and numbers appropriate to the tasks which it is set.
  I happened to be in the first Territorial unit to land in France in 1939—the Surrey Yeomanry, a fine unit—but we landed totally unprepared for battle. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned 25-pounders. We had them, but we landed without any dial sights, so that the only way of shooting at the enemy was over open sights. I recall that we were then on the Belgian frontier for six months at the ready before any of us ever had our first firing practice.
  292
  If I may, I will bore the Committee a little more on this point, because it seems to point a lesson. My own training, on 1st September, 1937, amounted to five evenings at a drill hall and yet after three weeks of P.T., inoculations and embarkation leave I left in convoy for Southampton. That type of unpreparedness, which was common at that time, and, indeed, at Suez, in 1956, is the sort of thing that unites hon. Members on both sides. We will not allow injustices to the Army to be perpetrated by Governments in the future. That is the basis on which we criticise the Government at this time. Our nightmare is that, once again, for lack of clear decision and of courage the Government are in danger of giving the Army tasks beyond its present or prospective size and strength.
  We discussed the nature of the tasks, and, in particular, the overseas commitments, in the defence debate last week. I do not want to cover too much of the same ground, but I hoped for some reassurance from the Secretary of State on this point this afternoon and was certainly disappointed. In all cases there are certain notable omissions from Ministerial statements about overseas commitments. There is, for instance, one related to Malaya. The general impression one gets from statements made by the Minister of Defence, and, in particular, by the Secretary of State for Air, and, this afternoon, by the Secretary of State for War, is that they have no precise intention of saving on the expenditure of troops—75,000 of them—which, as the Minister said, are dotted around the globe at present.
  These troops are stationed in nearly twenty places outside Europe and we get the sensation, listening to Ministers, that they regard the very wide and onerous commitments as permanent. We are not suggesting for a moment that we should back down on our legal commitments and moral obligations to our friends there, but that the present situation is permanent we very firmly and strongly deny.
  Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member will, of course, remember that we have a very strong commitment in Malaya in the defence agreement with the new Malayan Government. It would be very

  293
  wrong to give the impression in this Committee—I do not think that the hon. Member wants to do so—that we would consider welshing on that agreement.
  Mr. Mayhew: Of course, we have the 1957 Agreement and obligations there to train the Malayan Army. I was asking how many brigades are there and whether there are excessive numbers at present. It is difficult to judge on this, but it is something which needs looking at very carefully. It is typical of the kind of review which ought to be made in regard to most of these commitments with a view to saving manpower.
  How strong will the Army be to fulfil those commitments? The Secretary of State said that he was reasonably confident of reaching a minimum target by the date named. I wish very much that the Army Estimates and the Memorandum were a great deal clearer than they are. I referred to this matter last time we debated this subject. It is very difficult to weigh up all the different trends, the outflow and inflow, to judge whether the Minister's forecast is right. We have precedents for the Minister's forecasts being dramatically wrong. He forecast for 1st April this year a Regular Army of 166,000 and he is now forecasting 166,000 for 1st April next year. This is bound to undermine our confidence in his forecasting judgments.
  Moreover, there are specific things in the Army Estimates and the Memorandum which seem evasive. In paragraph 34, there is a reference to the run-down of men serving the old three-year engagement being completed, but I do not see where it appears in the table of figures. That may be my ignorance. In Table II, in the Memorandum, I do not understand who are referred to as being on short-service engagement. This kind of thing should be made clear to us. There is no estimate in the Memorandum of the future strength of the Army, nor is there any indication of the rate of outflow, about which the Minister spoke. Those are vital figures if we are to judge the whole basis of his policy.
  Two clear facts are that recruiting failed by 8½4 per cent. in 1960 and that the Minister's estimates are based on a rise of 9 per cent. this year. Those are the things we have to judge. Why does
  294
  the Minister so confidently expect this 9 per cent. rise? We all hope that he will get it, but to what extent is he basing himself on the bulge in the relevant age group this year? The bulge will not become pronounced until about 1963. It would be interesting to know how much of the 9 per cent. he attributes to that.
  I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that he was looking very carefully into the question of wastage during the first three months of a recruit's life. That was one of the things we discussed on the Army and Air Force Bill. I was tremendously struck, on a recent visit to Aldershot, to find the differential rates of wastage between one unit and another. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into the question—which, I agree, sounds sensible—of allowing opting out in the third month and also to look at the degree to which the Army has learned how to acclimatise voluntary recruits so that they do not wish to leave.
  After all, the Army has been used to National Service men who have no provision to opt out in the first three months. Is it applying to voluntary recruits the same kind of methods and welcome it applied to National Service men? This may be a very important matter, which, if looked into, might help the right hon. Gentleman in the wastage problem. Meanwhile, when he says that he will get a decrease in the percentage of wastage it would be interesting to know what he is assuming.
  The right hon. Gentleman announced, and I think that there would be general agreement on this, that he proposes to give special inducements to recruit the National Service man. The inducement seemed to be a fairly substantial one, if I followed him correctly. Obviously, the prize is very considerable for one would get the services of a man already trained through National Service. One got the impression that the Minister was pinning his faith for a successful manpower policy on new measures of recruitment with teams of trained recruiters. I can assure the Minister—as he asked for it—that we shall do our utmost to help the exhibitions and various functions being arranged. Certainly, I would he very willing to help and I am sure that my hon. Friends would do the same.

  295
  We were glad to hear of an increase of 18 per cent. in recruiting in the key areas where television recruiting films are shown. A figure I should like to know even more is what the rate of wastage of television recruits is compared with those recruited in other ways and, when all that one sees in the commercial programmes is not absolutely accurate, whether there is any impact on the wastage figures. Meanwhile, we wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his television campaign. I am sure that viewers would agree that it would be a very fine change to see honest and useful recruiting commercials on the screens to fill the gap left by the dishonest and useless detergent advertisements now banned by I.T.A. While not all of us on this side of the Committee like commercial television, here is an exception we would make in favour of the Minister's scheme.
  I wish very much that we could devise methods of recruiting a little less indiscriminating than the television commercial. My own instinct is that the secret of getting recruiting figures is to find specifically why people join the Army and then to gear recruiting to a particular type of person in a particular situation. We might get a long way further by that than by broadcasting television commercials. Television advertising seems a rather risky foundation on which to base a whole series of worldwide defence commitments.
  Now I come to what I think the Minister skated over, bigger steps which might or might not be taken to overcome this manpower crisis. The Secretary of State played down the reference made to this by the Minister of Defence last week. I thought it significant when the right hon. Gentleman said last week:
  "The Government would not, however, be discharging their responsibilities if they were not making plans at least for the fact that we might not succeed. Those plans are clearly in hand. I told the House long ago that this was so. All I am saying is that for the sake of recruiting and for the sake of trying to do this job we should not cross this bridge until we come to it. We will not come to it until the end of the year.
  Of course, we are making plans to see how we could best meet whatever deficiencies there might be. It is unlikely that the deficiencies will be in the teeth units. They are likely to arise in branches like drivers, sick berth attendants or people of that kind. Therefore, we shall want, if we have to have it at all, some very special kind of scheme to try to get the
  296
  men we need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 1511.]
  That certainly excited hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and the newspapers, but we are now told that it does not mean very much and that he was repeating what has been said before. In that case, it would not be a very wise statement to make if the Minister wants the campaign to go well. The Government should not raise these hares of selective service, or some other scheme, if they do not really mean it.
  I hope that we shall hear from those hon. Members who believe in selective service more about precisely what they propose. We have heard a great deal about this, but what is the actual scheme that we are asked to contemplate? How do the supporters of selective service answer the very serious objections which have been advanced against it? They were repeated in The Times last week. For instance, if 30,000 conscripts were wanted, how would one man in 33 be selected from the whole age group? If 20,000 conscripts were wanted, how would one man in 50 be selected in the age group? We should like to be told the answers to these questions by those who, I acknowledge, sincerely think that some such scheme should be introduced.
  Mr. Wigg: When my hon. Friend was pressed to state what commitments he would give up, he very rightly said that he would not do that. Why should he think that it is wrong for him to say which commitments should be given up but right for me to give full details of the scheme, when I can have no possible access to the precise information? I am willing to try if my hon. Friend will try.
  Mr. Mayhew: If the Secretary of State will give me the full order of battle—not only the numbers, but the types of unit in each commitment—I will make a study of it and give him a complete answer.
  Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) cares to consult his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), he can obtain the information from him.
  Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) need not come to me. He has only to show some diligence and apply the

  297
  knowledge he gained in the ranks in the British Army, and he would know the answer.
  Mr. Mayhew: I shall go to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for assistance. I shall then be able to spell out exactly what I mean. There is nothing secure about the manpower problem. I know that my hon. Friend will get all the facts he wants. I invite him to let us know what is in his mind. We know that he has great experience and feels passionately about this. He should come forward and explain more precisely what is in his mind. I hope that hon. Members opposite will do the same.
  We have our doubts. We wonder how a man will feel when he is selected by blind chance—perhaps by ballot, by sheer bad luck—for a job he does not want to do and his career is set back because he must serve in the Army as against 32 or 49 of his contemporaries. We want to know how the parents will feel. Will they have a right of appeal? Will they appeal to the Minister or their Members of Parliament, particularly those who supported the selective service scheme?
  Above all, we want to know what kind of soldier a man recruited in this way will make. What contribution will he make to the sense of unity and purpose of the unit to which he is sent? Does anyone know for how long he will have to serve? Do we want to inflict two years service on a man selected in this very arbitrary and, I believe it will be thought by many people, most unfair manner of recruitment? I leave out the obvious administrative difficulties—the wastage of Regulars training the endless succession of what will be browned-off conscripts, the manpower wasted in the process of selection, and the depressing effect one must expect there to be on recruiting figures.
  Therefore, we on this side do not wish the Government to examine the prospect of selective service. I do not think that we were much reassured by the attitude of the Secretary of State to other major ways of dealing with the manpower problem. He dismissed very cursorily a number of schemes which in our view are worth looking at more carefully. He said that he would leave until the
  298
  end of the year such things as recruiting from Commonwealth countries.
  Mr. Profumo: The decision.
  Mr. Mayhew: It will be something if the right hon. Gentleman will study the suggestion carefully. I have not yet heard what the objections of the Government are to recruiting for British units—not recruiting the units, but recruiting for British units—from certain countries in the Commonwealth. Why should not that be done? Why should not priority in recruitment be given to special classes of men who volunteer for jobs which are very difficult to fill? The Secretary of State listed a whole number of jobs which he said were particularly difficult to fill. Why does he not select from Commonwealth countries volunteers to serve perhaps a six-year term in the jobs he has in mind? Even if only 1,000 a year were recruited, that would be 6,000 men. That would make a useful contribution to alleviating the acute manpower shortage of which the right hon. Gentleman complained.
  Last week the Minister of Defence said:
  "There are more volunteers for the Navy than it can recruit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 1507.]
  I understand that not long ago the 1st Royal Marine Commando took over from the Warwicks in Aden. Have we come to the end of this process? Is it impossible to make more use of the Navy's potential as fighting men? Should not this be tried?
  There are a number of schemes of this kind, and I ask the Minister to examine them carefully and study them before thinking about things like selective service. I am certain that the country would never forgive a Government who, before even examining such things as the Navy manpower situation, the possibility of recruiting in the Commonwealth, and the possibility of economising on our commitments, went round looking for selective service schemes. I am certain that the electorate would not stand for that.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Gentleman give us a little more idea of what he has in mind when he speaks of economising on our commitments? The Leader of the Opposition said in the House recently—I think it was only last

  299
  week—that he would far sooner have British—I take it he meant United Kingdom—troops moved, for instance, to Northern Rhodesia than Federal troops if trouble cropped up there. What do the Opposition mean when they say that they want to cut commitments?
  Mr. Mayhew: We have made clear what we mean. We want the commitments to be strictly reviewed. We are handicapped by a lack of sure information about the number and types of troops in various places. I have mentioned Malaya as a place where economies might be possible. Hong Kong has been mentioned. I do not think that it is the job of the Opposition to spell out in detail where economies should be made.
  The Secretary of State entirely omitted to make any reference to what seemed to be the other major problem voiced in the defence debate last week. I certainly will not take up the time of the Committee by going over the ground again. I merely want to state that there are hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are very anxious and disturbed about the lack of conventional capacity in the Rhine Army. This was not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
  No answers were given in last week's defence debate. We asked about the under-strength units. We stated on our information that overall the Army was one-third under-strength. We complained that no conventional training had been given. We said that last year there was no exercise at brigade group level without the assumption of nuclear weapons. We complained about the organization of nuclear artillery. We probed and pressed the Government to state a little more clearly what the methods of control over the use of tactical nuclear weapons were.
  We received no answers on these points last week. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to inform us a little more about these subjects when he winds up. The Minister of Defence declared that everything was all right. He said that the balance in the Rhine Army was perfect. He may be satisfied, but I believe that many well informed people in the country are thoroughly dissatisfied on this point and want an answer.
  300
  Last week the Minister of Defence treated in a very casual fashion the possibility of withdrawing further troops from B.A.O.R. for possible overseas emergencies. He said:
  …any large emergency would certainly allow us to draw on the seven brigade groups in Germany as we have a right to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 1211.]
  That was a very casual reference. The Minister made no reference to the political effect of doing that. He made no reference to the fact that it would still further increase our reliance on nuclear weapons there. He made no reference to the fact that our troops in B.A.O.R. do not appear to be sufficiently trained for operating in a conventional rôle. Even if the Minister is satisfied, very few people in the House of Commons or outside it are satisfied.
  The Minister's statement on equipment was encouraging. It is clear that a considerable and welcome improvement is taking place. However, the right hon. Gentleman must forgive us if we treat some of his statements about re-equipment with a certain amount of scepticism. When I was doing some of my homework I listed the references there had been to the F.N. rifle in Defence White Papers and Army Memoranda. In 1955 it was stated:
  "Five thousand F. N. … rifles are now being tried by the troops …"
  In 1957 it was said:
  "Over 14,000 F.N. rifles are now in service."
  In 1958, we were told:
  "In the coming year a proportion of the Army will be re-equipped with the British version of the F.N. rifle."
  Last week, the Minister of Defence told us that
  "The equipment of the Army is changing out of all recognition. It is being re-equipped with the F.N. rifle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February. 1961; Vol. 635. c. 1210.]
  There it is. This is a subject, if I may say so, on which it is possible for an accurate statement to give a thoroughly misleading impression. I hope that the Minister will always be extremely scrupulous and candid with the House on these matters. Nevertheless, it was clear from what he said that there has been a marked and very welcome improvement.
  I know that several other points will be raised by my hon. Friends. I am sure that someone will have a word to

  301
  say about married quarters. Progress has been made and is being made, but I thought that the Minister struck an unduly optimistic note in what he said. It seems absurd that there should be any shortage of married quarters at all sixteen years after the war. When I was in Aldershot recently, I saw some of the caravans which, perhaps, as a temporary expedient offer a useful way out of the difficulty, but I should have thought that by this time it ought to have been possible to have finished the barracks and the married quarters as well.
  A great deal of what the Minister said seemed to us to be constructive, and a great deal will receive our support. We all want a strong all-Regular Army. We hope he succeeds in his efforts to build it up. On the facts which are given to us, the present and prospective tasks of the Army seem out of proportion to its present and prospective size and strength. This is a source of great anxiety to hon. Members on both sides, and we call on the Government to take clear decisions to put matters right.
  5.21 p.m.
  Brigadier Sir John Smyth: I have seldom heard an Estimates debate opened with two better speeches. The Minister's speech was enthusiastic and invigorating, and, I thought, extremely convincing. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) made a splendid first appearance at the Dispatch Box on the Estimates. He put a lot of very pertinent points which will, I am sure, be taken up by a good many of us and by my hon. Friend who is to wind up. He was extremely constructive and, as one would expect from him, he pledged his support and, I am sure, the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House for assistance in trying to make the best success we possibly can of the new Regular Army on the establishment and maintenance of which we are embarked.
  Naturally, and I think wisely, the Minister was rather more domestic in his approach, concentrating on the very important matter of the Regular Army, whether we shall be able to achieve it or not, on our new weapons, on quarters, and so forth, whereas the hon. Member for Woolwich, East went a little wider and discussed the bigger rôle of the Army.
  302
  I sympathised very much with the hon. Gentleman when he told us of how he went to France in 1939 and found himself minus a very great deal of what he ought to have had. When I followed a little later, I certainly found myself deficient of many of the same sort of things, and in 1942, when I went on an entirely new campaign in Burma, we were short of even more things than were deficient in 1939. It became almost a tradition in the British Army that we started every campaign from the bottom and somehow came through successfully in the end. There is an enormous difference today, when we make a comparison between conditions at that time and conditions now in the collective security arrangements which we have in N.A.T.O., which is our premier commitment.
  The hon. Gentleman said something with which I strongly agree and always have done when he referred to recruiting from the Commonwealth. It has always amazed me that, once a war starts, we can recruit people from many different countries of the Commonwealth. In Burma, for instance, we had some excellent African troops. Now we do not seem to make any use of African troops at all except purely locally. I have always thought that we ought to enlist more Gurkha troops than we are doing at present. I have raised the matter in the House on many occasions, and, although I know the difficulties which have been caused by objections from India, I do not believe that those difficulties really exist today. I agree with the hon. Member that we ought to examine the possibilities again, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will do so. The Gurkhas are very keen to come. We have read about the very inspiring parade before Her Majesty in Nepal, just the other day, a part of the world I know quite well. The Gurkhas are magnificent soldiers, and I could never understand why we should not have more of them.
  I come now to the rôle and purpose of the Army as set out at the beginning of the Memorandum on the Estimates. This is something which we ought to have quite clearly in our minds when considering the matter as a whole. The first paragraph reads:
  "The Army must be capable of playing its full part, in conjunction with the other Services, in our national defence policy. The

  303
  primary aim of Her Majesty's Government is to prevent the outbreak of global war. In Europe our forces in Germany form an important part of the NATO 'shield' which complements the Western strategic nuclear deterrent by demonstrating the determination of the allies to defend the frontiers of NATO".
  That is the first and principal rôle of the Army today. A little later it is said:
  "During the past year the tactical nuclear capability of the British Army of the Rhine has greatly increased".
  I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East that we have not heard very much about tactical nuclear weapons, how our people are trained in them and how it is proposed that they should be used, but we cannot ignore the fact that our Army is part of the deterrent to another global war.
  The message that N.A.T.O. and the Western world should send out very loud and clear today is that aggressive war is a crime against humanity which will be resisted by the free world with all the strength at its command. I repeat and emphasise, "with all the strength at its command". I believe that the Russians are well aware of our attitude, and this is the chief reason why I believe that a global war is less likely today than at any time in the present century, provided that we remain united and strong and both sides realise exactly what the situation is.
  The task of the British Army of the Rhine in N.A.T.O. is laid down by the Supreme Commander; it is part of the joint Allied plan. From time to time, we hear rather wild statements from hon. Members opposite about N.A.T.O. and our own Army within it and what it ought to be doing. There are two suggestions of that kind which I wish to deal with now. One of them was mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East.
  It is said that we ought greatly to increase our conventional forces and the conventional strength of N.A.T.O. ought to be increased so that we could defeat any Russian aggression without recourse to nuclear weapons. Next, it is said that we ought to declare that we would never use nuclear arms unless the Russians did it first. If we take these two together, I think that first it must mean for us conscription on a considerable scale. As has been said in several debates, our difficulty will be to meet our commit-
  304
  ments with a long service Regular Army. How can we possibly hope to do that and greatly to increase the conventional strength of the Army without introducing conscription? Even if we increased the conventional strength of the British forces in N.A.T.O. to a considerable extent and our allies in N.A.T.O conformed, we should still be heavily outnumbered by the Russians, and in a conventional war the defeat of the West would be certain. I believe that in any such engagement nuclear weapons would certainly be used at an early stage.
  I have always been impressed by a statement by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) which has been quoted in the House before. I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was Foreign Secretary at the time, was the last person I heard quote it. The right hon. Member for Derby, South believes implicitly that disarmament is the first and most important thing with which we should be concerned. I could not agree with him more. I think that we should put it right at the top of our defence and security arrangements and to continue to work on it all the time. In a remarkable speech in 1955, the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be an open invitation to the Communists to commit aggression if we gave any declaration of the sort that I have instanced, namely, that we would not use nuclear weapons at all.
  General Norstad's forces in Europe are not organised, disposed or intended to fight a prolonged land campaign. We ought to be absolutely clear about that, because he has stated it quite definitely on several occasions. In a broadcast only a short while ago he was absolutely definite on this point. He did not say much about it, but what he did say was:
  "We do not contemplate the possibility of great land campaigns. There is nothing in our plan, in our policy, which considers great land campaigns. Our task is to defend, with relatively small forces and using all weapons".
  If we want that polcy altered, we have a very big task before us. General Norstad aims at a force of 30 divisions, of which he already has 28. I repeat, however, that this is not with the intention of a major land campaign against the Russians.
  There is another criticism which is made from the benches opposite over the

  305
  disposition of our forces in N.A.T.O., particularly the British Army. In accordance with General Norstad's plan, which is, in the event of an incident, to create a pause to give everyone time to think, our forces are disposed well forward. There are certain hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who always puts forward the policy of disengagement. The hon. Member thinks that this would be conducive to helping to create a more peaceful atmosphere. I should like to make quite clear what General Norstad thinks of any form of disengagement. He is, after all, the commander responsible. This is what he said in a broadcast in 1959:
  "From the military standpoint it is impossible for me to see any form of military disengagement in the present and existing political context which would not be absolutely disastrous, and which would not destroy the really great security that we have developed over the period of the eight to ten years of N.A.T.O.'s existence.…I'm not going into a long discussion of the dangers of a military vacuum, but I think we can agree that most military people, and I think most political observers, would agree that it's a great danger. In addition to that, the forward area from the military standpoint is of the most critical importance…if there was any disengagement, then there would be the question of removing certain forces. Now some of these forces—notably your British forces, American forces, and Canadian forces, which are based in those forward areas—would have to seek some place to go. And some of them almost surely under those circumstances would go home. It would be very hard to resist an argument that they should go home, because their military effectiveness, their military usefulness, would have been decreased to such an extent that it would be very difficult to hold them. Now, if you had this disengagement, the situation would be one where the Russians could correct it from their standpoint. Because they have the initiative. They could bring back the forces, put them in the position where we never could, never—even in the event of a real emergency—never could we get those forces back in time, and in position, and in the numbers that would be necessary to regain the position of security."
  That is what General Norstad thinks of this plan. Incidentally, on several occasions he has spoken very highly of our forces in N.A.T.O. and of the value of the long-service Regular compared with the short-service conscript. Hon. Members will realise that most other nations have really short-service conscription compared with the period of National Service which we had. General Norstad has said that he finds that the long-service Regular is of infinitely more use
  306
  to him than the conscript. I have quoted his words in the House before.
  There is laid down in the Estimates the other rôles of our Army today, such as dealing with brush fires and supporting Commonwealth countries and our allies in different parts of the world. But, as my right hon. Friend said, all these tasks are designed to prevent a war starting rather than to fight a war once it has begun.
  The question with which we have been concerned in several debates lately is: can our Army fulfil its essential rôles without the reintroduction of some form of conscription? I have been consistent right from 1957 that it was essential that we should endeavour to make a success of our new model long-service voluntary defence force. I give all credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) and to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that they have been equally consistent right from 1957 in saying that they did not think that we would get the stipulated numbers and that even if we did they would not be sufficient to fulfil our obligations. The Government agree with me, and I have found also that the Army as a whole is in wholehearted agreement on this matter of the long-service Army. From the C.I.G.S. downwards, I believe that everyone is in agreement that we must go all out to try to make a success of the new policy and not return to conscription. I think that he new C.I.G.S., Sir Richard Hull, who has just taken over this position, also agrees.
  Field Marshal Festing, speaking to the cadets at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, in 1957 said:
  "Today we are faced with the re-creation of the British Regular Army…I am convinced that the Regular Army suits the national genius of our race, and I am quite certain that it is more akin to us than the continental conception of conscription. You an I between us have got to rebuild this Regular Army…I am certain that marching together we will between us achieve great things".
  I do not say all Members, because I know that some are sincerely against it, but I am sure that the majority of Members of Parliament are in favour of not returning to conscription, particularly selective conscription, if we can possibly avoid it. I am certain that the

  307
  British people are of that way of thinking, too.
  The purists very often say that it is dreadful to serve in a unit that is under strength. Some of our units are under strength, and must remain so, but the contacts that I have had with quite a lot of Army officers and battalion commanders suggest that they would much sooner have a unit of 500 long-service Regulars than a unit with another 200 short-service conscripts thrown into it, when they have continually to be detailing a lot of men to train them and they are constantly coming and going.
  I was impressed by something that was said from the opposite side of the House the other day concerning this whole matter. Very few of us today can speak about National Service in peacetime from personal experience. I was very impressed—I wrote and told him so—by what the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said in the debate on the Army and Air Force Bill on 2nd February. He said:
  "Regrettably, there are few ex-National Service men, as opposed to ex-Service men, on this side of the House."
  I do not think that there are many on this side of the House either. The hon. Member went on to say:
  "I speak as one and, before I deal with the Act, I should like to say that I welcome the ending of National Service. I have always believed that it was a great waste of time, not only for the men concerned, but for the Army. It was a great waste of the Army's resources.
  Nothing is more demoralising for a unit than to have a large percentage of National Service men. Great tribute has been paid to the work they did. I was one of them and I accept the tributes which have been paid to us, but there is nothing worse than for a platoon of 30 or 40 men to have 15 or 20 National Service men each chalking up the number of days to their release.…
  The figures of 165,000 and 180,000 men have been bandied about in previous debates on the Army and the Government have indicated that if one of these figures—I am not sure which—is not arrived at, 'some special measures' to use the words of the Secretary of State, may have to he taken. I hope that this will not mean the reintroduction of National Service.
  With the abolition of National Service, one thing which is obvious—it may sound platitudinous, but I do not think that its extent has been appreciated—is that less manpower will be needed to train National Service men and, therefore, the Regular soldiers can be better deployed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 1219.]
  308
  The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who has great personal experience in these matters, made some wise and pertinent remarks on this point in the defence debate. He reminded the House what happened at the time of Korea, when we had an Army twice the size of our Army today. As the right hon. Gentleman said, however, we had to call up reserves and to scrape the barrel to find one infantry brigade to send to Korea when we had an Army of 400,000. We should not think, therefore, that numbers are the answer to all the problems facing Britain and the Commonwealth. The right hon. Member also quoted Suez, which I have always regarded as an excellent example. I am not criticising the troops, because when they operated they did their very best. The fact remains, however, that when Sir Anthony Eden came down to the House of Commons and said that we would intervene on the line of the Canal between the Israelis and the Egyptians, nothing happened next day, except the bombing of the almost non-existent Egyptian Air Force, and nothing happened the next day or the next day or for six days. All that time, the vast armada that we had built up in the Mediterranean was chugging its way across at six knots an hour to land at Port Said.
  All that we wanted at that time were three airborne brigades, complete with mobile anti-tank guns. We had absolute air superiority. We could have put them down with the greatest of ease on the line of the Canal. In those six days, world opinion went bad on Sir Anthony. That was because we had a defence force which was not tuned in to our foreign policy requirements. It is policy which must dictate the sort of defence force that we must have. This rule should be a lesson to us. How much better equipped we are today, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told us, to deal with an emergency of that sort. We could do it perfectly well with an Army of half the size, but with proper equipment and training.
  The right hon. Member for Easington, who was a very popular Secretary of State for War and an equally popular Defence Minister and who was the member of the party opposite who actually

  309
  had to deal with these matters, said in the defence debate that 165,000 Regulars plus 165,000 conscripts were no better than 165,000 Regulars. There is considerable truth in that. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned that 30,000 men were required to train the National Service men when we had full-time conscription.
  If we had selective service, we should have to raise something like 50,000 men to make it worth while when one remembers that 10,000 Regulars would have to be told off to train them and that we would have to take into account the wastage from the voluntary recruiting. I know for a fact that the moment selective service was introduced, it would be found that voluntary recruiting fell, because there is no ambition on the part of youth today to join a hybrid service in which half its ranks are impressed men. As to the actual method of selection, I know how unpopular it is in America and I believe that it would be even more so here.
  The British people always have a great sense of fair play. They do not like conscription in peacetime, and never have done. When we are all in it together, and everyone is to be called up, they will stick it and put up with it. If, however, one in thirty of our young men is to be called up on a selective system, what sort of life will we as Members of Parliament have? The letters that will come into our post-box every day will be about ten times as many as we get now, asking why "my Willie" should be called up whereas the chap next door should not, and we would not have any answer that would be convincing. It would also raise the defence Estimates to about £2,000 million a year, which would be a great burden. I therefore urge that we should give the fullest possible support to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in the proposals he has outlined for getting the recruits that we want for the Regular Army.
  I have one small criticism of the Memorandum on the Army Estimates. I do not think it says enough about officer training. In paragraph 18 it says that field training was introduced at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, last year and it mentions the very useful winter camp which the cadets, 380 of
  310
  them, had in Portugal. I think it was well worth having that camp and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that field training is continued.
  Sandhurst is a very inspiring place to visit, and it has become renowned throughout the whole of the Western alliance as a centre of officer training. The number of foreign visitors who go to look round the Royal Military Academy every year is quite amazing. I was quite astonished when I went though the list.
  At present we are training 903 officer-cadets at Sandhurst on a two-year course, and, of course, we train cadets from Nigeria and other parts of the Colonies. Sandhurst today is a thoroughly efficient training establishment, through which about 80 per cent. of our officer intake has to go. It also supplies a comprehensive education in which the sciences, languages, literature and current affairs are studied, and high academic standards are required for entry and fostered.
  Of course, a good officer, as everyone knows, must learn to obey as well as to command, and the Sandhurst motto of "Serve to Lead" symbolises this attitude of the new Royal Military Academy. I was interested to see what Field Marshal Slim said to the cadets when he was Chief of the Imperial General Staff and took the Sovereign's Parade:
  "I would like you to carry away from this Parade one thought, and that is this. In the British Army there are no good battalions, and no bad battalions, no good regiments and no bad regiments. There are only good and bad officers. See to it that you are good officers. And good luck to you."
  That is what one of the greatest fighting commanders has to say about the importance of good officers, and in my opinion the modern Sandhurst gives to its officer cadets today the highest training of any army in the world in how to be an officer.
  In conclusion, I would say that in the end the success and efficiency of our peace-time Regular Army depend on the status we as a nation are prepared to give to its officers and personnel, and surely, believing as we do that the preservation of our free way of life in a peaceful world is about the be-all and end-all of our existence, we should give to our soldiers, sailors and airmen, and

  311
  all others concerned with keeping the peace, a status which is absolutely second to none.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: I can readily assure the right hon. Gentleman that anything I can do to make his recruiting campaign a success will be done. After all, I have started in the most useful place. I have started in my own family. The only two surviving male members of my family whose father was killed in action are Regular N.C.O.s in the Army, and my daughter is serving in the Army. I am keen on the Army, because my life work has been there, that I am even prepared to tell the truth about it, even when that truth is uncomfortable and when it leaves me open to misrepresentation. I do not blame anyone for that.
  I am not in favour of conscription. The first voice ever raised in the House about it was mine—in May, 1952. There were only three of us, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and myself. We stayed behind in an empty Chamber on the eve of the Whitsuntide recess to say that we could not sustain National Service if we were the only Commonwealth members to do it and if the other countries of N.A.T.O. did not pull their weight.
  But I also pointed out, not in 1957 but ten years ago, the dangers of the short-service engagement. I was very interested indeed to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) draw a distinction between the short-service and the long-service engagement. Would that he had added his voice to mine when I was trying to persuade the Government that the three-year engagement tied conscription round our neck. I pleaded that the approach to the problem should be based not on the number of men enlisting but on the number of man-years because experience has shown that to be the proper planning approach.
  It was not I who committed this country to maintaining four divisions in Germany. It was hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of this Committee who at the time when German rearmament came up, for various reasons,
  312
  pledged the honour of this country to maintaining four divisions in Germany. I opposed it because I knew that we should welsh on that commitment. In my view, one of the major causes of the last war was that Hitler did not believe that we meant business, for he did not believe that the guarantees which we gave to countries like Roumania and Poland meant anything. He knew those promises would not be implemented. Therefore he acted, as he thought, with impunity, not realising that the British people, when brought face to face with facts, have never shirked their duty. What I have pleaded is that Governments and Oppositions should do the same.
  I do not want to dwell too long on my personal views in this matter. I should be delighted if the right hon. Gentleman got his 165,000, but I do not think that even 165,000 are enough if we have to maintain those four divisions. Of course, what the Government have done is to reduce our N.A.T.O. strength from 77,000 to 64,000 to 55,000 and to 45,000. Even N.A.T.O. could not stand that, and so we pay lip service to the 55,000. But I will not embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. He knows as well as I do that there are not 55,000 in the Rhine Army at the present time. It is organised for very restricted operations, and the mere fact that we have abandoned the division as the basis of organisation and have gone for the brigade group is simply a recognition that our operational commitment is very limited.
  Adding to our commitment of four divisions those other commitments which we have, and about which I shall say some more in a moment—and let me say, of which I am not ashamed—I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he would ask the Regular soldier of today to do what his forebears had to do—fight without equipment and with insufficent numbers and fight in the face of certain defeat. Because it is my view that there can be no more Dunkirks for us. Next time, we shall be in it all the time and with all that we are and all that we have. Even if we go in, putting it at its lowest, to defend our standard of living, we shall still be discharging our rôle on the world stage.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be a very loyal supporter of his Front Bench, for does he really believe what he said about Suez? Does he really believe

  313
  that if Suez happened again today we should be any better prepared? On the basis of his own facts we were, when we went into Suez, short of aircraft. I do not ask him to believe me. Let him go to General Keightley's dispatches. We were short of tank landing ships. We were in need of an anti-tank gun. We received a protest from the Americans that we had, in fact, purloined a weapon which was supplied to us to discharge our N.A.T.O. obligations. A statement was issued from Washington about it to that effect and I remember a statement of the then Minister of Defence on that point.
  Sir J. Smyth: I was always told that the real obstacle to our putting down airborne troops on the Canal was that we had no mobile anti-tank gun. I certainly understood from my right hon. Friend that we have one today that could be carried in an aeroplane and which would overcome the difficulty.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. and gallant Member is referring to the Wombat. It is not in service but under assessment. I do not want to embarrass the Secretary of State for War, but I take the trouble to find out these things. A great deal of the equipment which the right hon. Gentleman enumerated today is not in service at the present time. As for the time of Suez, I have already invited the how and gallant Member to read General Keightley's dispatches. I tried, goodness knows how hard, to have this matter debated in the House and I finally succeeded on the Adjournment, but there was no anti-tank gun at the time and we had no transport aircraft, and we have not got the anti-tank gun today.
  On the eve of these debates I try to anticipate what will be said. I guessed that following the speech of the Minister of Defence last week we should have a catalogue of the steps that will be taken to improve recruiting. I ask hon. Members to notice what the right hon. Gentleman said, without protest and without any comment from the chief Opposition spokesman on this side of the Committee. The first thing that the Minister intends to do is to lower the medical and educational standards. I broke a rule when I talked about manpower wastage round about Christmas, because I knew that the
  314
  Army Act was coming along. I spoke about Section 14 of that Act, but I have never talked before about wastage and I am loth to do so now because the high rate of wastage is directly related, in my judgment, to the standard of the men we take in.
  Mr. Profumo: So that the record may be correct, I did not say that we were going to lower the educational and medical standards. I tried to point out that there were other things than a sledgehammer with which we could crack this little nut if it became necessary, such as lowering the standards for a temporary period. I said that this was the sort of thing we would examine. I did not say that we would do it.
  Mr. Wigg: I did an exercise to see what was done in the two years immediately before the outbreak of war. The Regular Army then was 20,000 under establishment. I trust that hon. Members will not laugh in the wrong places when I enumerate these things. The first was to devote a great proportion of the effort to disseminating public information. The Government intended to have posters showing reproductions of the latest weapons such as the Bren gun, the 3·7 inch anti-aircraft gun, and a mechanically-drawn field gun. These posters were to be designed in such a way as to make a special appeal to Scotland, Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire and Northern Ireland. They were to publish special handbooks and there was to be a series of pamphlets and leaflets. There was to be a special pamphlet called "The Defence of Britain", a special anti-aircraft leaflet, a pamphlet dealing with conditions of service and a comprehensive set of photographs which would show weapons, field training of all sorts, barracks, cookhouses, institutes, troopships, and various kinds of sport.
  Relations with the Press and the B.B.C. were first-class. Special films were to be shown. These were to include a film about the changing of the guard, the Military College of Science, and the Recruits' Physical Development Depot. I hope that hon. Members will especially resist the temptation to laugh when I say that there was to be an anti-aircraft film called "The Gap". The B.B.C. was to put on special broadcasts. There were to be Army exhibitions and stands at various shows. There was to be a

  315
  pavilion run in conjunction with the Air Force at the Empire Exhibition in Glasgow. There were to be special marches by the Scottish regiments, and London Transport was going to allow a special exhibition at Underground stations.
  There were to be demonstrations at the Royal Agricultural Show, Cardiff, the Bath and West Show, Plymouth, and so on, and columns were to tour the country. One was to assemble art Leicester and visit most cities in the Midlands. Another was to be stationed in Leeds and to visit cities in Lancashire. Another at Catterick was to tour Durham and Tyneside. Still another visited Reading, Coventry, Birmingham and so on, and a further column toured Wessex. Thus it was said the public saw the most modern arms and equipment and great public interest was aroused.
  That was not all. It was just a beginning. It was said that rejections on medical grounds were showing a marked increase and therefore the War Office was going to reduce medical standards. It was going to introduce four categories with different standards for "horse and foot", for the mechanised class, for men intended for the mechanical transport class and for lines of communication. In addition, to get more troops, the War Office intended to provide glasses and dentures and to lower the standards of hearing. It was also decided to accept men with minor disabilities provided that they would undergo an operation. A special recruits' physical development depot was opened at Aldershot and the men were given extra milk and remedial exercises. "At homes" were organised and special recruiting marches so that the men's families could see what service in the Army was like.
  In addition, there was an improvement in the daily scale of rations and there was an increased ration allowance for soldiers on furlough. There was a reduction of stoppages and a free issue of canes, mugs and other articles. There were improvements to barracks, and more married quarters were to be provided. Age limits were raised. Men were permitted to sleep out of barracks, and the recruitment of married men was allowed.
  The Government, therefore, before the war set about the task of getting as many
  316
  Regular recruits as possible. All the statements made today were made then. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did we get them?"] Yes, we did, but do hon. Members know how? The rates of recruiting continued to be bad until one thing happened—Munich. We got recruiting right only when the young men of the country were told the truth. All other efforts to obtain recruits by the methods I have mentioned completely failed.
  If hon. Members opposite want to know what was the effect of that two-year policy and the refusal to face facts, I hope that they will allow me to quote something which I have mentioned in this Chamber before. This is what Lord Montgomery said:
  "In September, 1939, the British Army was totally unfit to fight a first-class war on the Continent of Europe. It must be said to our shame that we sent our Army into that most modern war with weapons and equipment which were quite inadequate and we had only ourselves to blame for the disasters which early overtook us in the field when the fighting began in 1940."
  The refusal to face facts, the photographs of weapons, the parades—all that same kind of thing is being done now, and this is why I oppose this policy which will inevitably lead the country to exactly the same conclusion.
  I have also made a list over the last few days of the various excuses that have been made by hon. and right hon. Members from both Front Benches on this issue. It is extremely interesting. The reason why we put our money on the atomic tactical weapon was that we accepted the arguments put forward by General Norstad, supported by Lord Montgomery, not two or three years ago but seven or eight years ago, when he said that their political masters had always denied them the means to discharge the obligations that they imposed upon them. We therefore have to pretend that we have atomic tactical weapons which, in fact, we do not possess. We have to engage in argument as to whether we would use them first when, in fact, we do not possess them.
  There was one example, three years ago, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) told us that in Berlin our considerable body of troops must stand firm and that, if they were overrun, atomic

  317
  tactical weapons would redress the balance. Those weapons did not exist then and they do not exist now. I ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee to ponder the words of Admiral Brown, who commanded the United States Sixth Fleet at the time of the Lebanon operation, and, I understand, left it to take command of N.A.T.O. farces. Speaking of the "not far future", he said:
  "I would not recommend the use of any atomic weapon no matter how small, when both sides have the power to destroy the world…"
  because of the danger of bringing on a general nuclear holocaust.
  For what it is worth, I have devoted my mind and time to trying to understand what happened at Suez. I tried to get a debate on that operation in the House. I have also tried to understand what happened in the Lebanon. I commend a study of that operation to any hon. Member who is interested in the subject, because it is a fact that, although the Americans scoured not only Europe but the United States in order to mass the maximum amount of equipment, they did not land their atomic weapon, Honest John. Equally, when we went into Jordan we were assisted in getting there by American aircraft.
  We had a five-year defence programme, which has landed us in a mess. We are quite incapable of undertaking even limited operations, and our rôle in Europe now is of such a character that, although we may argue among ourselves about atomic weapons, our voice at the council table in N.A.T.O. gets weaker and weaker because, in the ultimate, it is the power that one disposes which determines the extent to which one can make one's word heard and influence felt.
  In looking at the rôle of the Army we must not be obsessed by our commitments in Europe. That commitment is a political one—or, rather, a militiary one imposed on us for political reasons. Let us have a look at the situation in the Commonwealth. I am astonished at the views expressed here. We have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood and from my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) about their interest in raising colonial forces. I do not know whether
  318
  the hon. and gallant Gentleman was present, but my hon. Friend was certainly in this House from 1945 onwards, and when Members opposite were in opposition, if there was one subject that they plugged on every conceivable occasion it was that of redressing the manpower shortage by developing colonial armies.
  If Members opposite would like five minutes' amusement, I suggest that they read the speech of their first post-war Secretary of State for War, now Lord Head, on 10th March, 1952. Like an honourable man, he said it would be wrong to dodge the issue. He swallowed it all. He swallowed all that had been said—all the votes, all the Adjournments, all the columns of speeches, all the effort—because he quickly discovered on taking office something which he could have discovered before if he had cared to. He found that to raise colonial armies was the most expensive way, both in terms of cash and in terms of the very commodity of which the Army is most short—the middle piece officer, the warrant officer, and the N.C.O.
  The interesting thing is that people are for every trying to solve our manpower shortage by relying on the Colonies. I could not understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East argued that our commitments in the Commonwealth were a relic of nineteenth century imperialism, while at the same time he wanted to solve our manpower shortage by the most objectionable way in which any dominant Power can seek to do so, for that takes us back to the kind of world which he and I knew as young men—the world of the langri, the bhisti, the dhobi, the syce, the punkah wallah, the charwallah and the meh a.
  Despite this suggestion of raising men in the Colonies, we are told that our commitments in the Colonies are relics of an outworn nineteenth century imperialism, and that they are the kind of stations in which our fathers and grandfathers served. But this is not true. Of course it is true that the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War are cagey about Singapore. One can have what views one likes about it, but Singapore is a kind of Clapham Junction of the Commonwealth. It is a commitment undertaken not by Britain

  319
  alone but shared also by Australia and New Zealand, each of which has a battalion there.
  One can also have one's views about Hong Kong. We are there to discharge our function of maintaining law and order, partly with our own troops and partly with Gurkhas, but when we come to other stations in the Commonwealth we find that they were not places where our fathers and grandfathers served. No British troops ever served in Kenya, or on the coast of North Africa. We had no infantry in Aden.
  1 have done a little exercise. We have sixty battalions of infantry, now that our reorganisation is complete, including the Guards and the Parachute Regiment. According to my sum, twenty of them are in Germany—including three in Berlin—twenty-two are at home and eighteen are scattered all round the world. I want to deal with one aspect because it enables me to illustrate a point.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), towards the conclusion of his speech in the defence debate, said that we should comb the tail for the benefit of the teeth. That statement is 200 per cent. wrong, because our problem is mainly concentrated on the tail, with its services. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East said today that we should discharge our obligations in these places all over the world because, however small, each is a potential source of friction in the world as it is today. I take it that he holds that view.
  I want to deal with one of the most recent incidents. Perhaps it will help hon. Members to understand the kind of problems we face and the cost of meeting them. I am reasonably sure about my facts. Last August the Government were faced with a situation arising from Nigeria becoming independent. Up to that time there had been a Nigerian battalion in the Southern Cameroons, and then Nigeria's Minister of Defence decided that it must be withdrawn. The problems of the defence of Nigeria are very great. Its army has five battalions for a vast area with a population of some 40 million people. Its budget is small, and it begrudged the money spent on the battalion in the Southern Cameroons.
  320
  Her Majesty's Government decided that a British battalion of the King's Own Royal Border Regiment should take the place of the Nigerian battalion in the Southern Cameroons. When it went there it had thirty-three officers and 765 men. They had to go as a balanced force in about the smallest operation—a regimental group—which British forces could ever be required to undertake. I hope hon. Members will bear with me if I read to them what was involved in getting the force required to secure the position.
  There was the 1st Battalion, the King's Own Royal Border Regiment; 59 Field Squadron Royal Engineers, less one troop; a Movement Control detachment; 634 Signals Troop, Royal Corps of Signals; 2 Brigade Group Medical Company, R.A.M.C.; detachments of the R.A.S.C. and R.A.O.C.; 8 Infantry Workshop, R.E.M.E.; 465 Postal Unit, R.E.; a Pioneer Corps labour unit; N.A.A.F.I.; public relations and a squadron of the Royal Air Force. The total number involved was 95 officers and 1,233 other ranks. In other words, 50 per cent. was added to the tail to perform this operation.
  The cost was very great. The Minister was kind enough to answer a Question which I put down and said that the cost of conveying the men out there was £290,000, that the cost up to end of the present financial year would be £600,000, that it cost £24,000 a month to keep the men there and that it would cost £142,000 to bring them back.
  It ought not to be suggested to those officers and men that they are the last vestige of imperialism. They should be told that they are discharging a duty in accordance with the noblest traditions of our race. There is no one who can stand up in the House of Commons and say that Britain has sent those men out there either in her own interests or in those of her friends. They are discharging a most uncomfortable United Nations job and they are doing it in the most difficult of conditions. There are 400 inches of rain a year—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is the white man's grave.
  Mr. Wigg: It is not the white man's grave and it is not a bad country in normal times, but it has 400 inches of rain

  321
  a year. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us that these men are not forgotten and that the War Office is mindful of them and is making every effort about their welfare. The Foreign Secretary told the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on 20th February that he did not know when those men were coming back. I hope that they are not forgotten for they are performing a vital and essential Task.
  However, turning to paragraph 24 of the Secretary of State's Memorandum, there is another aspect with which I want to deal. There are 1,000 British officers and 1,000 British warrant officers and N.C.O's in the Ghana Army, in the Nigerian forces and serving in Sierra Leone and in Malaya and in other penny packets all over the Commonwealth. When I made my maiden speech, I said that I thought that the British Army had done more for the Colonies than the Colonial Office had ever done, and I still believe that that is true.
  It forms the core, the foundation, of a civilised society, but there is something else. It helps to bind these emergent countries to our way of life and those countries can share our heritage with us because of the service of their nationals in the British Army. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe in the future of world government, and those officers and men are playing an important part in the United Nations force in the Congo, where they are doing a difficult, uncomfortable and dangerous job.
  If hon. Members take the trouble to get a list of the units and countries from which the United Nations force in the Congo has been drawn they will see that that force is not a cohesive military force and that what saved it in its early stages was the fact that in the Free State forces and in the forces from Ghana and Malaya and the Sudan, and even the United Arab Republic, there were officers who had known something of the British Army and many of whom had been to Sandhurst and some to Staff College. If ever that force ticked—and perhaps it has ticked better even than I thought it would—that has been due to the contact which those officers have retained with the British Army.
  Those are not things of which to be ashamed. They are things of which to be proud. My protest about trying to
  322
  solve the manpower problems of Britain by trying to get recruits—to be hewers of wood and drawers of water—from our Colonial Empire of yesterday—and we shall not get them anyway—is that we demean ourselves by so trying. That solution is a belief born of ignorance, because if anyone cares to study advertisements in the newspapers, he will see that there are advertisements from New Zealand and Australia trying to get our young men to go to those countries and solve their problems for them. It is little credit to the young men of Britain that we should have to say to the world, "We value our freedom so much and we value our comfort so much that we will do anything except defend them ourselves" That is a most dangerous doctrine.
  Major Sir Frank Markham: Surely the hon. Gentleman will not spread that condemnation to the Gurkhas or Sikhs.
  Mr. Wigg: There are no Sikhs serving with the British Army and the Gurkhas are serving on another basis as a result of a very old treaty and a very old link. I believe that I am the only hon. Member from this side of the Committee who took the trouble to see the Gurkha demonstration on Horse Guards Parade and at the Infantry School at Warminster. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) came with me. I would be the last in the House of Commons to say anything which could be thought to denigrate the Gurkhas, and if anyone wants to see a first-class exhibition of drill with the new F.N. rifle he should see the Gurkhas. If the Gurkhas come again, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will arrange for them to demonstrate their drill in New Palace Yard when anyone interested will be able to see what can be done with the new F.N. rifle.
  What I am saying is that the concept which the Conservative Party nurtured immediately after the war and which, judging by the "Hear, hear's", has survived on these benches, was that our Colonial Empire of yesterday could act as a manpower reservoir, but that concept is completely out of date. It is out of date for political reasons. It is nineteenth century and even pre-Kiplingesque, but in any case, if we try, we shall not

  323
  pull it off because the problems of the British Army are quite different.
  The shortages are in the Services. They are in the scarce skills. The right hon. Gentleman gave a list. If we try to solve our manpower problem by making abortive bids in the Commonwealth, then, in the same way as we should create another problem if we tried to solve the manpower problem by reducing standards, so there would be another problem at the other end of the scale.
  Mr. Victor Yates: Worse still if we rely on conscription.
  Mr. Wigg: There is something infinitely worse than conscription, and that is to pretend that we have strength which we do not have. I have always understood my hon. Friend's point of view, but I think that it makes such demands on the goodness of men that it is incapable of fulfilment, although I agree that the pacifist way is the way to the Cross. I am not good enough, and I do not believe that my fellow countrymen are good enough. True pacificism is all right, but pacificism which one takes on only in order to save one's skin or because it is uncomfortable is Vichy and the way to defeat and disaster.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Pacifism is now survival and the other way suicide.
  Mr. Wigg: I do not agree about that.
  Mr. R. T. Paget Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton) rose——
  Mr. Wigg: Let me answer one question at a time. I do not agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) because I believe that one of the first duties of all civilised men is to maintain the rule of law and that a very important function of the British Army is just that.
  Mr. V. Yates: I did not raise the issue of pacifism in my interjection. What I want my hon. Friend to realise is that we have had military conscription in this country for twenty-one years. It was introduced in peacetime, and was reintroduced by a Labour Government,
  324
  and therefore we have had all the problems associated with it, including the problem to which the Minister referred—production. Those are the arguments, and they have nothing whatever to do with the moral position. I do not quite understand what kind of a big Army my hon. Friend is wanting, unless it is with conscription, which will only lead us into more problems.
  Mr. Wigg: I do not want a big Army; I want an efficient Army, and I fail to see how a country of this size, with the obligation to maintain four divisions in Germany, plus our Commonwealth obligation, thinks it can be the only country in N.A.T.O. that claims first-class status and does without conscription. I do not believe that President Kennedy will go on indefinitely inducting 6,000 men a month and continuing to foot the bill while we say that conscription is politically inconvenient.
  Mr. Paget: One thing which I do not entirely follow in my hon. Friend's argument, which I greatly respect, is that in some way he seems to be conveying the impression that it is immoral to recruit volunteers in the West Indies or in other parts of the Commonwealth to fulfil the functions of a "tail", which we lack, and yet it is moral to conscript on the chance selection of selective service British people for that purpose. Why is it immoral to take volunteers and moral to take conscripts?
  Mr. Wigg: My hon. and learned Friend knows perfectly well that these things are not part of the same argument. I do not complain about that. I will meet them both fairly and squarely. The first thing is that I think it quite moral to ask all the citizens born in this country to defend the country, subject to the provision, which I have always supported, of exemption on the ground of conscience.
  Mr. Paget: Not to defend the Commonwealth?
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not learned his history. There is a very odd taste about asking West Indian troops to defend, for example, Africa. He does not seem to realise that from 1840 to 1898 there were no British troops in West Africa at all, except in the Ashanti wars. The

  325
  troops were drawn from the West Indian Regiment, and when they had thrown off the shackles of imperialism, it was decided to form the West African Regiment and get rid of the West Indian Regiment, which subsequently went to East Africa.
  There is another fact which the hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well in connection with recruiting crack troops like the Gurkhas. I do not doubt for a moment that we could recruit more, but where are we to use them? Where my hon. and learned Friend is quite right is in saying that there is no sort of morality in bribing people, if we can get them to come along, as hirelings or mercenaries—if we can get them, but all the ideas of my hon. and learned Friend are so many hares which have now been caught up and tried at different times—a foreign legion, getting recruits from West Africa, and so on. Each of these hares came to a stop because this is not what we want. What we want is a share of the rare skills which are acquired in these islands, and, therefore, whatever numbers we attract from the West Indies will only aggravate the problem.
  There is another reason. What sort of a recruiting drive is this to be if the Secretary of State for War says, "I cannot get British subjects to undertake these obligations, and I shall recruit in the West Indies"? If I wanted to knock my hon. and learned Friend down altogether—and I always treat him very kindly and that is far from my intention —I would say that the weakness of his case is that he could have only the hewers of wood and drawers of water in the R.A.S.C. and R.A.O.C. He could not let them join the Brigade of Guards. He would not, because he is not even a nineteenth century Imperialist, and this is what is so endearing about him. He goes back to the early part of the eighteenth century. He was out of date in 1760, and he is equally out of date and equally romantic in 1960. If I may now turn to the right hon. Gentleman, I want to say that the mercenaries and the West Indian Regiment were disbanded sixty or seventy years ago.
  Mr. Paget: A man is a mercentary if he volunteers to defend the Commonwealth, but something quite different if
  326
  he is conscripted by chance ballot to serve in this country. I think it is an odd distinction.
  Mr. Wigg: It is an oddness that my hon. and learned Friend has only just discovered. When hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House held up their hands in pious horror and said, "We must not have a selective draft," in heaven's name, what have we been having? We exempted coal miners, merchant seamen and agricultural workers. Fifteen months ago, when it suited the Government, 60,000 men were not called up to the Royal Air Force and the Army when, at the same time, they were releasing people. Of course, we have had selective service, and my hon. and learned Friend does not realise it. We are only squealing about selective service now because it suits us politically to do so. I say quite definitely that we have the right to ask young men of this country to accept the obligations of service, but I do not believe that we have the right, or that it is politically possible, to lay such an obligation on people living in the Caribbean.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: We are not trying to lay an obligation on them. We are looking for volunteers.
  Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friends are really fantastically out of date. It may well have been possible a few years ago, in Ghana or Nigeria, when they became independent, or in the Caribbean, or even in Cyprus, but what is the first thing such countries do when they get independence? They try to recruit forces of their own, and so they come up flat against some of the difficulties that we have. We want them to send us warrant officers and N.C.O.s, and they want warrant officers and N.C.O.s from us. That is the explanation of paragraph 24. In the British Army we want just those things which they have not got, and they want from us just those things which we find it most difficult to let them have.
  Mr. V. Yates: Why compel anyone if we can get volunteers?
  Mr. Wigg: I wish the hon. Gentleman would be fair to the Army, because if he were, he would have supported me when I made my demand to get rid of National Service ten years ago, and

  327
  when I wanted to get rid of the National Service engagement. My hon. Friends really want the convenience of living under the protection of the Army and none of the inconvenience of raising it, including conscription.
  I do not believe for a moment that any Government, from either side, would have the courage to face this politically awkward decision. I did not believe the Minister of Defence when he gave us his assurance the other night. I never believed that the Government meant what they said in paragraph 48 of the 1957 White Paper. I believe that we are now facing national humiliation, just as we did two years before the war. The only road open to us then was the one which led inexorably to the beaches of Dunkirk, so what we are doing now will lead inexorably, sooner or later, to our bluff being called.
  In paragraph 10 of the 1959 White Paper the country was told that a general-purpose aircraft—the TSR2—was being developed for the support of the Army and for other tactical operations. It was to be a tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft. A few days ago the Minister of Defence told us how well this project was going. We were told that this was the best aircraft in the world, that it would fly in 1964 and that it apparently would be able to do everything except sink. It would be able to fly high and also to get down low, it would have a high speed and would be able to fulfil all the functions of a tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft.
  I will make a forecast about this aircraft, just as I have made forecasts about the Britannic—now called the Belfast—and about Blue Streak. I will tell the Committee the history of the matter. This is a wonderful aircraft, but, like everything else that we have made, it is about five years too late. It is not flying at the moment. Hon. Members can search these islands from Land's End to John o'Groats and they will not find a single piece of metal or anything else that anyone can tell them is part of a TSR2. This is part of the Government's propaganda.
  But this is not all the story. We have lost so much time that the Americans already have the F4H flying at 2·7 mach as against the 2 mach at which the TSR2 will fly in about five years' time, when it
  328
  takes to the air. In addition, the Americans have the A3J coming forward. Even now that puts us two generations behind them. This was not contradicted during the defence debate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to it only in his concluding speech. The White Paper said that this aircraft was launched, in the first instance, for the special benefit of the Army. I do not believe that. The Army is without this aircraft, just as it is without adequate supplies of helicopters despite the fact that a dozen have been bought from the French Government. The Belfast—formerly the Britannic—is coming forward in 1964–65, but until then we shall be quite incapable of undertaking even a realistic exercise. If hon. Members will be good enough to consider this matter on the basis of one ton per man —because troops have to fight with equipment—they will realise that we are quite incapable of carrying out such an operation.
  I wish the right hon. Gentleman luck, and anything I can do to make his luck real in regard to recruiting I will do, but I believe that the British Army has never been worse equipped than it is at present. There are no war reserves, there is no effective mobilisation plan, and if we are put to it to undertake even the most limited operation with less than a brigade group we shall be quite incapable of doing so.
  This matter will be judged not by what the right hon. Gentleman says or by what I say; it will be put to the test as defence matters always are put to the test, not by points of order or narrow majorities, however contrived. There is a logic behind this. It is a question of the right amount of firepower in the right place at the right time. If it is not there somebody will have to pay for it, just as we have had to pay for it in the past. My interest in these matters is to try to prevent the Army from paying for politicians' mistakes.
  6.44 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: As usual, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has regaled the Committee with a mess of military pottage. Unfortunately, however, he has, as usual. let his enthusiasm for the British Army—for which we all give him credit —run away with him to such an extent

  329
  that he has kept many other speakers out of the debate for a long time.
  I should like to follow up one or two points that the hon. Gentleman made, and I will deal, first, with his remarks about the British contingent to N.A.T.O. in Europe. We recognise that our original undertakings were larger than we could possibly make good. In due course, using the proper machinery and giving warning to our allies, we reduced our forces. I would remind the hon. Member that the major threat to N.A.T.O. is fully recognised by competent leaders in the Western Alliance no longer to lie in Europe. That does not mean that we can whittle down our troops in Germany or elsewhere to a zero figure, but it means that there is some justification for intelligent reduction, just as there might be a justification for an increase in different circumstances. We must not be dogmatic about the figure. We must be intelligent, and adjust it as circumstances demand.
  I was not clear whether I properly understood the hon. Gentleman's other point about our forces in Germany. If he will do me the courtesy of giving me his attention for a moment, I would point out that he gave the Committee the impression that there were no tactical atomic weapons in Europe in the N.A.T.O. command or under direct British charge.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. and gallant Member complains because my speech took so long, but I was interrupted right, left and centre, and now I am being asked for more information. We have the 47th Guided Weapon Regiment, with the Corporal, and we have three other regiments with the Honest John and atomic artillery, but there are no atomic tactical weapons under British control.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I take the point. I was rather misled by the way the hon. Member put it in the first place. We realise that the warheads of these American weapons are under the charge of the American commanders. If that is what he meant, we all know that.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not got it quite clear— —
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again. The hon. Member has had more than his fair share of the time of the debate— —
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. and gallant Member asked me a question.
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: —and it would not be fair to give way to him again.
  I want to refer to the manpower question for a few moments. I have complete confidence that a figure of about 165,000 men can be reached by the end of 1962, and possibly a few more than that. If we use the right methods it may be possible to reach a figure of about 180,000, given a little more time, although we shall not be able to do it by the end of 1962. What we must do, therefore, is not only to alter the image of the Army in the public eye, but to alter that image in the Army's own eye. I am very much encouraged by the speech which my right hon. Friend made. It is obvious that he is completely conscious of the problem and is going the right way about solving it.
  Many improvements can be brought about in our recruiting methods, and it is clear from my right hon. Friend's remarks that he is also fully conscious of those. I think it right at this time to pay tribute to a man who has been responsible for giving considerable help, chiefly to the Army, but also to the other fighting forces. I speak of Sir Frederick Hooper, who was responsible for the reorganisation and resettlement of officers and men made redundant at a time when we were cutting down heavily. He is engaged as one of the Minister's advisers on recruiting methods and publicity for the Services, particularly for the Army, and I believe that he is doing a great and generous service to his country.
  Something which I find alarming, and which has been only touched upon, is the problem of wastage. What appears so extraordinary to me is that the percentage wastage seems to be high in the most unexpected units. I cannot help feeling that there must be serious reasons for this which need exploring and if possible eliminating. I was delighted with the announcement about the incentive to National Service men to engage for a regular period, but I am not sure that it goes far enough. I understand that they will be paid the difference between their National Service pay and

  331
  Regular pay for the period that they have been doing National Service before engaging on a Regular engagement or a year, whichever is the least. I should like to know whether that will be paid straight away, or in the form of a gratuity at the end of their Regular engagement.
  Secondly, will their period of National Service time count towards their Regular engagement? I think that an important point. If this time is not included, consideration should be given to including it. There is a story current—I do not know whether it is true, but it has appeared in a number of newspapers—that the three-year Regular engagement from National Service is being used as a means of getting out of the Army. If a man is called up as a National Service man, he can volunteer for the three-year engagement and, after a month or so, can purchase his discharge for £20. If that is true, and if the practice is common, a stop ought to be put to it swiftly.
  We have to admit that all these Estimates can be wrong. The best laid plans often go— —
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: "Awry".
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: —amis, and an accurate forecast can prove inaccurate after a few months. What shall we do if we do not get the men? We must consider that. In the recent defence debate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said that it would come up for serious consideration nearer the time, but there is no harm done if, in the meantime, this Committee debates the matter and hon. Members turn the problem over in their minds.
  I should be firmly against any suggestion of a return to conscription. From many points of view, conscription has always been the last resort, an emergency measure when war appeared imminent, or, more often, when it has broken out. It is a most undesirable feature in peace time in respect of any of the Armed Forces. It is a brake on Regular recruitment and gradually it saps the morale of units. Unless we are faced with a serious emergency, such as the outbreak of war or a breakdown in international relations, which heaven forbid, we should avoid conscription at all
  332
  costs; and under that heading I include selective service.
  Yesterday, The Times, rather inconclusively, examined the possibilities or probabilities of selective service. I agree with the writer of the article that the advantages of selective service are completely outweighed by the disadvantages. We get all the disadvantages of Regular conscription and the added disadvantage of the unfairness of the ballot, or however it is done. Apart from that we have the practical difficulty, if the ballot method is used—I see no other way in which it could be done in this country—that we are not certain of getting the type of man we need. We may get a man highly skilled in some trade not needed in the Army, and men that the Army could do with may miss the draft because they have been lucky in the ballot.
  We may consider what has happened in America, where this is unpopular with the forces and in the country generally. If it is unpopular in America how much more unpopular is it likely to be in Britain, where we have a much more closely knit population? We have to look elsewhere for a solution to this problem. I am not dogmatic about possible recruitment in the Commonwealth. Obviously, there are parts of the Commonwealth where it might be profitable to try to recruit certain types of men, and what was said on this subject by the hon. Member for Dudley was sound.
  But, apart from the Gurkhas, and men from other limited areas, I cannot see much prospect of drawing further manpower from the Commonwealth, so the solution must be something different, and, I think, something along the lines of a proper and intelligent use of the Regular Army Reserve, the Army Emergency Reserve and the Territorial Army.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to call up 45,000 men on his own authority, without a Proclamation. This power is seldom used and we are led to believe that at present the reserves are somewhat disorganised. That is not surprising, as the whole structure of the Army has been so recently reorganised, including the Territorial Army. Those reserves may

  333
  be somewhat disorganised now, but there is no reason why they should continue in that state. I hope that the Secretary of State for War and those who help him will turn their attention to getting these reserves on a really firm footing and, what is more, using them perhaps at frequent intervals, partly to exercise the machinery, and partly to fill gaps in manpower when that may be necessary. I hope that the latter occasions will not be frequent.
  From the point of view of exercising the machinery, it would be a useful exercise if call-ups of sections of these reserves, augmented by units from the Territorial Army, could be made at fairly frequent intervals. Again, of course, it is difficult because the shortages occur only in certain trades and in certain units, but with a little ingenuity that, too, could be overcome.
  I hope that the other thing which will be done to encourage our reserves will be to include units of the Territorial Army in some of these realistic exercises. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend describe the flying of forces to Canada and elsewhere. If small detachments of the Territorial Army could join in those exercises, a great service would be done to the Territorial Army. The inclusion of such detachments could be awarded to units for efficiency and merit in various directions. It would be a great spur to morale and a spur to recruiting in the Territorial Army if a unit knew that if it did a good job in normal Territorial Army duties it had a very good chance of having a detachment sent overseas to join up with the Regular Army in one of these rather conspicuous exercises.
  I want, now, to turn to Germany and the criticism which is being made of the possibility of bringing German units to Britain for exercises, training, and the storing of German equipment here. Those who are noisiest in the criticism of this project are usually those who have been furthest from the firing line in the past. We all know the dangers. We have been through all this before. But let us remember that after 1918 we made a great many mistakes. The Treaty of Versailles was largely directed to setting the German nation aside as a second-class nation, if not of more or less ostracising it. We saw where that led us in the 'thirties, and we do not want to go
  334
  that way again. I am convinced that the only way to deal sensibly with this problem is to treat the Germans as what they are, equal allies in N.A.T.O., and to give them the facilities which we would expect them to give us if we asked for them.
  There is a simple analogy. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite are often eloquent about the treatment of delinquents—call them criminals if one likes. Many people, both in this Committee and elsewhere, have referred to the Germans as criminals, or having a criminal past, but when those people discuss the treatment of delinquents, or whatever one likes to call them, one often hears that punishment is a very minor aspect and that reform is all-important.
  I think that we can rest assured that the German nation has had its punishment. This is the period of reform and probation. How are we to reform the German people and get them over the probationary period unless we have them with us the whole time sharing our facilities for military training, sharing our responsibilities, and taking part in this joint effort to keep the peace in Western Europe?
  In that context, I was interested in a letter in the Western Gazette, one of my local newspapers. It came from a Service man. I do not know whether he is a Regular or a National Service man, but he is a young soldier in Germany. This is an extract from his letter:
  "I am one of 55,000 British soldiers stationed in Germany at the request of the West German Defence Department. I am stationed…at Kiel.… We live together with some three or four thousand combined German Forces, all, on average, about the same age as myself, born early in the war or just post-war. About 17 per cent, of Germans now speak and read English."
  He adds that they borrow his copy of the newspaper, and continues:
  "they show great concern about the remarks passed by readers' comments on the proposed plan to bring German troops to England and Wales…The modern German Army is the youngest member of the strong N.A.T.O, force which protects us from the Communist bloc. In any outbreak of hostilities West Germany would be one immense battlefield, and those like my fellow German soldiers would fight and die, if necessary, side by side with British and other N.A.T.O. countries.…"
  That shows what reasonable, thinking young men in our forces feel about this business of training German troops in

  335
  Britain and perhaps elsewhere. If a young man who has lived out there among them can feel like that, we should be able to feel the same ourselves and treat this serious matter in a far more responsible manner than it is apt to be treated in certain circles in Britain.
  I said earlier that not only have we to get the image of the British Army right in the public eye, but that to do that the Army has to get its own image right in its own eye. I was delighted with one or two of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend with reference to "bull" and all the chores that have to go on. As a sailor, I was surprised at what happened before the war and, to a certain extent, during the war, when, of course, conditions were very different, and after the war, when, from time to time, parties of soldiers embarked, in those days in His Majesty's ships. They came sometimes for a holiday or a change from their normal bases, and sometimes they came on exercises or for semi-military operations. Almost invariably, because of lack of space, they had to be housed in what probably were the least desirable conditions in the ship—the spare mess deck, which had been given up by everyone else because it was too hot there, or something of that nature.
  Those men came on board and the whole operation was treated in great good nature. They did not mind scrubbing decks; they did not mind peeling potatoes. They did not mind doing all the household jobs which soldiers, sailors and airmen have to do from time to time all over the world, because they were doing them under different conditions. The Navy has a great advantage because it carries its house underneath and floats on its house. The Army cannot do that and, naturally, the Royal Air Force cannot spend its whole life in Vulcan bombers, but there is a difference of approach to this problem in the three Services.
  I am sure that if we could get it the same and right in all three Services men would take these menial jobs, which have to be done, in their stride. Let us by all means encourage civilians to do them whenever possible. but there are circumstances when they have to be done by the Service man. If only we could get the spirit right, the men who
  336
  have to do these jobs would embark on them in a cheerful frame of mind.
  People are apt to make too much of the problems of "bull", but we know that all these menial duties are necessary. Spit-and-polish is perhaps overdone in certain cases, but it is very good for morale. The unit of high morale is usually beautifully turned out, even on comparatively ordinary occasions. That can be done only with spit-and-polish.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: I am very tempted to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) in his closing remarks and to say how much most hon. Members of the Committee would disagree with what he said about spit-and-polish. I should have thought we had reached a stage when we were no longer excusing "bull" in this Committee, but were more ready to follow the Minister.
  I want to limit my speech to three points, one of which the hon. and gallant Member touched on and which was talked about at considerable length by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Incidentally, I do not begrudge my hon. Friend having 50 minutes when he speaks, because he knows what he is talking about. If every one of us spent as much time doing our homework as he does, we would be better members of this Committee and of the House.
  The first point I want to make is that about recruitment in the colonial areas, and I want to speak particularly about recruitment in the West Indies. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has now left the Chamber. It is not good enough for him to raise this problem by a quotation from what Lord Head said in 1952. In 1952, Lord Head said that the difficulties about recruiting in the colonial areas at that time were that a West African division —which was what he was talking about —would consume large numbers of n.c.o.s and middle-rank officers and would be very expensive in terms of erecting permanent barracks for them in West Africa. No one is now discussing what Lord Head was demolishing at that time.

  337
  What we are advocating at the moment is the integration of a limited number of such volunteers into existing regiments serving all over the world, including in this country. That is a quite different matter from what Lord Head was unable to recommend in 1952. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has now come into the Chamber and I repeat that Lord Head, in 1952, was talking about a West African division based in West Africa. We are talking about the integration of a limited number of volunteers in all units in the British Army wherever there happen to be vacancies for which they are suitable. The case can be examined on those merits.
  If we look at the situation, for example, in Jamaica—where I have been for a considerable time recently—we find that recruiting is going on there at the moment, but it is only for the British West Indies Regiment. We find that the numbers involved are infinitesimal. When I was in Jamaica the West Indies Regiment advertised for 36 recruits. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at a photograph I shall send him, showing hundreds of West Indians who turned up in the hope of being recruited into the British Army. There were headlines in the newspapers saying that hundreds of people were doing so. There are many willing volunteers in places like Jamaica who wish to join the British Army. It must be taken into account that they are willing and anxious to do so. Apart from recruitment to the West Indies Regiment, there is no regular machinery at all for recruiting in the West Indies to other regiments of the Army in general. This is a scandal.
  I am sure that it would have the agreement of the Jamaican Government and that there is no reason why there should not be a regular recruiting office there to recruit in considerable numbers. The Jamaican is intensely British and proud to serve in the British Army. His ties with this country are probably greater in sentimentality and basic allegiance than in almost any part of the Commonwealth. He is anxious to serve, as is shown by his record in two world wars. The Secretary of State has spoken of reasons why people used to join the Army—love of adventure, need for secure employment and love of travel.
  338
  The Jamaican is exactly that type of person. He loves to travel and wishes to join the Army and see the world as well as to serve Her Majesty. He loves adventure. This is the reason so many have migrated: at least, it is part of the reason —the main one, of course, being enonomic conditions out there.
  In Jamaica, at present there is a reserve of unemployed which is quite frightening in its scope. It should be known that of a working population of 700,000 between 100,000 and 200,000 are unemployed. It is worrying to see, in the streets of Jamaica today, the lost generations of young men in their late 'teens and early twenties who have no technical education and for whom there are not the jobs we should like to see in a society which is increasing its industrial development. They are the people whom the British Army would find good material. They have had a reasonable education. They are sturdy, adventurous and have devotion on a terrific scale to the idea of the British Commonwealth and the British Crown. I want to see an office opened there. I am sure that Mr. Manley, the Prime Minister, would not raise any objection to our recruiting out there.
  Incidentally, who was it who, last year, was acclaimed the best recruit to one of the British regiments? It was a Jamaican soldier who had joined the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, and received the award as the best recruit of the year. That was a very good thing and a fine lesson for the rest of the world. It was an example of the impact of our multiracial Commonwealth. How did he get into the Royal Warwickshire Regiment? This is what a newspaper said:
  "Private Foster, who travelled across the Atlantic to join the British Army, will be off on his travels again shortly."
  When a Jamaican wants to join the British Army he has to come here at his own expense and take pot luck on whether he will be accepted. This state of affairs is indefensible. There should be much better channels for recruiting brilliant and average young Jamaicans into the British Army, where they would be of such use.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the type of vacancies he has—for drivers, nursing orderlies and clerks.

  339
  There is plenty of material in Jamaica for such vacancies. Many Jamaicans who come to Britain work as nursing orderlies. Most of them can drive, or they soon learn to drive. Many of them have the beginnings of clerical skill.
  I hope that we shall hear something much more definite than the pious platitudes we have had from the right hon. Gentleman so far. In a Parliamentary Answer on 20th December he said that he wanted to see more Commonwealth members in the British Army. What did he mean by that, and when does he intend to do something tangible about it?
  My second point, based on my long visit to Jamaica, concerns pensions to old members of the West Indies Regiment. This has been a crying scandal for some time and is now becoming much worse, because we are dealing with men who were serving mainly in the First World War. They are now reaching 65 and 70 years of age and are in considerable poverty. There are about 14,000 ex-Service men in Jamaica over 65 years of age, either ex-West Indies Regiment—that is, serving up to 1926—or from battalions of the British West Indies Regiment of the First World War. There are no old-age pensions for these elderly men to fall back on in their old age.
  Probably about 12,000 of the 14,000 have no visible means of subsistence, except that some of the ex-members of the British West Indies Regiment receive 9s. or 10s. per week from the Government Central Supplementary Allowances Committee. The ex-West Indies Regiment men have no source of pension whatever. They depend entirely on the Jamaican Legion Benevolent Fund, which, at the most, is able to give them £2 or £3 a month, or 9s. or 10s. a week.
  It would be appreciated if the Secretary of State would help the Jamaican Legion to provide decent pensions for these men by making a tangible contribution. At present, 250 cases of sheer destitution are pending because of sheer lack of funds of the Jamaican Legion. More and more cases are coming on to the books of the Legion every month as these men become older and more likely to be destitute.
  The Jamaican Government have shown their anxiety to help by increasing their
  340
  subvention to the Legion. It is now £26,000 a year. It is not too much to ask the right hon. Gentleman to guarantee, say, £25,000 a year until these elderly men die. Such a figure, which is a mere halfpenny in the totality of the Army Estimates, would raise the reputation of the British Government in the West Indies. Bodies such as the British Commonwealth Ex-Service League and the Army Benevolent Fund help in a small way. They contribute a few thousand pounds here and there. They are doing their best. Tangible help should be given by the British Government. It is very largely their responsibility.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to examine this matter and receive a deputation from a number of us from both inside and outside the House of Commons. I have not yet had time to invite him, but I hope that one member of the deputation will be the secretary of the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League. We could then discuss the subject and see whether anything can be done.
  I want now to raise with the Secretary of State the rather scandalous way in which the War Office has handled the sale of some land for a very fine project, namely, a national sports stadium in Kingston, Jamaica. The way this has been done is quite wrong.
  Mr. Profumo Mr. Profumo indicated dissent.
  Mr. Chapman: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I will put the contrary case.
  It was proved that some War Office land was the most suitable for the establishment of a national sports stadium in Kingston, Jamaica. It is not merely that Jamaica wants the stadium. It is because the Caribbean Games will be held there in 1962. That is a worth-while project which we should encourage. When the Jamaican Government wanted to buy the land the right hon. Gentleman insisted that it be sold at current market value.
  Mr. Profumo: I have to. I am bound to do that.
  Mr. Chapman: The right hon. Gentleman insists that he has to, but he can ask Parliament for its approval to his finding a way round that. The House of Commons is the master. This land

  341
  on which the right hon. Gentleman is making at the moment a fantastic capital gain— —
  Mr. Profumo Mr. Profumo indicated dissent.
  Mr. Chapman: It is true. The land was bought for a pittance. It is now being sold to the Jamaican Government at £3,250 an acre. Similar land nearby, which the Jamaican Government are also purchasing for this purpose, is being bought at £1,500 and £900 an acre. It is repugnant to us that on such a worthwhile project as a stadium for the Caribbean Games the British Government should be making a fantastic capital profit on the land involved. It would have been a far better gesture for the British Government to have offered it to the Jamaican Government at a nominal figure as our contribution towards a worth-while project in which the Commonwealth should be associated through the generosity of the British Government.
  I will say this for the right hon. Gentleman. Within nine days of my writing to him from Jamaica he made a very fine gesture by reducing the payments of interest on the money involved. But that does not go far enough. That was the easy way out. I know that he did it with every spirit of generosity, but it is still the easy way out. I repeat that it is repugnant that we should be making a large capital profit out of such a worth-while community venture for the whole Caribbean. I hope that the Secretary of State will think again and try to find an alternative to charging such a large capital price for the land.
  Finally, I again stress that many of us who have examined the problem in the colonial areas are convinced that the right hon. Gentleman can do more than he has done already about recruiting in the Commonwealth. There are many willing volunteers of a fine type. I hope that the Secretary of State will begin to put his words into effect.
  7.29 p.m.
  Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I shall touch a little later in my speech on what I thought were the very interesting remarks made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) on recruiting in the West Indies. He gave us first-hand information on the subject, and I am sure
  342
  that everyone interested in it is most grateful to him.
  I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on their excellent opening speeches. I thought that my right hon. Friend was lively, entertaining, and encouraging. It was encouraging to hear from him about the barrack building programme, about improvements in equipment and about other things he is doing to improve the Army and to improve the standard of life of the soldier in it. I was particularly encouraged to hear him say that he is doing away with "bull" and also that he intends to maintain the high standard of smartness which already exists in the Army. We have heard all these things before, of course, but they are none the less encouraging. I am always encouraged to hear them again. I have said them myself.
  Mr. Prolumo: Yes, I know.
  Sir F. Maclean: But, however encouraging those things are, I regret to say that my right hon. Friend's speech did not convince me altogether of the rightness of the Government's overall policy. Looking back over the last four years, it seems to me that the most disquieting feature of their policy—and there is a lot that is disquieting in it—is the political assumption on which it is based, the assumption enshrined in the Defence White Paper of 1958, that "we are poised betwen total peace and total war".
  It seems to me that every year that has gone by has shown the utter wrongness and mistakenness of that assumption. Every year has shown, on the one hand, that so long as the West has an effective deterrent there is very little likelihood of total war and, on the other hand, that there is no likelihood whatever of total peace. Everything that has happened and everything that is happening today from the Congo to Cuba points not to total peace or to total war but to a continuation of what is now called peaceful co-existence and used to be called the cold war.
  In 1957, working on the assumption that we were poised between total war and total peace, the Government decided to reorientate their defence policy. They

  343
  decided to do three things; to abolish conscription, to reduce our conventional forces, and to concentrate on what were called streamlined nuclear forces. But it seems to me that that policy left completely out of account two of the basic facts of present-day life, the cold war and our worldwide commitments. And small streamlined nuclear forces, of course, are the answer to neither of those things.
  The answer to both, it seems to me, lies in adequate conventional forces and, in particular, an adequate Army, and this is what I very much fear we shall not have before long. It is for that reason, and because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said in the defence debate last week that the 1957 policy was unchanged, that I did not feel able to vote for the White Paper.
  There is a great deal of talk today about recruiting and there is much speculation about how many recruits the Army will obtain. For my part, I am inclined to leave that speculation to the experts, to the experts who brief my right hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who briefs himself. Successive Secretaries of State have told the House what my right hon. Friend said just now, namely, that they were confident that we should have 165,000 men by the end of next year. Having regard to the information published in the White Paper, to the recent recruiting figures and to the very disturbing wastage figures, it may well be that that statement was a bit on the optimistic side. Perhaps the figure will be nearer 160,000. However, I do not seriously question my right hon. Friend's forecast. Time will show, and show very soon now, whether we shall have the number of men we have been promised. I do not seriously question his forecast. What I question with all the energy at my disposal is the rightness of the target which the Government set themselves in the first place, the target of 165,000 given in the 1957 Defence White Paper.
  In 1957, the Government were so keen to get rid of conscription—I sympathise with them; we are all keen to get rid if it—that they put the cart before the horse. They tackled the matter the wrong way round. At that time, two figures
  344
  were available in the War Office. There was the absolute minimum number of men with which, in the view of the experts, we could get by, namely, 200,000. And there was the other figure, the number of men that it was thought we should be able, with any luck, to get by voluntary recruiting, namely, 165,000.
  In the light of that information—perhaps one should say in the teeth of that information—the Government took the decision to abolish conscription and fix the size of the Regular Army at 165,000 men. That, it will be observed, was not the number we needed to fulfil our commitments. It was the number that they thought they might, with any luck, be able to get by voluntary recruiting.
  In the defence debate the other day, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) attacked me for talking about this, for saying that we needed more than 165,000 men and for speaking of numbers like 200,000. He poured scorn on mischievous politicians and on their unfairness to soldiers. (Incidentally, my hon. and gallant Friend is, I presume, after sixteen years in politics, a politician as we all are.) Now, when it comes to politics, if ever there was a political decision, if ever there was a decision taken on party political grounds, it was the decision taken by the Government in 1957. My own criticism of that decision is based not on political grounds but on arithmetical grounds.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) has referred to some of us who take this view as a reactionary pressure group. I have often been called a reactionary by Russians, by hon. Members opposite and by all kinds of people, but I have never been called it by an admiral before. I am also not quite clear what it means. But if being a reactionary means that one reacts against things one does not like, I shall certainly go on reacting against this decision, and as for pressure, I shall keep up the pressure on the Government for all I am worth.
  I have never myself claimed to speak as an expert on military matters, but I have considerable respect for the experts. I have considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Head, who is now in Nigeria.

  345
  I think that in the last four years he has given a number of very valid reasons to show why the decision taken in 1957 was so disastrous. I have considerable respect for Field Marshal Lord Harding, who spoke not long ago of "the grave error made in 1957". Finally, I have considerable respect for the C.I.G.S. designate, General Hull, whose committee fixed the figure of 200,000. It is because of the views of the experts that I attach so much importance to the figure of 200,000 and that I feel very grave disquiet when I read in the newspaper that the Minister of Defence has said that the Army must "manage" with 165,000 men.
  No doubt it will be said that the figure of 200,000 is out of date. It seems to me very unlikely that it is out of date. If it is, I think that it is more likely to be on the low side. If we go back to the White Paper of 1957 and to the figure of 165,000, we find that the policy based on that figure assumed, first, an all-round reduction in world tension. Certainly that assumption has not been justified. Since then we have had the failure of the Summit Conference—not that that would have made much difference. We have had the wind of change and an all-round hotting up of peaceful co-existence.
  The second thing which the 1957 policy assumed was that there would be a drastic reduction in the four divisions that we were bound to provide to N.A.T.O. That has not come off either. It is perfectly true that we have not fulfilled our obligations to N.A.T.O., but we are now told that, instead of reducing our contribution, such as it is, we are to increase it. Therefore, both those assumptions fall.
  If the Government wish to keep the strength of the Army at 165,000 and if they do not want to reduce our contribution to N.A.T.O., what do they propose to reduce? Not long ago there were some ugly rumours that, in spite of the attitude of China and of unrest throughout South-East Asia and the Far East and the enormous strategic and economic importance of that whole area, we were to cut our garrisons in South-East Asia and the Far East. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend has disposed of that rumour once and for all. He denied it when he was out there, and I was glad to hear that he had done so. It would be a disaster if——
  Mr. Profumo: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to interrupt him, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this. He quoted me as having denied something. I accept that what he read sounded like a denial. What I in fact said was that, from what I had seen in my tour out there——
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would address me.
  Mr. Profumo: I am sorry, Sir Norman. I was saying that I was grateful to my hon. Friend for letting me intervene. He quoted me as having denied that we were to cut our forces in those places. What I said was that, having looked at the building programme and everything else, it did not look as if we would have a major withdrawal and I repeated that we had no intention of reducing the commitments which we should honour. I made a point earlier tonight of saying that from time to time we might well have to redistribute our forces round the world. I should not like my hon. Friend to feel that all the forces we have stationed round the world will be exactly the same each year. I am not denying anything. I am just trying to put the matter in perspective.
  Sir F. Maclean: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is not denying his denial. I should have been very much worried if he were. Then that leaves the rest of the world. Surely we do not propose to reduce our forces in Africa or in the Persian Gulf. Surely we do not propose to abdicate our responsibilities in either of those areas quite so fast. Even if we do, surely we know by now that even that does not mean that we shall relieve ourselves of all our military commitments. Sometimes a policy of evacuation and withdrawal involves even greater military commitments than a policy of sitting tight and sweating it out.
  Apart from what might be called these imperial commitments, there are many other commitments. I thought that the hon. Member for Dudley emphasised this very well when he was speaking about the Cameroons. There are all kinds of other commitments in which we could become involved if it is our policy to take our part in world affairs

  347
  and in the affairs of the United Nations. All this requires, not streamlined nuclear forces, but men on the ground.
  If we are not to cut our forces in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Persian Gulf there is the possibility—it is a very alarming possibility—that what we will do in the course of the redistribution to which my right hon. Friend referred a moment ago is to keep all our units everywhere just a little bit under-strength. At present we have considerably more than 200,000 men in the Army, but our units and formations in a great many parts of the world are already under-strength. Anyone, like myself, who was even temporarily in the Army during the war, without, of course, being a professional soldier like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing, knows perfectly well that nothing can be worse for the morale and efficiency and, incidentally, for recruiting than for a unit or formation to be permanently under-strength, to have more than its fair share of overseas service, to have double guard duties, and so on. I very much hope that that is not what is intended.
  Incidentally one very disquieting aspect of this question is that, as far as I know, the amalgamation of regiments which has recently been carried out was done on the basis of a strength of 200,000 men. The day before yesterday I saw a platoon of my old regiment in its new form marching through Argyllshire. I think that it was almost the last regiment to be amalgamated, so now the amalgamation planned originally on a basis of 200,000 men must be complete. But if we are only to have 165,000 men, what will happen? I should be grateful to my right hon. Friend if, when he replies, he would tell us whether any more amalgamations and disruptions in the Army are contemplated. If so, I do not think that it will have a good effect on morale.
  Another disturbing development which already has been mentioned during the debate is that the British Army of the Rhine is not only under strength but is organised and equipped to fight, not with conventional weapons, but with tactical nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons only. This was raised once or twice in the defence debate and I still have to hear it authoritatively
  348
  denied. If it is not so, nobody will be better pleased than I, for the following reasons.
  When there was first talk of small, streamlined nuclear forces in 1957, those of us who did not much like the idea tried to warn the Government against what might happen when we found ourselves denuded of adequate conventional forces and confronted with a crisis and the choice before us was either of doing nothing at all or of using the nuclear weapons. That was a terrifying thought and it is terrifying to find our prophecies, if it is so, so accurately fulfilled.
  It is also terrifying to find us so completely out of step with our American allies and to find such a position prevailing at a time when General Norstad is emphasising the need for more and better conventional forces in Europe so that the threshold at which it might conceivably be necessary to use nuclear weapons should be raised as much as possible. I hope very much that in replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say something about this.
  For all these reasons, and, again, on purely arithmetical grounds, it seems to me that if we are to fulfil our commitments and not to cut down on them or run away from them, as some hon. Members opposite would like us to do, we shall not be able to manage with the figure of 165,000, nor, indeed, with the figure of 182,000 which Ministers in their more optimistic moments throw to us as a sort of sop to Cerberus. It is true that greater mobility and better equipment are a great help. I was very much encouraged to hear what my right hon. Friend said on this subject. There is no doubt that if the Army really has greater mobility and better equipment, that is a great help. But it strikes me that we still have a long way to go.
  The point is that when it comes to fighting the cold war, when it comes to carrying out police duties, when it comes to encouraging our friends and discouraging our enemies, when it comes to providing a conventional deterrent at twenty different places at the same time, what is needed is men on the ground at the time. If the men are there, the chances are that nothing will happen. If the men are not there and have to be brought there by Commando carrier or

  349
  whatever it may be from Germany or elsewhere, anything can happen, and by the time they get there all hell will be let loose.
  I believe that to get a properly balanced Army, up to strength in all arms and services and capable of fulfilling our commitments, the minimum requirement is 200,000 men. I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley that every thousand under that number is an unjustifiable risk that we should not take.
  Secondly, I believe that the only way in which that figure can be obtained is by some form of conscription. I do not say that because I like conscription. I dislike it as much as or more than most hon. Members. Indeed, I spent all my time and energies at the War Office in trying to get rid of it, and so did Lord Head. The reason why I think that we must have conscription is because I do not see how else we can get the number of men we need.
  I was very much interested by what the hon. Member for Dudley said about recruiting in the Commonwealth. If we can get the men in that way, so much the better, but I doubt it. I agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said about Gurkhas. If we can get more Gurkhas, so much the better. I only hope that we shall go on having Gurkhas in the British Army for many years. There are, however, political difficulties about that, too.
  I am a great believer in using reservists, but I do not quite see——
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. Member define exactly what he means by his plans for conscription? Would he, for example, call up the agricultural workers?
  Sir F. Maclean: I am coming to that. I do not see how reservists, or, indeed, the Territorial Army, can be the answer. I do not see how men can be kept sitting, either in this country or overseas, for years away from their proper trades and professions—and that is what we need soldiers for.
  I realise that conscription is bound to be difficult, unpopular and expensive, but all our allies, and, indeed, our opponents, have conscription and they manage somehow. It is possible to have either a ballot or a system of selective
  350
  service as the Americans have. I do not say that it is satisfactory, but I regard it as a choice of two evils, and I consider that the evil of selective service is very much the lesser of the two.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend not agree that if we have a conscripted element in the Army, we need in addition a greater number of people to train them than if the Army was purely a Regular Army? In mentioning the figure of 200,000, how many of that number does my hon. Friend think will be required to train the conscript element? Is he not failing to appreciate that in addition to the 200,000 for fulfilling our commitments, we would need more above that number to train the conscript element?
  Sir F. Maclean: That is true, and it is necessary to accept that, but I do not think that the figure would be anything like as large as is generally thought. I saw the figure of 5,000 men given by The Times defence correspondent. It might well be larger than that, but a lot depends upon how the training is carried out. A lot can be done by the pre-war system of having a battalion at home and a battalion abroad. A lot could be done by having a corps of infantry and having an infantry depot, as we have an R.A.C. depot, and doing away with brigade or regimental depots.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked whether I would call up agricultural workers. I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley when he was tackled on these points by his hon. Friend. It is not really for us on the back benches to answer these questions. I was not responsible for doing away with conscription in the first place.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: But the hon. Gentleman has responsibility for agricultural workers.
  Sir F. Maclean: What I would try to do is to exempt as many people as possible so as to narrow down the field in that way, and so that there is as little unfairness as possible. I would have a system of selective service, as they have in America, or I would have a ballot. However, I really do not think I ought to take up more of the time of the Committee by going into more details on

  351
  these sorts of questions. As I say, our allies do it, and our opponents do it, including the Soviet Union, of which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire is such an admirer. If they can do it, we can do it, too.
  I hope that the Government are not waiting to take this decision till their hand is forced by disaster. I was alarmed by what the Minister of Defence said about not crossing the bridge till we get to it. Of course, we do not cross bridges or jump hurdles till we get to them, but we should make pretty effective preparations in advance so as to do it when the time comes. A thing to be remembered about the Army is that you cannot fill a half-empty Army as you fill a half-empty bath by simply turning on a tap. It is a very long and very difficult process, and once the Army runs down it is a very long job to build it up again. That is why I, for one, hope very much that the Government will not simply wait till their hand is forced by a national humiliation—which is something that has happened in our history often before—and only then take the difficult decision that confronts them. Because then, in my view, it will be too late.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: In case there is any misunderstanding, I congratulate hon. Members on their excellent speeches, although I reject most emphatically most of their conclusions. At the same time, I want, as one of his predecessors, to congratulate the Secretary of State upon what I thought was an excellent statement at the beginning of the debate.
  I want to deal as faithfully as I can with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). I should like to know from him, or from someone who can speak on his behalf, how many men he wants in the Army. There is no need for the hon. Member to interrupt. I will answer the question myself, because the hon. Gentleman said just a moment or two ago —in fact, he said it several times, for he has a habit of repeating himself in the course of his speeches ever so often—that he wanted at least 200,000 men. Immediately before that he said we have
  352
  at present rather more than 200,000, yet he said that none of the units is up to strength. Indeed, he was satisfied with 200,000, and yet he was dissatisfied with even more than 200,000.
  We are discussing this problem in the context, so far as the British Army is concerned, of a general conflict. It is a completely erroneous assumption that we shall have a conflict in Berlin, that we shall have one on the Rhine, that we shall have one in Malaya, that we shall have one in the Cameroons, and possibly several elsewhere. The fact is that we do not expect anything of the sort, and if we did, if there were anything in the nature of a global conflict in which the British Army had to be engaged, obviously we should have to call up our reserves, and not merely the Army Emergency Reserve, but the General Reserve, including that large body of men who have had training under the ægis of National Service. That is the position. It is a serious error, in dealing with the question of what should be the size of the British Army, to consider the probability of a general conflict.
  I reject the idea of going back to National Service. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know what was meant by being reactionary, as, apparently, he has been described as being. I will tell him at once what it is. If the cap fits him, I do not mind. A reactionary is the sort of person who wants to return to a condition of things which are no longer feasible. That is the position. That is the position of those who want to return to conscription.
  In fact, there is very little to distinguish between my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who made a very interesting speech, rather prolonged, which held me up for a bit, but full of detail——
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Most unconvincing.
  Mr. Shinwell: There is nothing to distinguish between them and the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, because they are all saying this. They say to the right hon. Gentleman, You may not have enough. You are not going to have enough. The Army is

  353
  not big enough. You need 165,000 men and you are not going to get them. Point one. Point two, if you do get them, they are still not enough." That is what they are all saying. What is the conclusion to be derived from that? It is as simple as falling off a log. It is that we must either rely on nuclear weapons, as the alternative, which is rejected by a very large number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and, indeed, doubted by several Members on the other side, and by a large number of people in the country, or we have to resort to conscription.
  The question is: what kind of conscription? The selective ballot? What simple nonsense this selective ballot is. Anybody who thinks about it for five consecutive minutes, if it is possible for some hon. Members to think for five consecutive minutes, will discover that this is not merely a matter of political difficulty, but that there are technical difficulties, all kinds of difficulties, involved. If they propose to turn to conscription, let them make a clean cut and call up all the people they want to call up.
  By the way, I noticed that the hon. Gentleman, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who asked him what kind of conscription he wanted, said that he wanted exemptions. That was remarkable. He actually says he would agree to exemptions. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley pointed out that we had exemptions for the miners, exemptions for the agricultural workers, exemptions for a great mass of young men who otherwise would have been called up. Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say?
  Sir F. Maclean: Yes. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we have selective conscription already?
  Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend is far too modest. He is the father of selective service. He is the mother of selective service.
  Mr. Shinwell: I know exactly what my hon. Friend means. He means that there is selective service because a large number are exempted or deferred. I understand that. Even though I may lack education, it is quite possible to
  354
  understand simple matters of that sort. Of course I can. The hon. Gentleman said that he would exempt——
  Sir F. Maclean: As the right hon. Gentleman did.
  Mr. Shinwell: Precisely, as we did. There is nothing new in it. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this kind of conscription is new, if he wants to make a return to the old dog's breakfast we had before——
  Sir F. Maclean: The hon. Member opposite, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), my constituent, asked me whether I would exempt agricultural workers. I said, yes, I would. What harm is there in that? They are exempted already.
  Mr. Shinwell: Of course. The hon. Gentleman is not aware that we had great difficulty about these exemptions and deferments and all the rest of it. There were great personal difficulties because of these exemptions. But I do not want to return to this conscription affair at all. I think that we have had enough of it.
  Sir F. Maclean: Yes.
  Mr. Shinwell: I think that we can manage without it. I will tell hon. Members why. What is the conflict in this Committee? It is a conflict between those who regard themselves as experts and those in the War Office who are the experts. It is as simple as that. Having occupied the distinguished post now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman, having also been Minister of Defence, I understand what happens inside.
  We rely upon the experts. They come along and say that they want a certain number of men, and a discovery which I made long ago was that they always ask for more than they expect to get. That is why I reject what General Hull says, when he talks about 200,000 men. I remember discussing the target for the Territorial Army at the War Office, a good many years ago, which seem very remote today although I still retain vivid memories of some of the incidents there.
  I remember saying to the Director-General of the Territorial Army, and, I think, the Deputy C.I.G.S. and one or two other high-ranking generals, "What is your target for the Territorial Army?"

  355
  I, of course, being innocent. They said that it was 150,000. I thought that the figure was astronomical, but I took their word. Then they came along not long after and said that it was 100,000. I used strong language on that occasion, which they understood thoroughly, but they do not have 100,000 even now. They have, of course, 100,000, when one includes the men on reserve, men who have done their National Service and have to serve in the Territorial Army.
  If I have to choose, I make my choice now. I have the highest respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. I respect his industry, his capacity for research and his use of minutiae and, not only that, I respect him for his excessive loyalty, particularly to myself. I respect the views of those who are sincere in what they say, for example, the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). I was intensely interested in what the hon. and gallant Member said, and I recognise the integrity and sincerity which is the background of what he says.
  It is all right to express views about these matters when one is outside. When one is inside it is a different proposition altogether. General Festing, the C.I.G.S., is a great soldier and, in my judgment, one of the wisest men we have had at the War Office. If the C.I.G.S. and high-ranking generals and members of the Army Council say, in the circumstances, of the figure of 165,000, which is the minimum, that they will make do with it, but that they hope to get more, all the better.
  Now we come to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). He made a most earnest plea to recruit in Jamaica. He has been there. He seems to spend most of his time there. I must say that in spite of my long tenure of office and membership of the House of Commons I do not get the trips that other people get. I do not know why. Perhaps I would not be personna grata to people in other countries. Anyway, my hon. Friend talked about men waiting to be recruited. I gathered that he said that hundreds of them were lined up.
  Let us assume that as a result of intensive recruiting in the Caribbean we
  356
  manage to get 5,000 recruits. Nobody would expect that we would get any more, because, after all, they must reach proper standards, they must undergo medical and intelligence tests, and all the rest. We must remember that some of them are married, and that we should have to consider the provision of married quarters. But suppose we get 5,000. We therefore have a total of 175,000. Where else do we find the men?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East made a most interesting speech, which I enjoyed although I did not care for some of the points he raised. He asked why we did not try to attract men from the Commonwealth. Take Canada —now that is the place to get them. I had better give the Committee the figures. I also arm myself with a little material. These happen to be accurate, because they are straight from the horse's mouth, from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
  Canada, with a population of nearly 18 million, has an army of 48,000, a voluntary military force. If the Canadians have great difficulty in recruiting men, is it likely that Canadians, after the Secretary of State for War has paid a visit to Ottawa, or Montreal, or Quebec—now that is the place are likely to roll up in their thousands? Really, this is too much. It is all right for a parish council, but surely not for the House of Commons.
  Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend no doubt makes a good point very well, but I said, "from certain Commonwealth countries" and, of course, Canada was not one of those countries.
  Mr. Shinwell: All right. I leave Canada. So long Canada; let us go to Australia. We all know the difficulties that are experienced in Australia in recruiting volunteers, and also in New Zealand.
  Mr. Mayhew: The West Indies.
  Mr. Shinwell: I thought that we had left the Caribbean some minutes ago. Very well, let us go back to the West Indies. Even at the best, what if we get 5,000; and I am sure that even my hon. Friend would agree that that would be difficult. Does it make the slightest difference?
  It seems to me, therefore, that for the time being we have to accept, whether we

  357
  like it or not and whether we doubt the accuracy of the figures submitted and the assumptions underlying them, that we must look around for some subsidiaries, some ancillaries, something to help the thing along. I propose to address myself to that point
  Let us look at N.A.T.O., to which I referred in the defence debate but now in the context of the Army. What is the position there? Some of my hon. Friends have talked of scandals here and scandals there, but one scandal is the one that is associated with N.A.T.O. to which I have been directing attention for many years. It is that hardly any other country except the United States pulls its weight alongside the United Kingdom. When one looks at the figures taken from N.A.T.O. statistics one discovers that there is no integrated force there.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will not misunderstand me. I am not speaking of a nuclear force. I reject the nuclear concept entirely. It is not because I do not want this country to be strong or N.A.T.O. to be strong. I am suspicious of the whole idea. I do not think that it is workable, or a deterrent, but I leave that because it has nothing to do with this debate.
  We expect, at any rate, the integration of land forces. General Norstad has under his command 55,000 men from this country, assuming that that is the correct figure. He has under his command some troops from Belgium, some from France and some from Norway and Denmark. But when we weigh it all up, it is not an integrated force. It is not two, three or four army corps under his command or under the command of those subordinate to him.
  These troops are scattered. There is, for example, the Northern Command, which, surprisingly, is not under General Norstad directly. It is under the command of another officer. I am not sure whether he is a Scandinavian officer, but that does not matter very much. Denmark has two-thirds of a brigade group. Where is it sited? Not on the Rhine. It is sited in Schleswig-Holstein. In Norway, there is one division, but it is not at the disposal of General Norstad. It is not stated that, as in the case with French troops, it is at the disposal of N.A.T.O., because, as we know, two French divisions are at the disposal of
  358
  N.A.T.O. There is, of course, a general understanding that in an emergency these troops can be used.
  The time has come when we should say to General Norstad and the N.A.T.O. Council—including both the military and diplomatic sections—that these forces must be integrated. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood spoke of 28 divisions being at the disposal of General Norstad. He is wrong. The figure is 22⅓ divisions.
  Sir J. Smyth: This point arose in the defence debate, when my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) said that General Norstad had told him that his target was 30 divisions and that he already had 28.
  Mr. Shinwell: Since what I have said has been challenged, with respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood I must give him the figures.
  They are for the allied forces in Central Europe, with headquarters in Fontainebleau. It has 21⅓ divisions out of the 30 anticipated by the Supreme Commander. Three of them are from the United Kingdom, and five, plus the equivalent of three armoured brigades, come from the United States. France has two divisions there. She committed four, but two have gone to Algeria. I do not know whether the two she has with N.A.T.O. are up to strength. West Germany has seven divisions with N.A.T.O. and the final commitment is 12. Belgium has three divisions, the Netherlands two, and Canada a brigade. That is the position.
  General Norstad has not got 30 divisions. I wish that he had. I wish, too, that the forces he has got were closely integrated and well knit together, so that, in the event of any difficulty on the Rhine, or in Berlin, they would be able, in a defensive fashion, to resist an assault. That is a matter to which we should address ourselves.
  Let us turn to the question of reserves. I was delighted when it was announced recently that the Secretary of State was to create a new section of the Army Emergency Reserve. I wish that he had set the figure at 30,000 men. But we have not the right to create a reserve unless we pay the men properly. I do not mean that we should pay them like Regulars, but we should pay retainers which would make it worth while for

  359
  them to come forward. I should like to see more men in the reserve.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood mentioned the difficulty I had, as Minister of Defence, over Korea—difficulty which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley knows about, because he was associated with me in that office. We had no brigade which we could call together at once without also calling upon our reserves and extending the length of service of a number of Service men. There was some debate in the House about what we were doing, and some regarded it as improper that we should have to do it. But we had to do it to get the brigade.
  I say to all those concerned in this matter that in an emergency, where we have to rely to a very large extent on the Reserve, these men can be used immediately for overseas service and those at home may, under certain conditions, also come under a proclamation for overseas service.
  Finally, we should make better use of our Territorial Army. It is said that we cannot use the Territorial Army abroad, except in the event of a very serious emergency, but it might well be that difficulties would arise in which the Government wanted a large force at home for domestic purposes. All kinds of considerations arise. Again, it is not fair that we should ask men to volunteer for the Territorial Army without giving them proper retainers and the right kind of training. If we did that, we would feel that we had something behind us if difficulties were to arise.
  My final point is actually the one with which I began. Let us try to explain what we are arguing about, in what context, and in what situation we envisage trouble arising. For instance, if it were limited trouble in Berlin we would not require 165,000 men. We would have to rely on what we had and on the forces at the disposal of General Norstad. I hope that such trouble never arises, but if it does, that is what we shall have to rely on.
  If there were trouble in Malaya, we would fly forces over there—perhaps a brigade from this country. The same applies to the Southern Cameroons. Of course, we might be faced with a global war in the conventional sense, and one
  360
  can imagine such a thing happening, though I believe that such a war, sooner or later would spread to nuclear war. If one had such a war, however, which could be isolated from nuclear war, we would have to use what forces we had at our disposal. To deploy the whole Army is not envisaged in the context of what the Secretary of State has said today.
  I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should go on with his programme of recruitment. He should advertise as much as he can, and should take no notice of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East, who would have him advertise only on the B.B.C. and shun commercial advertising. Let him advertise wherever he can, and as cheaply as he can. Let him hold exhibitions and demonstrations. Get the Highlanders with their bagpipes marching into the City of London in order to attract men. And if, at the end of the day, he cannot get more than 165,000 men, then let him make the most of it.
  Let him pay no attention to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire and—I say this with the utmost reluctance; indeed, I hate to say it—let him pay no attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley went too far when he said that he would do all that he could to help recruiting. Not me! I will do nothing to retard it, but if men do not have the sense to join the Army, no eloquence which I can use would induce them to do so. I will not retard recruitment because I want conventional forces, because, with many of my hon. Friends and with many people in the country, I want to resist the onward march of the horror of that detestable apparatus the nuclear weapon.
  8.29 p.m.
  Sir Richard Glyn: I am very happy to follow the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), because I sincerely agreed with much of what he said, not least when he congratulated my right hon. Friend on what I thought was a most interesting and comprehensive introduction to the debate. I join with the right hon. Gentleman in appreciating the constructive remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). I am one of those who entirely welcome the Government's decision to go all out to get a wholly volunteer

  361
  Regular Army. I will give my reasons later, but, basically, I believe that there are enormous advantages in a wholly volunteer Regular Army, not only to the Army itself, as I shall show, but to the nation as a whole.
  I have great regard for what National Service men have done—they have done magnificently—but in spite of that I believe that conscription has gone on for too long and should be brought to a close as soon as possible, in other words, now. I believe that the Government have every chance of obtaining their targets. The Army is now an attractive career with better pay and conditions, improved terms of service, the prospect of a pension and seeing the world, and every advantage to an adventurous young man.
  The conditions of a recruit entering the Army today are very different from what they were perhaps ten years ago. In the old days, we used to hear a tremendous amount about spud peeling and square bashing, and some people thought that that was all there was in the Army. I am happy to say that nearly all military spuds are now peeled by machinery and that squares are mainly left unbashed. The task before my right hon. Friend is to make those facts more widely known.
  I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about a recruiting drive and I agree with the right hon. Member for Easing-ton about the necessity for intense publicity, using all modern methods. We need full use of contemporary methods of publicity to attract the young man of today into the modern Army. Once we have him and get him settled down, I think that he will enjoy it and become the best recruiting sergeant we have. There is no better way of attracting recruits than the recommendation of a happy recruit, and that is what we have to go for.
  I am glad to know that the experimental television advertising has been successful in the limited tests which have been made. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East referred to the demonstration of T.V. film shown here recently. He was too modest to mention that he was a sponsor of that demonstration, as I was and as the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) was. Everyone who saw that demonstration was impressed by it.
  362
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will press on with this campaign of television advertising backed by posters and other advertising which has been so successful to the limited extent to which it has been tried. This is most important and it is the right way to set about getting the right number of men.
  Another factor which has not been mentioned very much is that the normal engagement is now for a minimum period of six years with the Colours, followed by twelve years in the Reserve. That is more than double the obligation of a few years ago, when it was three years with the Colours and four years with the Reserve. Every recruit we get today, therefore, is in the Army for at least six years and possibly nine or twelve. and so these recruiting figures today are worth very much more than the same figures would have been worth a few years ago. That is another reason why there is every hope that the target will be reached.
  If we press on with this contemporary advertising I believe that we shall reach, first, 165,000 after about two years and then 182,000—which has been given as a ceiling—after a few more years. I hope that we shall then be in the happy position of being able to be selective about Army recruiting. That is an objective which the Government have set themselves, because if we can become selective in an all-volunteer Regular Army, we can reasonably hope eventually to obtain the very high standard which was achieved before 1914.
  We all know that the Army of those days plainly proved that quality was very much more important than mere quantity and that a reasonably-sized Regular Army of volunteers who were highly trained and picked men was worth very much more than a larger number of people who were not quite so good. That is what I think we ought to aim at.
  Personally, I greatly hope that no form of selective service will be introduced into this country. If it happens, as it may, that we do not reach the target set, a number of other steps may be taken, such as more Gurkhas or, perhaps, forces raised in the Colonies, but I hope that we shall not go back, for I should regard it as a retrograde step, to a further extension of conscription. I hope we shall not do it, because it is inefficient

  363
  in the Army. We find in the Army that a recruit—I say nothing against them because everyone has to have a start—is not of full value in his unit until he has been in the Army for six or nine months. In the case of a National Service man with an eighteen months' liability for for service, that means one-third or half of his total Army career. If we are enlisting people for six or nine years, their period of recruit training is a tiny fraction of it. That is another reason for saying that it is very much better to go for volunteers.
  At present, I understand, we have 28,000 all ranks employed as E.R.E. and something like 36,000 in the various pipelines and mainly associated with National Service, which gives us over 64,000 men. My information is that, after 1963, if National Service ends, the numbers in the pipelines will be reduced by nearly 20,000, and the numbers in E.R.E. will also show a considerable reduction, and there may be a saving of no less than 25,000 men in this way.
  In the defence debate the Minister indicated that there would be shortages in certain categories, and he mentioned drivers and sick bay attendants. I take leave to think that there may be shortages in a wider group of categories. There are so very many technicians and specialists in the Army now. I myself served for many years in the Territorial Army in a yeomanry regiment which has now become gunners, and, looking through the present establishment, I was interested to see that in a modern gunner regiment, there are 110 signallers of whom about 80 have to be qualified as driver operators, quite a difficult qualification to obtain. There are another 70 drivers of whom about 10 also have to be able to ride motor-cycles. Altogether, the technicians and specialists of different kinds come to well over 250 in a gunner regiment, and there may be shortages in all these categories.
  I hope that these shortages will be met by training up soldiers and not by any idea of what has been described as selective service. I do not quite know how we should use selective service in this case. We could have a lottery among the age group for call-up, but I think the disadvantages of that have already been pointed out. I hope it will never be suggested that we should try
  364
  to call up prospective sick-berth attendants by putting an extra line on the form on which people could state whether they thought they were suitable for that task. I have heard it suggested, not in this House, that if there were shortages of officers, potential officers could be found in this way. I think one has only to make the suggestion to see what nonsense it is, and I think that if any sort of conscription had to return, which I believe would be most unfortunate, there would have to be some sort of lottery, which would be most objectionable on a great number of grounds. It would also be objectionable on the grounds of conscience to many people, so that we must find a better way, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will do so.
  I should like to say a word or two about wastage, which at present is very much too high. I think that it is perhaps the worst feature of the present position. We have been told that over 20 per cent. of the Regular intake of people without previous service leave in three months, and that two out of three of these leave by purchase. It is a difficulty, because within three months men have a statutory right to buy themselves out for £20. After three months, they can only leave by consent and for a very much higher sum. It has been suggested that these arrangements should be changed so that no one should be allowed to buy himself out in the first three months, and that perhaps the right to buy himself at a lower figure should be extended from the third to the fifth month.
  I think that something on those lines should be tried, because in a short period the average recruit is not sure that he likes the Army. At the end of eight or ten weeks, having finished his recruit training, he may go to a unit where he finds something which is not quite as he wishes, and he thinks to himself, "I must get out now. If I wait for a few weeks, instead of having the right to go for £20 I shall have to apply for permission, and pay £250". So he goes, whereas if he had stayed in until he had settled down he would probably have wanted to stay on. I hope that something on the lines I have suggested can be arranged.
  Another point is that the wastage is uneven. Inquiries have shown me that in

  365
  two infantry brigades the comparable wastages over three months have been 33 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively. This difference is so marked that I cannot help feeling that the point should be looked into.
  Having said all this, I would point out that the reduction in the strength of our Regular forces to 180,000 men means a very big drop, and this throws into prominence the importance of our Reserve Army. A certain amount has been said about the Territorial Army, in which I served for a long time and with which I am still associated, and I want to add a few comments, beginning with the statement that our Territorial Army is recognised by all our allies as the best and the cheapest reserve army in N.A.T.O. This is worth stressing, because some of our own people are not very well-informed about it.
  The right hon. Member for Easington said that we should give the Territorial Army a better retaining fee and the right kind of training. No Territorial would refuse the offer of a better retaining fee, but I resist the suggestion that they are not having the right type of training. I believe that it is the right type. We might have a little more of it, but the way to do that is to pay rather more. That is another point which could be considered by my right hon. Friend, especially in view of the proposition that I now wish to put to him.
  This reduction in our Regular Army means that it will be largely dependent upon our Territorial Army if another major emergency occurs. We hone that it will not, but we must prepare for that eventuality. It is no new thing for the Regular Army to have to call upon its Territorial Army. In the Boer War the Imperial Yeomanry was called upon to raise 10,000 men. It was done extremely successfully, and I want to explain how it was done, because this method could be used again.
  Each regiment was called upon to produce a sub-unit of volunteers. This was effected very quickly and successfully. Many people—officers, sergeants and other N.C.O.s of all kinds—were so keen to get into this active contingent that they volunteered to drop in rank, and in my regiment—the Queen's Own Dorset Yeomanry—we had some exciting scenes, with fairly senior officers
  366
  competing to get into the volunteer subunit. Eventually we managed to get hold of some Colt machine-guns and "galloping carriages", which were pretty new at the turn of the century. We got permission to take them out. They were to be put under the command of a subaltern, and in the end we had a lieutenant-colonel acting as a subaltern on the machine-guns. That is an example of the keenness which was shown at the time, which I have no doubt would be repeated if the same situation arose again.
  Just after the Boer War the Territorial Army was formed, and almost at once its numbers exceeded the number of troops in the Regular Army. At the beginning of both the Kaiser war and the Hitler war there were actually more men in the Territorial Army than in the Regular Army. It is interesting to notice that in these Estimates the ceiling figure given for the Territorial Army is 260,000 which is, of course, comfortably above the maximum limit given for the Regular Army. I wish I could say that the T.A. was anywhere near that strength. Unfortunately, it is not, partly because it has undergone a lot of reorganisation since it was re-formed in 1947. Reorganisation leads to disorganisation and a great number of senior N.C.O.s and warrant officers have had to leave because of the changes in the age limit. The strength is lower now than it was a little time ago, but I hope that it will soon pick up again.
  Another point of some importance, bearing in mind the rôle of the Territorial Army put forward in the Estimates, is the fact that in a time of national emergency it is much easier to expand the Territorial Army than the Regular Army. Between 1936 and 1938 both had to expand. It is a matter of history that the total expansion for both Armies in those two years was 46,000, of which the figures showed 1,000 in the Regular Army and 45,000 in the Territorial Army. I think those are rather striking figures.
  We have to consider the rôle which the Territorial Army might play in the event of an emergency, and in the Estimates we are given several suggested rôles including, very properly, the reinforcement of the Regular Army in units or by individual reinforcements, especially the Army of the Rhine. This

  367
  is an interesting proposition. During the defence debate we were told that at least two brigades of the Army of the Rhine were on short notice to be used in an emergency and I wonder from where they would be replaced if they had to be used. It occurs to me that if this happened we might in certain circumstances be forced, as was said by the right hon. Member for Easington, to call up part of the Territorial Army, not just as units but as brigade groups, and use them to replace the brigades flown out to deal with any emergency. That is a possible use for the Territorial Army.
  The right hon. Member for Easington said he thought this employment would be unfair on the Territorials, but I disagree. I think that the Territorial Army would gladly accept this added commitment. It would be necessary, I think, to earmark certain formations for this duty. It is no longer a secret that there was a time when two divisions of the Territorial Army were under notice for quick mobilisation, and what was done then could be done again. It would be perfectly feasible to have five or six brigade groups, as in the new organisation, ready for quick mobilisation. It might be necessary to top up some of the units, but that would depend on when it happened. But they are recruiting up pretty well and soon we shall have a reserve which could play such a part as that if it became necessary to do so.
  I have already told the Committee about what was done during the Boer War. If we were to experience what has been described as a brush fire; if we had more than one emergency cropping up at the same time, something in the nature—which heaven forbid—of another Mau Mau emergency at the same time as another Korea; if there occurred a situation where the Regular Army was stretched and there was something like the Mau Mau emergency—possibly an overflow of the Congo emergency into areas for which we were responsible—and if we had, roughly speaking, a second-class enemy and the Regular Army was hard put to find men to deal with it, I believe that Territorial Army units could be called on to find volunteer sub-units as was done at the time of the Boer War. I think it would gladly rise to the occasion
  368
  in the event of a national emergency of that kind. These units could be organised very quickly and would be capable of dealing with what I described as a Mau Mau emergency or something of that kind.
  A further rôle of the Territorial Army is to aid the civil power in this country. It is well equipped to do that. In many cases it is well advanced in third echelon training for help in Civil Defence, but here I think that the time has come when my right hon. Friend should consider issuing an official pamphlet or official guidance as to exactly where its responsibilities begin and end and how they could best be carried out. A good deal of this training has been done, but I consider that it is rather patchy. Different Commands have slightly different ideas, and I think it is high time the whole affair was co-ordinated by means of War Office pamphlets, and I should like my right hon. Friend to say that something on these lines will be done.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Gentleman is making a reasoned speech, but does what he has been saying come under the terms of the conditions of service?
  Sir R. Glyn: No, only by enlarging the conditions of service. If it were necessary for part of the Territorial Army to be sent abroad quickly, before it was officially embodied, an Act of Parliament would be required. I understand that the Territorial Army cannot, under present commitments, be sent abroad until it has been embodied by Act of Parliament, and in the event of Parliament being in Recess that would cause a substantial delay. It would mean a slight change in the present law, but in my view the extra commitment would be gladly accepted by the Territorial Army for use in a time of national emergency.
  The Territorial Army has a rôle to help the Regular Army in the defence of this country, and if it were embodied for a short time and had the opportunity of getting together with the Regular Army I think that it could relieve the Regular Army of the responsibility of defending this country against any conventional assault. At the time of the fall of France the only formation left in this country was one T.A. division, which was pushed

  369
  down to Kent. It may be as well that, thanks to our Air Force and Navy, it did not have to meet an invasion, but it was prepared and ready to do so, and, of course, in the other circumstances it would not be a case of one division but of many, and after a time they could relieve the Regular Army of this important duty.
  Whether one is thinking in terms of a Regular Army or of a Territorial Army, I am convinced that in dealing with an emergency—what has been described as a brush fire—the real need is for speed, and for speed thought of in terms of hours and not days. I am sure that a battalion available at lunchtime on Monday is very much better than a brigade ready on Wednesday evening, or a brigade group ready some time on Saturday night. In terms of squashing an emergency all experience shows that to be the case.
  We have been told that two brigades are ready at 48 hours' notice. I wonder what that means. Does it mean 48 hours' notice to move, or 48 hours' notice to be airborne? What does it mean? I should like to know that we had one or two battalions ready at all times at 12 hours' notice to be in the air. I am not talking about them being fully equipped, but ready with light battalion weapons. Transport Command could do that. It would mean battalions taking it in turns to be at six hours' notice to embus from the battalion area. A battalion which could be in the air in 12 hours would be of tremendous use as a fire extinguisher to get to an incident before it got too bad. I believe that a battalion arriving really early would be very much better than a brigade arriving two or three days later.
  I should like to make one reference to the suggestion that has been made that the training in the British Army of the Rhine, and perhaps elsewhere, is wrong because it is limited to nuclear training. That suggestion has been made by several hon. Members. I can claim a little experience of this. I shall not bore the Committee with my personal experience, but training for what one might describe as war with only tactical nuclear weapons involves training in which both sides might use tactical nuclear weapons. That is not easier than training for conventional war but very much more difficult. One has to arrange
  370
  the business so that one never presents a tactical nuclear target to the other side.
  Far from saying that it is easier than training for conventional war, I should say that training for the use of tactical nuclear weapons is not like playing auction bridge but rather like playing contract bridge. It is very much more difficult and the penalties at stake are very much greater. It is wrong to say that training for war in which tactical weapons may be used is in any way easier than training for war with conventional weapons. It is the same sort of thing, but it is much more difficult. I put that forward as a personal opinion.
  We have heard a little about new equipment and that is most important. We must have it and we must see that the Territorial Army has it. I welcome the steps which have been taken. I wonder, however, whether the new equipment planned covers every need. We hear a lot about offensive weapons and I believe that in a future war—we should always think in terms of the next war rather than the last—each unit would he covering a very much wider front than was covered in the last war. Each unit and formation would be responsible for a much wider front. In defence that means that fewer men would be available to dig defensive positions which would need to be dug.
  Digging is the key to defence both against tactical nuclear weapons and conventional weapons. I wonder if we pay enough attention to this. I may make my point by a short and possibly apocryphal story. There hangs in a Committee Room upstairs a picture representing the burial of a general after battle. One cannot see the figures in the background very clearly because the Office of Works has not cleaned the picture recently, but if one looks right into the detail at the back of the scene one sees the men detailed to dig the grave. They have implements which are almost exactly the same as those which are used today. At least that is what they would be if the historic details are correct. The picture represents a scene of 895 years ago, after the Battle of Hastings, but today the British Army is using exactly the same implements for digging as it did then. Now it is not a question of burying dead generals but of

  371
  protecting live soldiers, which is more important.
  In every other organisation concerned with digging any substantial works or moving any substantial amount of earth, there is a great deal of mechanisation. The horsepower in a British division is enough for a great deal of mechanical aids to digging to be used. There could be power take-off fitted to jeeps and compressors to work pneumatic drills. There would be a great advantage in having some mechanised digging apparatus in the new Army. I think the modern Army ought to have modern contemporary methods of digging as well as modern methods of attack. I hope the suggestion will be seriously considered because I believe it worth going into. I should like to hear about that when my right hon. Friend winds up the debate.
  In spite of the temptation which has been dangled before him from both sides of the Committee, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not return to what I think would be a retrograde step, any form of conscription. I hope he will succeed with the aid of modern advertising in his drive for a full Regular Army of volunteers.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: I am sorry that the Secretary of State for War is not present, because the first thing I wish to say is that he made the best presentation of the Army Estimates I have heard in the Chamber. He oozed with confidence. He painted a bright picture of the modern young soldier. He delivered his speech with force and a good deal of sincerity. He obviously impressed the House a great deal. He impresed me so much that I nearly raced from the Chamber to the first recruiting office to don khaki. But I have a story to tell about the problems of West Germany which make me believe that the picture is very different from the one he painted. I shall deal with that later in my speech.
  The Army Memorandum is devoid of many of the major details which we should be fully conversant with if we are to discuss Army matters fully. It appears from Appendix VI at page 238 of the Estimates that £18,975,000 is provided for research, experiment, design and de-
  372
  velopment. Subtracting the £3 million which go towards industry, colleges, universities, etc., it leaves nearly £16 million which goes to our two major research establishments. They are the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment and the Micro-Biological Establishment at Porton.
  As we are spending £16 million on the development of nerve gases and bacteriological weapons, there should be at least some reference in the Army Memorandum to this aspect of warfare. Much as we may talk about the dangers of atomic and hydrogen bombs, at the Micro-Biological Establishment weapons more horrific than atom bombs are being developed, namely, bacteriological weapons.
  We should also be conversant with the extent to which are developing nerve gases at the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment. The Americans and the Russians are going into this on a grand scale. We have obviously spent a lot of money on it. In the statement presented every year on the Estimates we Should be told of the extent to which we are producing a different type of weapon which in a decade may make atom and hydrogen bombs obsolete. Nerve gases may reduce whole populations to a state of semi-paralysis so That troops will be able to move in comfortably and easily, without the country being devastated to the extent that atom and hydrogen bombs would devastate it.
  Two aspects have already been referred to. First, there is the problem of the Territorial Army. The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) and the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) referred to this. Secondly, there is the problem of the West German supply depots. There should be some reference in the Army Memorandum to that. To what extent will British troops be working and manoeuvring in this country with German troops? To what extent will the Geman units be storage bases or supply depots? Will manoeuvres be held in this country by West German forces? We should be more fully informed in the Estimates about what part is to be played by the West German forces.
  I am not one of those who oppose them. If they are supply depots, which

  373
  I think they should be, I do not oppose them. I recognise that there is the problem in West Germany of having supply depots near the front. Being in an alliance it is far better to have supply depots in countries in the rear. We are one of the allied members and there is no reason why we should not have some of the supply depots here. On this score we are treating the West Germans democratically. Since the war we have tried to democratise West Germany.
  Mr. K. Zilliacus: And to re-militarise it.
  Mr. Mason: I should not oppose young people of 20 or 21 years of age coming to supply depots. I should oppose bringing into this country ex-Nazi officers to be in charge. I should be very much against that. I should be very much against manoeuvres in the country itself, but I would not be opposed to Germans, if they are young, coming in to man supply depots. We ought to be quite clear about these matters, especially when there are many Members who are opposing a race or a nation and not really opposing what was an "ism" which existed sixteen years ago. If the Minister would do his best to make these things clear, he might perhaps find a great deal more support than he has had hitherto.
  There have been references to the Territorial Army, but there is nothing in the Memorandum about it. I cannot, of course, match the experience, understanding and knowledge of the Territorial Army possessed by the hon. Member for Dorset, North. A White Paper was presented to the House a few months ago which dealt with the future of the Territorial Army. I thought that the line of approach of the hon. Member for Dorset, North was that it should be trained almost like an Army Emergency Reserve of the Army itself, but, of course, the Territorial Army is changing rapidly in its new rôle. It is now gradually taking a civil defence rôle. I think this is quite right. I have pressed for it to be done for some time, and I am pleased that the Territorial Army will have more of such work to do. In a country like ours, if there were a nuclear explosion it would not be possible for civil defence as at this moment organised to be able to cope with the resulting situation. Civilians under civilian control could
  374
  not manage to deal with a panic-stricken body of people fleeing from a nuclear holocaust. We should need military discipline and people trained from the military point of view to go in and rescue and salvage what they could.
  As I say, there is no reference at all to the Territorial Army in the Memorandum. We do not know exactly what future is planned for it, to what extent the recruiting campaign is succeeding and whether it is intended gradually to give it more civil defence tasks.
  Two years ago, a White Paper was laid before the House, Cmnd. 537, the text of an agreement for Co-operation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes between the United Kingdom and the United States. Article II provides:
  "Each Party will communicate to or exchange with the other Party such classified information as is jointly determined to be necessary to: (1) the development of defence plans; (2) the training of personnel in the employment of and defence against atomic weapons and other military applications of atomic energy; (3) the evaluation of the capabilities of potential enemies in the employment of atomic weapons and other military applications of atomic energy."
  Then it goes on to deal with delivery systems and the extent to which both countries can work together.
  The Minister said that there was to be great emphasis laid now on taking our young recruits to the modern Army into spheres abroad, making the life exciting, laying stress on the opportunities for travel, and so forth, in order to encourage recruitment. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Canada as an instance. Here we have an agreement with America which has been in existence for two years, which has been subject to no debate in the House, which has been rarely the subject of questions, and to which there has been no reference at all in defence debates or debates on the Army Estimates, yet under this agreement we could be doing training in tactical atomic weapons in America. Why has there been no reference to such things?
  I come now to what must be the major point in what I have to say. I should like to talk about our strategy in Western Europe, the extent to which N.A.T.O. is effective, and so forth, but I feel so strongly on this other matter and the way it affects recruiting and the lives of some

  375
  of my constituents that I am obliged on this occasion to devote all my attention to it.
  The Minister referred to seven priorities, seven new points, which he thought might enable him to obtain the recruits he requires. The fifth point related to the uniting of families, the bringing of families together in areas where the Service man is serving. There are still many couples being misled about this, young couples who jointly agree that Ole man shall go into the forces and as soon as possible the young woman will be able to join him in Malaya, Singapore, or wherever it may be. They go to the recruiting office and they are misled on this very important matter into thinking that they will easily be able to go out together to the Service stations abroad, that accommodation will be easily found and that there will be no problems about travel.
  I gave the Minister a case in my constituency 18 months ago. A young man joined up and after his initial training went to Malaya. His wife had been so misled that she took steps to be inoculated and vaccinated and was ready to travel abroad. It was then found that because he was under 21 it was not possible for them to be together. We therefore had a broken heart at home and a very disappointed soldier abroad. I explained to the Minister, and I emphasise it now, that he should have available at every recruiting office a leaflet explaining, particularly for the benefit of young couples, exactly what they can expect by way of accommodation and travel and giving ideas about conditions in Aden, Singapore, Malaya and West Germany, what are the possibilities for them to be accommodated together and how long they will be separated.
  We should be prepared to consider relaxing the regulation governing people under 21 being joined together. Many young men in the Army are married at 20 and are anxious that their wives should join them. Even when they can find accommodation they are debarred from being together. The Minister should be prepared to relax this regulation on many occasions.
  I went to the appropriate place and obtained all the recruiting pamphlets I possibly could. I have a brilliant glossy
  376
  magazine called "Soldiers of the Queen". I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) also has a copy, and no doubt he will use it in the debate. It has 40 pages, yet in the whole of it there are only two paragraphs, on the last page, dealing with life in the Army, one entitled "Married Quarters" and the other "Movement of families". The paragraph entitled "Married Quarters" reads:
  "A married Regular soldier, if over 21 years and eligible for marriage allowance, is entitled to apply for a furnished quarter for his wife and family."
  It sounds easy and as though accommodation is available.
  "Married quarters are being completed as rapidly as possible in all permanent stations and much progress has been made during the last few years."
  That does not lead people to believe that they will not be able to get together.
  The other paragraph states:
  "When a Regular soldier who is over 21 years old is posted to a new duty station his wife and family are eligible for free conveyance to his new station, if accommodation is available, or to a selected place of residence elsewhere, if accommodation cannot be provided. Financial assistance, in the form of a Disturbance Allowance is paid in respect of the majority of such moves."
  In West Germany this disturbance allowance is known as the "marriage wreck" allowance, because on almost all occasions on which it has been paid it was paid because relations between man and wife were of such a strained nature that many wives were leaving their husbands.
  In the Army Memorandum, this point is dealt with in paragraph 46, "Life in the Army today," which states:
  "No amount of publicity, however well directed, will bring in the recruits we need unless conditions in the Army are acceptable. It is the man or woman already serving who can make the most telling contribution to our recruiting figures."
  It goes on to refer to comfortable and modern accommodation and, above all, to the well-being of the soldier's family. I intend to go into detail on this and to point out to the Minister that that is precisely what the Army has not been doing. It has not been thinking sufficiently about accommodation and the well-being of the soldier's family.

  377
  I have a letter which has been in the Minister's possession dated 10th October, 1960, which states:
  "I wonder if you could be of any assistance to my son and his wife. He is a Regular soldier stationed in Germany where he has been since last February "—
  that is, February, 1960.
  "With the War Office sanction his wife and child joined him on 2nd May. They were not granted Army married quarters but he found accommodation in a hotel which was supposed to he temporary until quarters were available. This accommodation was only for sleeping and it meant his wife having to go and take their son. at that time aged 13 months, a matter of approximately three miles to another soldier's home for their meals. This carried on every day for four months. Then my son managed to obtain a so-called flat, the description of which you will read in the enclosed letter."
  This is the note from the daughter writing home to her parents in my constituency:
  "I suppose you think we are living in a house. Well, we are not. You would not let me tell you about this place before, but now I can write and tell you about it.…There are a lot of families living here and we all have one room each. In this room I have to wash, cook, live and sleep and the chap won't let us have a cooker with an oven. All we can have is a two-ringed effort and that means that we cannot have any roast meat or a jolly good dinner or anything like that which is nice. We have to have everything boiled, fried or steamed and believe me, it is murder."
  I took up the matter with the Minister, including a lot more that was said in the letter. He replied:
  "I should explain that there is, unfortunately, a shortage of married quarters in Germany and those available are allocated in accordance with a system of points.… I am afraid that he is unlikely to be allotted a quarter in less than seven to nine months."
  This soldier, his wife and one child—and another is expected—are living in a one-roomed flat. The wife went out with the sanction of the War Office in May, 1960. The Minister says that it will be another seven to nine months before they can receive any accommodation, which means that they will have been sixteen months in the conditions as I have described them before they can get any decent living accommodation. This is deplorable.
  Within a week, I had another case, which I passed on to the Minister. I propose to deal with it in similar detail.
  I quote:
  "I am writing on behalf of myself and family to see if you can help me in any way possible. I am the wife of a Regular soldier
  378
  serving with the 10th Royal Hussars stationed in Germany who, in my opinion, has been knocked around from pillar to post, since rejoining the regiment from his previous station as regards quarters. We have been promised married quarters numerous times by so-called reliable sources, the first time being August, 1959, then April, May, June, July and September, 1960, and now we have been told we will have to wait fifteen months for Army quarters.… My husband has done eight years with the 10th Royal Hussars.… We have been in six private accommodations since arriving in Germany, the last one being hotel accommodation which the Army found for us, being one small room where me, my husband and two children had to sleep in one double bed. We had to eat, sleep and cook in this room. We were told we would be six to eight weeks in this hotel, then we would have a quarter, but we were there seventeen weeks.… I find I can no longer put up with it as my nerves are just about finished. My two children are very unsettled at being moved around so much. One must agree that this is not a very good life for me and my children moving from one accommodation to the other. It has got that bad that I am seriously thinking of leaving my husband.…I had to write to somebody who, I hope, can help me out in any way possible."
  Again, I took up the case with the Minister. He replied in exactly the same Civil Service jargon, stating:
  "I fully realise that there is, unfortunately, a shortage of quarters in Germany and I have every sympathy with your constituent's desire to be with her husband."
  This is ridiculous. I have case after case, and I propose to deal with them, because, contrary to what the Minister says about how the Department will tackle the problem, this is the one feature which is harming recruiting. Women are leaving their husbands, coming back home and spreading despondency. Morale is low in West Germany.
  One family has been out there since August, 1959, hoping for quarters. The husband, a Regular man, has already served eight years. There is no housing accommodation yet in sight for this family. I mentioned the case to the Minister last week at Question Time. The husband got to know that his wife had written to me. She then had to send a letter to her mother at home in Barnsley pleading with her. Then the mother came to see me, pleading with me to get it stopped. "Mr. Mason" she said, "stop the investigation. Stop the inquiry. My son is in trouble. The military policemen are harassing him. He is getting into trouble over every small detail. Please stop the inquiry. He cannot write. He dare not."

  379
  Now the Minister said, "Give me specific details." Well, of course, this is a vicious circle, and he knows it. If I give the details of the soldier what would happen would be that it would go back to the officer commanding, he would tell the military policemen they had been going too far, the policemen would say, All right then, the first time we can get hold of Jack we will teach him a lesson." I deplore this very much, and I hope that the Minister will do something about it.
  I have another letter here. I have had lots of letters which have been pouring in since we raised the question last week of the Army accommodation. There are still families in West Germany not yet living in Service accommodation. This letter says:
  "I too am an Army wife, aged 21, and the mother of two young children. We too live in a so-called hotel, but in another garrison town of Munster… We have one large bed and a cot…We have a table and two wooden-seated chairs, a wardrobe, two bedside tables, a bare wooden floor, not forgetting the two orange boxes which the hotel provided to store my crockery. We have a sink which leaks, no hot water; incidentally, no heat of any kind for the past six weeks.… Guests downstairs come up to use our toilet, already shared by nine families. A bath costs 4s. 2d. Quote, 'Join the Army and see the world'—to live in these conditions. Never again."
  All these are examples, and they are all flowing from one place. They are all in West Germany.
  I have another one:
  "The unit with which my husband is serving is shortly to remove to Dortmund, and has been allocated only a few married quarters —it is believed about 30–40. As there are well over 200 married personnel serving with the unit, of which some 130–140 are at present occupying quarters, there will inevitably be considerable hardship imposed on those separated families. My own case is that I have five children whose ages range from 2 to 8…I shall be required to live in an hotel until… my husband is allocated a quarter in Germany or finds suitable alternative accommodation.… I shall have the use of only two rooms and shall be under constant mental strain in trying to keep my children amused and occupied without their making excessive noise when the weather is inclement, or walking the streets with them when it is fine, as normal boarding house rules are invariably imposed. As there is already an acute shortage of quarters in the Dortmund area I feel I shall be lucky indeed to get a quarter there during the minimum three-year tour.… This is all contrary to the advertisements for Regular recruiting, which almost guarantees accommodation on the duty station.
  380
  To the wives of any prospective Regular soldiers I would say 'think twice '. To my husband I say, 'Get out as quickly as possible —or else I shall leave you '."
  These are only a few of the letters which have been pouring out during the last few weeks. I have another from a lady here who has left her husband, who has been out with him for six months and did not get proper accommodation and who lost 2 stones in weight and who is now contemplating getting a divorce. She says:
  "I wish I had written three weeks ago, perhaps my kids would still have had a dad in the flesh and not a piece of notepaper."
  The right hon. Gentleman comes here painting a bright picture about the life of soldiers in the future, but these are the conditions now, and he has given no indication today that he will solve this housing problem in West Germany. Indeed, the Estimates do not show that there is much increase in the Vote for accommodation in West Germany itself. They show an increase in the Vote for housing here in this country, and there is certainly an increase abroad, but that does not indicate how much money will be spent in West Germany to solve this problem.
  I noticed that after I raised this question with the Minister a Sunday newspaper, the News of the World, had a look at this, in one place, Minden, in West Germany. Following the investigations the War Office had to issue an instruction to the hotel to stop any more leasing of accommodation. There were too many families living in one-room flats in this hotel and there are 100 families already in that area and there is a waiting list of 150 families in Britain waiting to go out.
  This newspaper article refers to far more cases than I have mentioned, where wives are leaving their husbands and advising them to get out of the Army as quickly as possible. This is a shocking state of affairs. These are disgusting conditions. Neither the Minister nor his Under-Secretary is present at the moment, but I am obliged to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty who is on the Front Bench opposite. I hope that he takes copious notes.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): Four pages so far.
  Mr. Mason: These conditions 16 years after the war still exist in West Germany.
  Sir Eric Errington: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 71 of the Memorandum on the Army Estimates dealing with married quarters in Germany.
  Mr. Mason: Yes, I have seen it. I ask the hon. Member not to take notice merely of a glib phrase about the shortage of married quarters to be reduced"
  "by hiring more specially built blocks of flats from German contractors."
  That seems to me a cheap way of doing it. We are not spending money there. We are going to allow the German landlord to exploit the British Tommy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But it is happening, and very much so. All the conditions that I have been talking about in these hotels are conditions prevailing under German landlords. These places where there is no light, no heating and people cook on two-ring cookers are under German landlords, and people pay fantastic rents for these flats.
  I want the Army Estimates checked in detail to find out how much money will be spent in West Germany during the current year over and above the sum spent in the previous year on solving this problem of housing. A crash programme is required immediately. The Minister mentioned caravans and I was pleased to hear him. A caravan scheme quickly introduced might help. First, the right hon. Gentleman must try to satisfy all those who are enduring these bad conditions in Germany, those who are waiting at home to join their families, and those who have been driven out of Germany hack home because they could not stand the shocking conditions there.
  The right hon. Gentleman must also recognise that Germany is a home base, which means that the Regular soldier having served in Singapore or Malaya can be returned not to the United Kingdom but to Germany. It is true that it is easy for wives and families to go over to Germany. The distance is not great and they must be tempted to do this. It, of course, aggravates the problem, but the War Office should have foreseen it and should not have allowed conditions to deteriorate to this extent.
  There is obvious exploitation by landlords which is proving costly not only to the War Office and the Exchequer but to all of us as taxpayers. I do not know
  382
  to what extent the revaluation of the Deutschmark has been considered. It might cost us an extra £3 million to keep our troops over there and this might wipe out the finances that have probably been allocated towards solving the accommodation problem.
  My point is that something must be done quickly to restore heart to our troops in West Germany, because undoubtedly all the letters that I have quoted prove that morale is low. Unless we solve these problems we shall have a very dishearted force out there. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will be able to give more definite information that this problem will be solved and solved quickly.
  9.30 p.m.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: I venture to speak in this debate since retired colonels tend to do so, and I am proud to be one of their number. I hope to speak at less length than other hon. and gallant Members who had best remain nameless. I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) will forgive me for not following his speech, but, happily, my own experience of the Army, and the experience of many correspondents I have who are still in the Army, is less unfortunate than the picture he suggested.
  I should like to confine my remarks to that part of the Army with which I am most familiar, and in that connection I specially welcome any encouragement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to the Women's Royal Army Corps, which is, happily, now established as a Regular Corps of the Army.
  I want to recall the memory of the Committee to the reason for women in the Army. It was because, in two wars, there was a grave shortage of manpower, and it is relevant today to put that point when considering the Army Estimates. It is also, perhaps, well to remember that during the Second World War about 250,000 women served in the Army—a force rather larger than the Army we are discussing today. It is also relevant to note, when there is considerable question about whether there should be 165,000 or 180,000 in the Army, that the W.R.A.C. is providing, in its Regular force as shown in Vote I, about 5,000

  383
  people, and, in its Territorial force, as shown in Vote 2, about 7,000.
  That is no mean contribution to the Armed Forces at the present time, as hon. Members will agree. It is interesting to note that in the Defence White Paper the numbers of women in the Army were not included in the overall figures of the Army. I can only conclude that they are aligned with the secret weapons of the Minister, and are kept out of the overall total.
  Our main consideration, in looking at the Estimates, must be twofold. First the effective usefulness of women in the Army, and, therefore, the consideration of the cost must be in relation to their contribution. This is the point I want to make, because it is well to remember that the time, happily, has passed when women were considered as a sort of chorus attached to the Army. It is now generally accepted that those who wish to belong to such a body are best left outside the barrack gates.
  For those women who wish to serve in the Army, and who are likely to prove successful at the job, there is a first-rate career in the W.R.A.C. but as my right hon. Friend spoke of making an additional appeal to women, I should like to caution him to the extent of suggesting that in my opinion and experience a tendency to too many frills—if I may say so—in uniform or accommodation can be over-emphasised.
  Those women who are likely to be successful soldiers are likely to be in the Army because they wish to do the job and do it well as members of the whole Army. This is not to say that women soldiers need necessarily be tough, and I am, perhaps, not the one to judge what has happened to those who have spent some six years serving in the Army.
  I want to turn now to the cost. In the W.R.A.C. there are two main disadvantages, and these must be regarded in relation to the overall cost. The first is the wastage rate, and the second is the Corps "self-management." I want to deal for a moment with the wastage rate, because it must be generally accepted and agreed that the main cause of wastage is the admirable one of marriage and women raising families.
  384
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we must accept this wastage rate and applaud the cause of it. At the same time, however, it seems to me that the time has come for a much greater flexibility in using those people who might come into the Army for a short time and might want to re-enter it after a lapse of some years. I know that engagement is normally for twenty-two years, with breaks every three years, but that is not quite the same thing, and there should be more encouragement and flexibility within the Regular Corps for women and also for transferance to and from the Territorial Army.
  I am glad to have shared with my father a continuous connection with the Territorial Army which has extended between us since the inception of the Territorial Army before the First World War. I cannot help feeling that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) pointed out, the second rôle of the Territorial Army, mentioned on page 32 of the Estimates, is an admirable rôle in which the W.R.A.C.T.A. can play their part. The flexibility, which I think possible between the Regular Corps and the Territorial Corps, should be extended to enable the territorial element of the W.R.A.C. to play a considerable part in the rôle which I have mentioned as the Territorial Army's second commitment.
  It is worth considering the possibility of having married women in both the Regular and Territorial corps to a much greater extent than is at present the case. That is to suggest the increased necessity for urging short-term commissions and probably the reintroduction of local service, which was tried a decade ago and which would also enable women to be employed on a part-time basis, which seems very feasible, at Army headquarters at various levels. After all, what is wanted is a build-up of a trained and disciplined body of women who could undertake emergency services, having behind them both discipline and training which would be of use.
  The W.R.A.C. part of the Territorial Army is giving admirable service, but I doubt whether it is encouraged to serve to the widest possible extent. I intend to return to that subject in a moment, but before doing so I must say that hon. Members will have noticed that the ratio

  385
  of officers to women is not very good in the Regular Corps, although in the Territorial Army it is much better. That can be explained in two ways. The first is that there is too much self-management in the Regular Corps as it is organised today.
  One must accept that it is always necessary to have a certain amount of self-management and that it is necessary to guard the female element in the Service from those soldiers who may not be suitable or suited to be in charge of women as part of their forces. At the same time, particularly in the training aspect of the Corps, there is too much emphasis on the Corps being self-supporting. When I discovered, as I recently did elsewhere, that there is now being set up a regimental headquarters in the W.R.A.C., as a Member of Parliament I am bound to wonder whether expenditure of that kind can be justified.
  There are courses of various kinds which should be integrated with existing courses in the Army to a much greater extent than at present, and with mutual advantage to both sides. The Regular Service does vital and excellent work, but Parliament must seek to get value for its money and, however desirable some of the organisations which I have mentioned may be, streamlining would result in a more realistic estimate of the cost.
  There is room for a great extension of duties, and I welcome my right hon. Friend's reference today to the ever widening variety of duties which will fall to members of the Corps. I do not think that these duties have been widened nearly enough. I think that the necessity for that excitement and the going overseas mentioned in the case of the Army as a whole is equally true of the W.R.A.C.
  I should also like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that the more enterprising Territorial units of the W.R.A.C. have now taken matters into their own hands. I can think of one battalion which have had the enterprise to arrange for its annual camp to go to France and carry out joint exercises with the French Army. I think that hon. Members will agree that, coming from Scotland, that was a very enterprising move, but the additional money required for such an enterprise
  386
  was raised by the battalion itself, and about £800 was found to make this possible.
  No one will be surprised to know that the strength of that battalion is very high indeed and that the quality of its leadership is outstanding. This sort of enterprise is well worth while, and if we are to be realistic in realising, as I believe hon. Members do, that we require women in the Army, at all, both Regular and Territorial, and if we are to get them in greater numbers than at present, we must also accept the responsibility for offering them the attractions in the same realistic way as we are prepared to offer them for the Army as a whole.
  Here I must make one reference to recruiting, because, in the short time that I have been in the House, I am sorry to say, with the exception of the reference made by my right hon. Friend the Minister today, I have heard only disparaging references to members of the Women's Royal Army Corps. On such occasions, I am reminded sharply of the most disparaging references ever made in my presence to that Corps. It was made, and I am unlikely to forget the occasion, by a battery commander who, it is true, had commanded his battery overseas for some years during the war, but I understand in very pleasant surroundings, certainly nowhere near where any shots were ever fired.
  I was reminded of the 50,000 women who gave magnificent service in the London area, and who for seventeen months were accustomed to fire their guns on an average five nights a week and sometimes for seventeen hours out of the twenty-four. Therefore, I hope that by making this reference for the purpose of the record today, I shall not have to endure in this House from my hon. Friends any references such as those I have heard since I came here. Like the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Barnsley, references of this order cannot help recruiting, cannot help morale and do not add to the prestige of this country in the eyes of others.
  I should like, in making my last plea, to return to the variations in duties which have been referred to. I believe that there is a great potential for recruiting amongst women today, but I believe

  387
  that we shall only get the quality which we want if, as I have already explained, we offer those attractions and realities which that service should expect. I think that many of these women have a mechanical aptitude which is over- looked. This is an age of surface-to-air guided weapons, an age in which the importance of the various R.E.M.E. workshops is great, an age of electronics, and there seems to be limitless scope for women in these spheres, and a good recruiting potential.
  I hope, therefore, that in considering the force as a whole, and especially the recruiting needs of the Corps, my right hon. Friend will look at the pattern of spending at present, will create greater flexibility both for the Regular forces and the Territorial Force, with greater integration between the two, and a greater extension of duties and opportunities in the Army for which so many women are so well suited.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. K. Zilliacus: I much appreciated the spirited defence of the Women's Royal Army Corps by the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), but it would be an affectation which would deceive nobody if I pretended to be able to follow her in this field. However, I thought her intervention easier on the ear, as well as on the eye, than that of some of her fellow colonels on the benches opposite, who tended to massivity rather than sparkle in the presentation of their cases. But the hon. Lady shared with them a tendency to talk in terms of the last war, or a period perhaps even a little earlier. She was a little more up-to-date than the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir R. Glyn), who started with the last war, moved on to the First World War, then talked about the Boer War and ended up with the Battle of Hastings.
  It is ill-advised to use words like "real" and "realistic" in connection with all this talk about Territorial Armies and Women's Corps in the nuclear age, when the Government themselves say that there is no defence for this country against nuclear attack. In fact, to put it quite crudely and bluntly, within a few hours of a full-scale nuclear attack this country would
  388
  be a shambles; our cities would be radioactive charnel houses, and practically the whole population would be atomic dust or radioactive cat's meat. It is necessary to be a little realistic about this matter, in the sense that we either prevent war or we are all dead in very short order.
  I want to try to bring the debate back to fundamentals by talking about the first part of the Memorandum on the Army Estimates, dealing with the rôle and purpose of the Army, and also by referring to those parts of the White Paper which refer to the arming of B.A.O.R. with tactical atomic weapons. The Defence White Paper says:
  "Our conventional forces are now organised to provide military contributions to three Collective Security Alliances"—
  defined as N.A.T.O., CENTO and S.E.A.T.O. For this purpose unit commands are being set up in the Near East and Middle East, and there is talk of a unified command in the Far East. That underlines the development referred to in the Defence White Paper where, for the first time, China is given prominence as a potential enemy against whom we must start preparing for war.
  Our international defence commitments are still spreading, and at the same time increasing in depth. The White Paper says:
  "…we must recognise that many of our most important responsibilities are not concerned with the direct deterrence of all out global war, but rather with the checking of small outbreaks which could grow into nuclear war by accident or design."
  Let us try to get a little nearer to what is meant by this statement. Paragraph 5 of the White Paper has one stab at it. It says:
  "Soviet or Chinese military strength could be used for direct offensive action against the Western Allies or for military intervention in inflammable situations in any part of the world."
  "Could be", but so far as I know it is not. The White Paper goes on to say:
  "In addition it can be, and is, used in conjunction with Communist subversive activities to exert political pressure on smaller countries, and to undermine their independence and will to resist outside interference."
  My difficulty about this phrasing is that it could apply equally well to the policies pursued by the Western Powers. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State for War, speaking of what he

  389
  called the sort of situation which could fester into a local war, said that it would give us a bit of time to assemble our forces to intervene. It seems to me that that is almost a classical definition of military intervention in an inflammable situation and an excellent way of starting something big by mistake and, no doubt, with the best of intentions.
  As to the methods of indirect intervention, I recall a phrase I think I have used before in this Chamber, by Walter Lippmann, that the problem of the Western Alliance was that whereas Communism would spread without the Russians or the Chinese or anybody else firing a shot outside, it could be contained only by the direct engagement of Western military forces. That suggests that possibly the boot is on the other foot, or at least there is a boot on each foot.
  To come again a little nearer to reality, this whole conception of military intervention in situations which are either a question of internal risings or disorders or a mixture of both; where there is an allegation of some form of outside assistance—it may be a supply of arms or munitions, or propaganda or more direct military help, but at any rate a mixed situation—to believe we can deal with that situation by policies of military intervention from outside, particularly when backed by tactical atomic weapons, seems to me about the most dangerous kind of use to which we could possibly put British forces anywhere.
  In that connection, I find myself in considerable agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who in the debate on 20th July said:
  "The real danger in Europe, and we all know it, is not the danger of the large-scale deliberate Soviet attack on the West but of a local conflict developing, perhaps out of a spontaneous rising of discontented people living in Eastern Europe as happened in Hungary, in Poland and Berlin, perhaps out of miscalculation. In other words, the danger of a conflict arising essentially in a situation to which deterrence is irrelevant.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 609–10.]
  The other day he elaborated that and said:
  "The only real danger of war in Europe is a small, local conflict arising in a situation in which the whole spectrum of deterrence would be irrelevant, arising perhaps just across the Iron Curtain or in East Berlin. No
  390
  military posture by the West could deter such an incident breaking out in the first place.… It is a danger to which the whole concept of deterrence is irrelevant. It is, in fact, the only real danger, in my view, which the West now faces in Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 1230.]
  I believe that to be true and a serious condemnation of the whole policy of using conventional forces, particularly the Army as set forth in the Estimates and in the Report on Defence.
  Let us look at it a little more closely as related to these alliances, N.A.T.O., CENTO and S.E.A.T.O. In the first place, no one will dispute that the leading and dominating Power in these alliances is the United States of America and that it is American decisions which will decide whether or not they go into operation; in the sense that they would not go into operation if the Americans are determined that they shall not and they will go into operation if the Americans are determined that they shall. They may be faced with the problem of an intransigent ally, through stubbornness or recklessness, either deliberately or accidentally, provoking a crisis in trying to force the hand of his allies to back him in that crisis. That is a possibility. But, by and large, I think it is true that any action by British forces in virtue of these three alliances would be an action undertaken on American political decisions and, in fact, in most cases under American supreme Command.
  Let us see what that amounts to in terms of Europe and N.A.T.O. The purpose of N.A.T.O. today is subject to the overriding control of the United States. The overriding purpose of N.A.T.O. in Europe is more and more becoming the purpose of the West German Government, both negatively and positively. Negatively in the sense that any agreement reached to do anything depends on the most stubborn and intransigent member. He provides the lowest common denominator. In a positive sense, although agreement is necessary to refrain from taking reckless action, one Power alone can take reckless action and commit its allies.
  In that respect German policy has been remarkably consistent over the years. I can understand it. It is a divided country and it wants to reunite. It also wants to regain its lost territories

  391
  and go back to the 1937 frontiers and all the rest of it. But it has deliberately ruled out the method of negotiation with the Soviet Union, which would imply the kind of policies which are resolutely rejected by the present German Government, of disengagement and negotiation with the East German State, and so on, and has proceeded on a different but perfectly consistent line up to today.
  The first overt manifestation of that was Dr. Adenauer's statement in Hamburg in December, 1951, when he said:
  "Our chief reason for wanting to enter a European Army is to be able to recover our Eastern territories."
  A few years later the same line was reported by Walter Lippmann, in the New York Herald Tribune of 18th July, 1955. He said that during his visit to Washington that spring Dr. Adenauer had made it perfectly clear that he was opposed to negotiations because it was too early to raise the question of the Polish frontier.
  The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is rather trespassing on foreign policy as distinct from the Army Estimates.
  Mr. Zilliacus: If I might read the quotation, Sir Gordon, you will see that it refers directly to the Army. Mr. Lippmann said:
  "… his policy is to be armed by the United States and then with the loyal support of the whole Western Alliance, led by the United States, to negotiate a German settlement with the Soviet Union. Dr. Adenauer believes that in two or three years, when there is a German Army in N.A.T.O., his position will be strong enough to obtain re-unification with frontiers that are much better than Potsdam."
  That was the danger to which Mr. Aneurin Bevan called attention on 4th December, 1958. With reference to a more recent declaration on the same lines, in the debate on the Address last November, the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) drew attention to the situation in the following terms:
  "I am getting extremely worried about the irredentist movement in Western Germany. It causes me and, I am sure, many other hon. Members deep concern."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1960 Vol. 629, c. 52.]
  The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I think
  392
  that this is really getting on to foreign affairs and not dealing with the British Army.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Unfortunately, the British Army is committed by these policies. If we are to study the purpose and rôle of the Army, I do not see how we can do it without studying what we are being committed to by our allies in N.A.T.O., but I will not elaborate that point. The Report mentions N.A.T.O. and says that we are committed to fight under N.A.T.O. and for N.A.T.O. It has a whole section on the purpose and rôle of the British Army, and among others its purpose and rôle in N.A.T.O. I think therefore that I may just refer to the fact that in N.A.T.O. we could be committed by German irredentism on lines which are clean contrary to the—
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.
  Ordered,
  That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. I (Sittings of the House) for Two hours after Ten o'clock —[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
  Supply again considered in Committee.
  Mr. Zilliacus: In the Middle East we are committed to purposes which were defined by the Prime Minister in connection with our intervention in Jordan which he called
  "a crisis of self-defence"
  and said that nothing could take away
  "out customary traditional right, and, I would add, duty".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July. 1958; Vol. 591, c. 1510.]
  to carry out these policies of military intervention. He called it a crisis of self-defence when there was a reactionary régime in the Middle East which got into trouble with its own people, allegedly with help from outside.
  In the Far East we are committed under S.E.A.T.O. by the latest defence declaration to use the Army in certain contingencies against China. This doctrine of intervention where there is international disorder might carry us into Laos, Southern Vietnam or South Korea. The trouble is that this Government, for instance, recognise that the Chinese coastal islands are part of China but the United States do not.

  393
  The picture which emerges of what we mean by defence and the uses to which it is proposed to put the Army, is a nightmare vision of a thin anti-red line stretched to breaking point right round the world and committed to fighting the winds of change in Asia and Africa and to underwriting German irridentism in Europe by force of arms.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does the hon. Member agree with the leader of his party who, the other day, was urging that we should be prepared to use United Kingdom troops to keep law and order in Northern Rhodesia rather than to allow Sir Roy Welensky to use Federal troops?
  Mr. Zilliacus: It all depends on what is meant by law and order, but I would be against the United Kingdom doing Sir Roy Welensky's job for him. I have carefully limited this to our international defence commitments. As to Commonwealth commitments, I think that they are a function of our Colonial and Commonwealth policies. To say the least, I feel very critical about the colonial policies pursued by this Government, although, on the principle of the old Swedish saying that there are variations of temperature even in a hot place, I would say that the Government's policy is better than Sir Roy Welensky's policy by several degrees.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The Leader of the Labour Party was urging that we should increase commitments by doing what the Federal Government in Northern Rhodesia are failing to do.
  Mr. Zilliacus: I am not always and invariably in agreement with the leader of my party. No one will accuse me of exaggeration when I say that.
  Coming back to the rôle of the Army, I think we must realise what we are committed to under the so-called collective security alliances. The Government are committed to using British forces for purposes which Labour is pledged to oppose in Asia and Europe, and which we do not consider worth the bones of a single British soldier, let alone taking the risk of nuclear war.
  At the beginning of this debate the Secretary of State tried to dress up the old policy of the balance of power and
  394
  the arms race, based on the old fallacy that the way to preserve peace is to prepare for war, by some extraordinarily inappropriate words. He said that, whereas, previously, people used to join up for a war they now joined up to preserve peace, to prevent a war breaking out.
  The trouble about that doctrine is that it has invariably failed and is bound to fail. I have previously quoted in this Chamber—I shall not do so again—Sir Anthony Eden's declaration on 17th November, 1954, that this was the third time in his life that he had been engaged in the enterprise of trying to build up an effective deterrent against war in Europe. He said that the last two attempts had, unfortunately, failed. The first time was before the First World War. The second time was before the Second World War. He said that that was the third attempt through N.A.T.O. to achieve the same result.
  I am sure that it will achieve the same result as the other two attempts, unless we learn that the real danger against which we have to guard is not the danger of deliberate aggression, but the danger of war breaking out by accident. Against that danger we do not need rival military preparations for instant intervention to bedevil a local conflict and spread it into a nuclear war, but joint political measures to deal with such situations co-operatively through the United Nations.
  The Government's defence policy is based on resolutely ignoring the fact that the real danger today is an outbreak of war not because anybody wants it, but because the Powers have tried to deal competitively with an incident and thereby turned it into a fatal accident that nobody wants.
  10.7 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: I do not wish to follow, even if I was able to, the various ramifications of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). I shall content myself with making two or three points which I consider to be important to the Army. I consider that it is absolutely essential for us to get the 165,000 people required for the Service. We cannot admit the possibility of defeat on this issue. I am pleased to say that there is substantial hope that the target will be achieved.

  395
  Press publicity is a problem. The Press always likes news. Bad news or news about things not being right with the Army is much more printable than the good news of the many people who are enjoying life in the Army. It must be approached as a very long-term policy. I hope that there will not be a repetition of an incident which came to my notice, and of which I informed my right hon. Friend. Because of a slip, a member of the Press who was desirous of finding out what was being done about the provision of accommodation was not able to obtain the up-to-date information which reflected very satisfactorily on the development in connection with the provision of the accommodation.
  I hope that a constructive approach will also be made to the apprentice scheme. I am pleased to see from the Memorandum that Carlisle Camp has 500 apprentices. That is a very good line. It provides valuable education for the youngsters. It produces, generally speaking, a very satisfactory type of recruit.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be inhibited in any way from letting the schools know the advantages of Army life. There has in the past been an idea that this is one of the things that one did to encourage schoolboys to consider. A lot could be done if the importance of these matters and the attractions which the Army has to offer as a career were realised by schoolmasters. So much has been done to improve the Service that it would be a tragedy if this were not brought home forcibly to those who should be interested, particularly those who have the opportunity to influence young people who might become recruits.
  The provision of adequate accommodation particularly for families is of the greatest importance. That there is not sufficient accommodation must be admitted, though I pay a tribute to the work which is being done in Aldershot to provide married quarters. It is quite delightful to see the unsuitable old buildings at long last being taken down and replaced by modern houses of first-class construction.
  I offer one word of warning. It sometimes happens that a man with a large family may have to have two houses. I hope that attention will be paid to what is being done in Germany, particularly on Air Force stations. where the top floor
  396
  of a house has a door in the wall which makes convenient access to the adjacent house possible so that the one house and part of another can be made suitable for a large family and the other house can become suitable for a small family. If the houses are built in pairs with the top floors so arranged that they can be combined if desired, it will be possible to avoid what I regard as a waste of accommodation when two houses are used by one family.
  In Aldershot, we very much appreciate the kindly and, I think intelligent way in which some of our accommodation difficulties have been met. We are very proud of being, as we say, the headquarters of the British Army, and we are glad that the Army has met the local authority on the question of land space, which is much needed by Aldershot Borough Council.
  There is another matter on which there should be closer co-operation with local authorities generally. Service men are often extremely worried because, when they leave the Service and want accommodation for themselves and their families, it is not at all easy for them to find it. They are not on any local authority lists and local authorities, very naturally, pay close attention to the length of time for which people have been on their lists.
  I wonder whether it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to contact his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see whether something might be done to help in this matter. There is in Aldershot perhaps more of that than in other places because of the essential Army nature of Aldershot, but it happens elsewhere. Today, people are very wise and weigh up what profession they should follow and how they should occupy their life for the best. One of the problems is the feeling that when they come out of the Services, even if they had been satisfactorily housed in the Services, they will not be able to get on the housing list and to get accommodation. I do not wish to detract from the savings scheme which my right hon. Friend suggested, but I think that he should go a little further than that towards the local authorities.
  I hope that the Service dress promised to me by my right hon. Friend's successor in 1957 will become the

  397
  walking-out dress of half of the Army, as is said in the Memorandum. It gives the men and women a grand feeling to be in smart walking-out dress rather than in the somewhat sloppy battledress. I hope that that promise which was given to me some time ago will be implemented.
  I wish to mention two other matters. The first concerns retaining fees. Particularly, I want to mention it as it affects doctors who are given a fee of £60 per annum and who may be called up at any time and sent elsewhere. I do not think that this is "on". An unlimited liability is worth more than £60 a year. I wonder whether a more reasonable method could be evolved of dealing with these professional men, who have their own ordinary civilian life problems to tackle. This is one of the departments in which there is a shortage of trained men and this shortage is likely to continue, particularly when it comes to the best type of medical people.
  The final point with which I want to deal worries me very much and it concerns senior N.C.O.s and warrant officers who, having done their twenty-two years' service, are given the opportunity to extend their career. I have always thought that in many ways the n.c.o.s and the warrant officers were the backbone of the Army. The Army is prepared to accept these men up to the age of 55, but they must be prepared to revert in substantive rank from a warrant officer or a staff sergeant. One of my constituents told me that the effect of this was that these men were not keen
  398
  to continue their service. Apparently, there is an increment of 1s. a day after four years' service from the date of reversion and a further increment of 1s. a day after eight years' service from the date of reversion.
  Is this the way to treat men who, I should have thought, on any score, are of great value? I know that officers have different contracts of service, and are employed under different considerations, but the officer is allowed to retain his rank. There is a reduction in pay for the officer until 55 under the new system which has been adopted, but this is not the case with warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s.
  Greater consideration should be given to the question of these men. They all recognise that the younger men must come up, and they do not object to that, but surely there could be an enlargement of establishment to enable them to keep their rank even if the pay was not as great as that of the younger men coming up. There is a strong disincentive for the warrant officer or staff sergeant to continue when this loss of rank is involved. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into this.
  For a long time I have pressed that the Aldershot Tattoo should continue. If my right hon. Friend is going out, as he has it in mind to do, for publicity, and to show the attractions of the Service and what it can do, even a minor version of the Aldershot Tattoo would be much appreciated if held in Aldershot.
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Yates: I have listened to this debate for well over six hours. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) has raised matters which should be raised in a debate of this nature, especially such matters as accommodation. I was surprised to hear the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for raising a number of cases in which the accommodation situation was very bad because that would reflect upon recruiting. It seems to me, however, that when discussing the annual Estimates, it is important that we should raise all the matters about which our constituents feel grievances. I have been sitting here all these hours with the object of raising a particular grievance, and this is the only time that one has the opportunity to raise it.
  I have been intrigued by the day's argument, which in the main has centred around manpower. It is within the recollection of the House that always, from 1945 onwards, I have opposed the introduction of military conscription. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and I have constantly argued about this. After the country has tried conscription for so many years, I find myself so much in support of the Government that I almost feel, in view of the arguments I have used in these debates so many times, that in a way I have to commend some of the arguments which the Government have put forward.
  I have listened carefully to the arguments of those who believe that the Government cannot reach their manpower target. During the fifty minutes of his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley did not convince me, because I could not think that there was a single argument that he could present to show why we should have 200,000 men or more or why the Government could not get 165,000 or 180,000. Therefore, before we as the House of Commons decide that we want to continue the system, we should be certain that there is no alternative.
  Paragraph 33 of the White Paper, "Report on Defence, 1961" says:
  "There is an element of risk in giving up conscription and relying on volunteers. But the Government are satisfied that it is a risk that
  400
  ought to be accepted. Conscription makes heavy demands on the economy. The efficiency of the Services is affected by the constant turnover of men, and because the burden of training is so heavy. A much higher level of training and efficiency is attainable in an all-regular force."
  I used to argue a few years ago that the system of compulsory service was wrong and would not produce the best results. I remember the arguments put forward by Captain Liddell Hart about the conscript Nazi Army of Germany, that it had not been successful because it was of a conscript nature, whereas the Luftwaffe, which relied less upon conscripts and compulsion and more on volunteers, had been more successful.
  I am appalled that people can talk about waiting to continue a system against which there is such a great volume of opinion. That is why I cannot understand my hon. Friend. Nor can I understand the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who said he had always been in favour of conscription. Because hon. Members have always been in favour of conscription, why should they never want to give it up or to try something different? I shall chase my hon. Friend as long as he keeps on arguing about his conscription to the Services.
  One of the objections I have to conscription is that there is discrimination between some members of the community, some workers, and others. Some are called and some are not called. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire is not here. He said that agricultural workers ought to be exempted. If, however, I say that the workers in Ladywood, in engineering works, should be exempted, then he says that that is another matter.
  There are in the American system some provisions which I should have liked to have seen in our own National Service, for example, the refusal to call up the only son of a widow. We did not accept that provision. The Americans refuse to call up more than one son in a family. We have considerable hardship here through refusing to do that. That is another reason why I object to our conscription.

  401
  There is another reason why I object, and it is one which the employers of labour would give if they were to be asked. In Birmingham and the other great industrial centres they will tell you that this system so relished by some hon. Members takes men out of the works, but the employers have to take them back again after their service, and sometimes it happens, when men come back, they have lost their former enthusiasm for their jobs. Consider the students and the dilemma they have, whether to do their National Service before or after finishing their education. There has been great anxiety amongst parents about the effect of National Service on their children.
  It has been a tremendously wasteful system. I think it costs £750 a year for a conscript—as much as it costs to send a boy to Eton, is it not? Unless there can be some very real justification for it, in my judgment we should be very unwise to continue this system. I have not heard an argument in favour. I used to argue very much with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who I am sorry is not here now. Sometimes he took notice of his civil servants when I thought they were wrong. I remember that some of us argued with him about increasing the period of conscription from 18 months to two years. I do not know whose view he took on that matter, but I am certainly delighted that today he takes an entirely different view, which is much more in line with the view that I have always taken.
  The Secretary of State for War made an interesting speech on the attractions of the Army, and he mentioned in this context National Service men. Sometimes when I have spoken my hon. Friends have said "You are a pacifist." But they may be surprised to hear that I have tried to get two men into the Army, with no success. I remember that one man very much wanted to join, but although he had been a first-class National Service man, the Army would not accept him as a Regular soldier because he had been fined £5 in a civil court. I was amazed, for it seems to me that the sort of men who should serve in the Army are those who feel that their bent lies in that direction.
  402
  I now come to the main point that I wanted to raise. If the Secretary of State wishes to persuade National Service men to become Regular soldiers, he should first see that they are satisfied and contented. Paragraph 46 of the Memorandum on Army Estimates, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, says:
  "Assured of…the well-being of his family, a contented regular officer or other rank is the finest ambassador the Army can have."
  When I visited Germany a few years ago and spoke with the soldiers there, I felt that they were, on the whole, fine ambassadors. But how can a man be a good ambassador if he is not contented?
  I cannot understand why, when a man is utterly dissatisfied with the Service and wants to leave, perhaps on compassionate grounds, it is necessary to put up such a tremendous fight to persuade the appropriate Service Department to release him. In this respect, I am not referring to the War Office alone, for I have had similar experiences with the Air Ministry and the Admiralty. The Minister may be surprised to hear this, but there was a young boy from my constituency who did not like the Army and his mother suffered considerable anxiety. What a job we had to get that boy out of the Army, as eventually we did.
  Mr. Profumo: Was he a National Service man?
  Mr. Yates: No, he was not. Eventually he ran away. It caused considerable distress, and eventually I took the matter up.
  I should like to see a more humane approach. I should like to quote the case of a young National Service man in which I was not successful. He had a wife in Birmingham in my constituency and two young children, one of whom was only four months old at the time when I raised the matter. He was transferred to North Africa and was told that he must complete his two years' training. He was in such anxiety about his wife and two children who were homeless in this country that he asked for permission to come home. He borrowed £22 and came back to this country to try to find a home for his family. We were trying to do our best to assist them. He came home on a month's leave, which was extended to

  403
  two months, then three months and, finally, four months. He said, "I cannot soldier in peace while I have these worries on my mind." I had a letter from him a few days ago to say that the War Office had declined to release him.
  We managed to persuade the local authority to provide for the family some accommodation, which was very unsatisfactory, at what we call in Birmingham a half-way house, that is a place where the local authority accommodates an applicant who has not been on the housing list long enough to be offered a house. I submitted a doctor's note about this matter. I cannot see what value this man can be to the Army when he is kept in North Africa in a state of anxiety all the time about his wife and two young children both of whom have been ill and under medical care.
  I have been turned down and have been told that I cannot do anything about it. I believe that this National Service man is a very bad ambassador for the Army. How can he be otherwise? How can he do other than spread discontent? If we are to have any system of selective service, more humanity should be shown towards cases of this kind. The Ministry of Labour has approached every case that I have taken to it with great reason and sympathy. Where the man was the son of a widow or was a young married man with children, the Ministry has usually accepted those facts as good reason for taking action, but once the man is in the Army it is a different matter altogether.
  Whatever may be my views about the Army and military service, I think that we ought to do justice and be fair to these people. If more attention were paid to matters of this kind we should stand a much better chance of getting people to join the Armed Forces or be willing to continue service in them. I have spoken many times in this Chamber on the principle of compulsory military service. I moved an Amendment to the Motion in reply to the King's Speech in 1946 and the then Prime Minister, now Lord Attlee, told me that my Amendment meant that I had no confidence in His Majesty's Government at that time. We have had this system for twenty-one years. It was
  404
  introduced by Mr. Neville Chamberlain in 1939. Of course, we understood the necessity for it during the war, but after the war it was continued.
  If the Minister or the Government are likely to be overshadowed by fears that have been voiced both by hon. Members on this side of the Committee as well as by hon. Members opposite, they will not, of course, take risks. But I hope that they will continue without fear to take risks. If they depend on the common sense and the support not only of hon. Members but of the ordinary people throughout the country, they will get through. If they make mistakes, at least the people will forgive them for making them when trying to do what I am sure is the right thing for them to do.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Marten: Many hon. Members who have spoken from this side of the Committee have been colonels or above. I was not one of those, but my interest in the debate is heightened by the fact that when I first joined the Army I went into the same regiment as that of the Secretary of State for War, the Northamptonshire Yeomanry. I was a very amateur soldier: not one of the professionals.
  We have heard a lot in the debate about the recruiting problem. I will not go into that, because it is a very great and complicated question. However, I would refer to one point made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) when he referred to the techniques used to get recruits before the war. He listed a whole variety of things which were done and came to the conclusion that it was only Munich which ultimately brought up the recruiting figures.
  I believe that there is now a slight difference. We have now the medium of television which was successfully used during the General Election. I think that when we get an honest recruiting campaign on television we shall get the recruits. I have great confidence in what the War Office is doing to get recruits. I hope that we shall be told by the Minister when he winds up how Members of the House can help, because I am sure that hon. Members are anxious that we should do our best to get recruits.

  405
  I suppose that from time to time most of us give lifts to Service men when driving to our constituencies, and from them and our friends in constituencies we gather an impression of what life in the Army is like. We hear criticisms of the forces. Mast of those criticisms have been dealt with already in the debate, and I do not propose to repeat them. However, I wish to put in a plea that in our desire to get rid of what is called "bull" we do not let up on discipline.
  As an amateur soldier I reacted against "bull". At one stage I served under my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer), who was reckoned to be quite a chap far "bull". Looking back on it, I have acquired a certain respect for the lessons he taught me and also for a limited amount of "bull" because I think it fits in with discipline. The same goes for drill, which maintains the discipline so necessary in the Army.
  I should like to congratulate the Army on the training exercises, about which we read in the Estimates, being held in Portugal, Norway, Kenya, Libya and. indeed, in the Rocky Mountains of Canada. I am glad that the Army is introducing mountaineering, because I believe that it is the finest training in leadership that one can get. I have done a bit of mountaineering. Every time one looks up at a rock face of, say, 300 or 500 feet one does not want to climb it. Forcing oneself to overcome such obstacles is a very fine training for leadership.
  The same considerations applied when I did my first parachute jump. I found myself sitting in an aeroplane 1,000 feet up looking down through a hole at the patchwork of the countryside below until somebody said "Jump!". My natural reaction was not to jump, but I forced myself to do it. I believe that overcoming a reluctance of that sort develops a sense of leadership, which is so necessary. I suggest that parachute jumping might become voluntary in the Army. It could be taken up as a sport, without participants necessarily having to join the Parachute Regiment.
  I also hope that training exercises will go on throughout the Commonwealth—in Malaya, New Zealand and more in Canada. We may also be able to do something in the countries of our allies,
  406
  perhaps in CENTO. We might be able to do some very good training exercises, for example, in Eastern Turkey. The country is very suitable—provided one does not go too far east. The Central Anatolian Plain would be wonderful for toughening-up training.
  Much has been said about the question of married quarters, and I will not refer to them, but I want to say something about the school children who remain in England and stay at boarding schools when their parents go overseas. The problem here probably applies largely to officers. Until enough school accommodation is organised for overseas posts I hope that the Secretary of State will allow children to join their parents at each holiday time. At the moment, they are entitled to one passage out each year. If we believe in united families we ought to see that children are allowed to go out to their parents each holiday time. That would be another very good aid to recruiting.
  There is one other point which has not been touched on during the seven-and-a-half hours during which I have sat here. I congratulate the authorities concerned on the very good record of resettlement in civilian life. About 90 per cent. of officers and 99 per cent. of other ranks who left the Army in 1960 found jobs within three months of leaving. That is a very high proportion, and more publicity could be given to it, because people going into the Army often wonder what will happen to them when they come out again. The answer is provided in those figures, and they very much impressed me. Allied to all the other schemes mentioned by my right hon. Friend—savings, pennons and house purchases—publicity of that fact would be a very good way of bringing in more recruits.
  I have not heard any mention of local education authorities. I wonder whether they play their part in the scheme of things, through the teachers in the schools. There is nothing wrong in a teacher referring to the Army, and talking about it as a good career for boys leaving school. Teachers could say, "Here you are serving your Queen and your country". I would also like to see more student teachers at universities and teachers' training colleges joining the Territorial Army.

  407
  I cannot end without saying a few words in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). Some of the things he said need a straight answer. He said, virtually, that we were discussing the spending of £500 million, but that nobody had talked about the broad strategy of why we were doing it. It is not inappropriate in a debate of this kind to discuss the threat which causes us to spend this sum. Do those who serve in the Army realise the true nature of the attack which is threatening them, not necessarily by war but by subversion? That is what should be brought home to those who are serving in the Army, because it would make them better able to realise the contribution they are making. We should set out what the Communists are trying to do. I think that could be done by saying clearly that they are out for world domination by Communism. To achieve that they must upset the balance of power, and the way they propose to do so is by weakening our will to resist. That lesson should be pushed home to the Army.
  Having stated the objective, in a military way one goes on to state the method. That has been clearly laid down in the Communist manifesto which was discussed in the defence debate. Members of Communist parties from 81 countries assembled in Moscow in November for a conference which lasted for about three weeks, and on 6th December a manifesto was published in which directions were given to Communist sympathisers throughout the world to help them achieve the Communist aim. It is very much like Hitler's Mein Kampf in which he set out clearly where he intended to go. I believe that the Moscow Communists have done exactly the same thing. The warning is there to be read, and I believe that this Committee and the Army should take note of it. It is a monstrous directive to Communist sympathisers. It has a lot to do with the rôle of the Army and. therefore, I hope that I am in order in referring to it.
  The attack is to come in several ways. It attacks the basis of our defence expenditure, and here I refer the Committee to what was said by the hon. Member for Gorton about that. The manifesto instructs Communist sympathisers to fight
  408
  for the dismantling of foreign military bases. We have heard what was said by the hon. Member for Gorton, and, of course, the dismantling of military bases would affect our own defence planning. There is a Motion on the Paper signed by 43 members of the Labour Party opposing American bases in the United Kingdom. That is what it means. The manifesto appeals to sympathisers to fight for the disbandment of military blocs. On the Notice Paper there is a Motion signed by 63 hon. Members opposite, perhaps for a variety of reasons, opposing the training of German troops in this country. That is an attempt to disrupt the "military bloc" of N.A.T.O. Communist sympathisers are asked to demand a reduction in military expenditure. We have heard a lot about that from the Labour Party. Communist sympathisers are asked to demand the banning of the manufacture of nuclear weapons. We have heard quite enough about that and we have had the antics of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and his bearded marchers. The Communist sympathisers are asked to demand the establishment of nuclear-free zones. There is a Motion signed by 55 hon. Members of the Labour Party who want the same thing.
  This shows that many of the aspects in the Estimates are under attack, and that is my justification for raising the point. I believe that this Committee and the Army ought to know about it. These are some of the directives given to the Communist sympathisers who want to weaken our will to resist. If successful, even in part, they will have a considerable effect on the plans which the Army has laid and the Army must be alive to that. If the Labour Party should be returned to power at the next General Election, which is what hon. Members opposite hope will happen, and if they should be responsible for the defence of this country, I believe that the Motions on the Order paper to which I have referred are the sort of things which in some way would have an ultimate influence on the plans which the Army is now laying.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry that I cannot accept the challenge of the Secretary of State for War to take part in a recruiting campaign, but I do not really think he

  409
  expected that I would. I do not believe in recruiting. I do not believe that it is necessary to carry on a campaign in support of the British Army, and neither do the people whom I represent. For example, only last week I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for War asking how many men had enlisted at Ayr in January, 1961. The Answer was eight. This covers not only my constituency, but the constituency of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who has been advocating selective conscription. With five constituencies in Ayrshire, it. means that 1·6 men from the hon. Gentleman's constituency enlisted in January.
  There is no enthusiasm for the Army in South Ayrshire, in Central Ayrshire, or in North Ayrshire, the constituency represented by the hon. Gentleman who, as I said, has been demanding conscription. Indeed, there is no enthusiasm for the Army throughout Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the total number of enlistments on long-term engagements was 181 in January. There were 17 in Aberdeen; 10 in Dumfries 38 in Dundee and Kircaldy; 40 in Edinburgh; 70 in Glasgow, and 5 in Inverness, making a grand total of 180.
  Those figures show the natural reluctance of the young people of this country to come forward and join the Army, and I am not surprised because when they read the discussions in the House they must be completely bewildered about the policy of the Government and what is likely to be the character of another war.
  The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who spoke for the Navy last week, said that the directive given to the Navy at the outbreak of war must not be "England expects every man to do his duty", but "Clear to hell out of this". The civil population is to be left behind to think about it. As for the Army, I remember a famous speech by Lord Montgomery a few years ago when he said:
  "Join the Army. It will be the safest place in the next war."
  All these arguments do not impress the young people who are wanted for the Army, and so there is to be this recruiting campaign to be followed, if it fails, by selective conscription.
  Let us consider the missing hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire. I do
  410
  not remember seeing during the last Election in the forefront of his election address a demand for conscription. When I asked him how this would work and who would be selected, I was told that there was to be a mysterious ballot of somebody or other, and I wanted to know who would be in the ballot. When I asked about agricultural workers, realising that there was a large majority of agricultural voters in his constituency, the hon. Gentleman said: "We will exclude agricultural workers".
  I do not know who will be in this ballot. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman represents opinion in Ayrshire. He was speaking largely as a military man and was not representing a demand in my part of the world for selective military service. Indeed, after studying some of the publicity material, I wonder how the Army gets any recruits. I can imagine a prospective soldier going into a recruiting office and while waiting in the queue outside, if there is a queue, reading a magazine called "Soldier", which can be seen in the Library. On the front page he will read an article entitled "On Guard in the Cameroons". On the front page of this invitation to join the Army he will be told this
  "They"—
  that is the King's Own Border Regiment—
  "are also making history, because this is the first time a British regiment has been stationed in the Southern Cameroons, once known as the white man's grave, 3,000 miles from Britain."
  That is not much of an invitation. He is being invited to go to the white man's grave. This is completely fatuous and ridiculous propaganda, on which a large amount of money has been spent.
  Mr. Paul Williams: The hon. Gentleman may be out of touch with the country's youth because of his remoteness in these matters, but they are enticed by this very thing. There is in fact a spirit in Britain wishing to have adventure and to crusade in the cause of British nationality.
  Mr. Hughes: I should like to see the recruiting figures for the hon. Member's constituency, but I have told him that only 1·6 of a man went to the Army from

  411
  my constituency in January. If they are all full of this spirit, where are they? The Government conduct a gigantic campaign, yet the young men, quite rightly, are not turning up.
  I return to the attractive prospectus. There is an article entitled "Soldier to Soldier" on the television programme "Campaign," which I do not wish to draw to the attention of the Committee. Finally, there is a small leading article saying:
  "Anyone who thinks that in this nuclear age the day of the infantryman is over had better think again. From America comes news of a discovery of an explosive substance called Califonum which is so potent that a rifle, machine gun or a revolver bullet containing it possesses the destructive power of ten tons of T.N.T."
  A revolver will have this capacity! The passage continues:
  "So the day when Private Tommy Atkins can pull his revolver from his holster and knock down a row of houses may not be so far distant after all."
  That is an invitation to everybody who wants to go into a bank in any part of London.
  Scattered through this publicity material there is an enormous amount of quite silly material which is printed at Government expense. There is an extra-ordinary brochure called "Soldiers of the Queen." It does not go as far back as King Canute, but it does go back as far as Marlborough. That is no doubt out of respect for the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). On the centre page there is a picture in several colours called, "The Army Advances." There is a large-scale diagram of tanks blazing away at something in the distance, but there is no enemy. Who are they blazing away at? There are figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc., and nice round scarlet circles, which I presume might be the Soviet Union, but I see no sign of any enemy likely to fire back on the people firing from the tanks.
  Mr. Paget: Surely that encourages recruiting?
  Mr. Hughes: I do not know. The fact is that nothing seems to be encouraging recruiting. I have to sit down shortly, otherwise I could give the House some more interesting extracts from this remarkable "encouraging" literature.
  412
  The young people of today look the facts squarely in the face and say that the next war will be a nuclear war in which this country is likely to be blown up in about ten minutes. The hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire in a recent speech told us that if one bomb was dropped on Glasgow everything within a radius of 100 miles would be burnt to a cinder. What on earth is the relevance of this debate to such a situation? The young people of this country see that we have reached a stage when war is an absurdity and an impossibility. They see that it is suicide. Thank goodness, they are far more intelligent than to embark upon a career of suicide.
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for giving way so that I could begin my speech in good time. Reverting to his last comments about what might happen if an atomic bomb were dropped on Glasgow, I think that it would encourage recruiting if people could go to the "white man's grave" and serve the United Nations 3,000 miles away from such a horrible catastrophe as my hon. Friend has mentioned.
  I think that the Secretary of State did an excellent job as a paid propagandist on behalf of the Army and recruiting this afternoon in his speech. While many of us have doubts about whether he will be successful, I am sure that everyone hopes that he will be successful in obtaining the number of men he requires. Although, of course, we do have a little difficulty in working out exactly how many men he actually does want because the number changes a bit, we hope that he is able to get his 165,000 at the appropriate date and can proceed to the 180,000 in due course.
  As far as I can see, I am the only Member to speak in this debate who was too young to see active service in the Second World War. There are many hon. Members who have served in the forces, there are colonels of both sexes who are Members of the House, and I admit at once that I was not old enough to see active service. Eventually, the Army decided that I was unfit anyway in the year immediately following the end of the war, so my only direct contact

  413
  with the Army was during four days at a W.O.S.B. where there were psychiatrist colonels and captains by the dozen knocking about and even the sergeant-major called us all gentlemen—which was perhaps not a typical experience of service in the Army. Whether it is an advantage or disadvantage to come to a debate of this kind with that background, I am not quite sure.
  One thing has emerged from today's debate and from the defence debate a few days ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has given it as his view that the prospective tasks which the Army faces at present are outside its strength. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said that, in his view, in a conventional war the defeat of the West would be quite certain. He quoted the view of General Norstad that our forces in Europe are not disposed to carry on a prolonged land campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said that. in his view, B.A.O.R. was organised for only very restricted actions. There have been several criticisms of this kind both today and in the defence debate, but there has been one feature on both occasions which has disturbed me.
  If one criticises the disposition of the Army, if one criticises the actions of Her Majesty's Government in the administration of the Army or in the way in which they are recruiting, or for their, perhaps, over-optimistic outlook on recruiting, one is immediately told by some hon. Members opposite that one is doing harm to the cause of recruiting. I do not accept that attitude at all. I am quite certain that the vast majority of my hon. Friends, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, are quite prepared to do all they can to assist in recruiting. We hope that the Minister will obtain the people he needs. But we must at the same time reserve the right to criticise the Government and hon. and right hon. Members opposite for what they are doing, and if, as a by-product, it can be said that we are harming the cause of recruiting, that is something for which the Government, not we, must accept responsibility.
  This debate and the defence debate have thrown considerable light on the suggestion that some people. particularly the Communists, make out that the
  414
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and SACEUR and the troops under him are a dagger poised ready to be plunged into the heart of the peace-loving Soviet Union. One is forced to the conclusion that, if there is a dagger, it is very rusty and probably rather blunt and there is no hand which is sure all the time of the direction in which it should travel. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley did refer to the five-year programme having landed us in a mess. In that respect, at any rate, I must say, I found myself in a very great measure of agreement with him, although I do not agree with him by any means in all the statements which he makes.
  I want to turn first to the question of skilled men and manpower of the technical branches of the Army. We were told in the Defence White Paper in 1957 that
  "skilled tradesmen are increasingly important. Unless, therefore, an adequate proportion of these can be recruited, the Services will be in danger of becoming unbalanced and losing in efficiency."
  We were also told:
  "There is also the problem of obtaining sufficient recruits to man the branches which perform the less popular duties."
  That was in 1957. Then a similar sort of remark was made in 1958 when we were told that the Army had had not much difficulty in securing recruits but the administrative corps were rather below requirements. There was a similar story in 1959, when we were told:
  "Recruiting for the medical, ordnance, pay and catering services has improved, but is still not fully up to requirements."
  In 1960 the main emphasis was laid on the greater efficiency in the use of manpower and we were told of experiments which were going on.
  Then we reach this debate we have had today, when the Secretary of State informed us of three specific shortages. He mentioned only three specific shortages, special wireless operators, nursing staffs, and electronic experts. Does this mean that the shortages mentioned in earlier years and the difficulties then of recruiting men into these technical forces are overcome? They are not mentioned in the White Paper or in the Estimates, and have not been mentioned specifically in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He mentioned only three sections of the technical services where there

  415
  is danger of shortage at the moment. I hope this is the case, but I must say I shall be very surprised if it is the case, since there were those shortages in the specific grades of people who were mentioned in earlier debates.
  I turn to another aspect of importance, and that is the actual deployment of B.A.O.R. in North-West Germany. I understand from Vote 4 in the Estimates that there is provision for what are known as Civilian Service Units and that apparently there are some 10,353 people employed in those Civilian Service Units. At one time, I believe, they used to consist mainly of displaced persons. I do not know whether they are now German nationals or whether there are still displaced persons in them, but it led me to put a Question to the Minister of Defence on 1st March. I asked him how many German civilians are employed in British Service Units in the Federal Republic and, in addition to that, how many German civilians other than those directly employed are engaged in providing services to British Service Units in the Federal Republic.
  I must admit I am surprised to find out that to look after our 55,000 Army personnel and probably another 20,000 Air Force personnel in Northern Germany we have almost exactly 50,000 German civilians. It is possible, though I cannot be sure of this, that in addition to those there are other members of the Civilian Service Units; there may be a large number of other nationals working in those units as well, engaged in carrying out duties or support works, servicing, and so on, for our 70,000-odd Service men in the Federal Republic.
  Of course, apart from the fact that immediately it is going to cost at least 5 per cent. more for wages for staff because of the decision taken by the Bonn Government only the other day, I think it must have an effect on the mobility of our troops stationed in Germany. One gets the impression—at least, I got the impression—looking at this tremendous staff cadre there, that the Army there is still based rather like an army of occupation rather than an army which is part of the shield force of N.A.T.O. An hon. Gentleman opposite says that it is. He may think it is, but that is
  416
  not what we are led to believe by the White Paper or various memoranda from N.A.T.O. or CENTO, or from the views expressed by his own hon. Friends. He may say that it is still an army of occupation, but that is rather living in the backwaters now.
  I doubt, in view of this large civilian element, whether it would be possible for the Army there, our contribution to the N.A.T.O. shield, to be particularly effective if it were cut off for any length of time from the large civilian organisation which is apparently necessary to maintain it in time of peace. It does not seem to me like an Army ready to act as a shield, but rather more like an Army nicely tucked into reasonably comfortable quarters and still operating on something like the same basis as in 1946–50 or 1946–51.
  We were told in the defence debate that we were going to make the assumption that our forces in Germany would be used and would be available to supplement the Strategic Reserve. Apparently, if they are needed for some bush fire operation, or for some other purpose, they could be picked up by air from Germany, in addition to troops picked up from this country and flown where they are required. In view of the large civilian component, is it possible to take a battalion out of B.A.O.R. and for it to find its feet for an operation elsewhere? Can it be detached from the civilians and sent elsewhere, or would it be necessary to bleed other battalions to replace the civilian detachment working there? I hope we can be given more information about this tonight.
  I am also concerned, as are other hon. Members, with our failure to provide the four divisions we committed ourselves to as part of the N.A.T.O. shield force. It is not just that we agreed to provide these four divisions and have only, in effect, just three operating in that part of the world, it is the effect this is having on our allies in the organisation itself. While we are under strength and the Government are not in a position to keep by their commitments and stand by our pledge, we cannot complain if the French have only half their commitment in N.A.T.O.
  I do not accept the argument, as one hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to

  417
  when he said there were 28 divisions in N.A.T.O., that one can include the French forces in Algeria as part of the force. To the best of my knowledge, only just over 21 divisions are available in N.A.T.O., compared with the 30 considered to be absolutely essential if a conventional attack is to be stopped by conventional means in that area. Thus, while we are short of our commitment we cannot complain about the French or put much pressure behind the Germans to come up to their full commitment. This increases the danger of nuclear war breaking out in that area. As was pointed out by one of my hon. Friends in the defence debate, the danger of nuclear war can be considerably reduced if we can work as quickly as possible towards the provision of the whole of the four divisions we are committed to towards the N.A.T.O. shield.
  A lot has been said about selective recruitment, but if I judge the tone of the majority of speeches aright, the vast majority of hon. Members have not a great deal of time for this idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East clearly stated his view on this, as did the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) and other hon. Members opposite. I am in full agreement with the views expressed against this experiment being tried out. The Secretary of State did announce that he was going to endeavour to have selective recruitment from among National Servicemen, and one of his hon. Friends behind him asked him about that, particularly as to how much money a private or N.C.O. was likely to get if he agreed to transfer to being a Regular soldier, assuming he got a year's back money. I do not know how much this would be, but frankly I doubt whether it will be sufficient to persuade a large number of National Service men to agree to become Regular soldiers. I suggest that greater use might be made of Class I of the Army Emergency Reserve. At the moment, as I understand it, the other ranks component of that Reserve is limited by the Army Reserve Act, 1950, to some 15,000 men. This is the section of the Reserve that can be most easily called out at any particular time, and I should have thought that if there was any danger of the proper number of
  418
  men not being available for a full-time Regular engagement—and the Secretary of State himself was not absolutely certain that he was going to get the full number of men; he said he was reasonably confident that he would get the number of men required—there would be a greater chance of persuading National Service men to join Class I of the Army Emergency Reserve than there is of persuading them to sign on as full-time Regular soldiers.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) referred to the £60 bounty which was paid to this type of man in the Class 1 Reserve. This sum has only recently been increased from £25—in fact, so recently that I doubt whether it is possible at this stage to get any idea of the effect that it has had on persuading men to come into that part of the Reserve. I should have thought there was a case for revising the figure of 15,000 and trying to persuade National Service men—and there are 82,000 of them in the Army at the moment—for £60 a year to do a few years with Class I of the Reserve, and if necessary being prepared to pay more than £60, as the hon. Member for Aldershot suggested. These men have spent two years in the Army, are trained and should be able to do a useful job in Class I of the Army Reserve.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East referred to our commitments overseas, and I should like to draw attention to paragraph 32 of the White Paper on Defence which deals with the size of our forces. After stating that the Government are aiming at an Army of 165,000 to 180,000, it says:
  "These strengths have been established in the light of the following factors…"
  and then it gives six factors which the Government have taken into account in deciding on the strength of the Army and the other Services. Incidentally, the difficulty of recruitment is not mentioned among those factors Yet it is the main factor that we seem to have been talking about during most of this debate and during the defence debate as well.
  The Government start by saying that the first factor that they have considered is that of our foreseeable commitments. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East doubted whether it

  419
  was necessary to retain all of these commitments at present. Indeed, in paragraph 12 of the Defence White Paper we are told that the Government
  "…expect that these reviews"—
  of the commitments—
  "and the change-over to all-regular forces will lead to some reductions in our forces in overseas theatres, and economies in administrative and headquarters staffs."
  Presumably, somewhere or other the Government see a hope at some time in the future of reducing some of our present overseas commitments. I do not know which ones they are. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley referred to some of them. He said that Singapore was like Clapham Junction. One thing that has always impressed me about Clapham Junction is that there always seem to be too many people about. My hon. Friends the Members for Dudley and for Woolwich, East also referred to Hong Kong.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said that the main purpose of our troops there was to preserve law and order, a matter on which I fully agree with him. I suggest that if we are in any way short of troops, one way of dealing with this matter in the case of Hong Kong is to increase the strength of the Hong Kong police force, although I realise that it might well be rather more expensive. If our troops are there primarily for internal security and to preserve law and order in support of the civil power, could not that be done primarily by increasing the numbers of the Hong Kong police? I know that this is not a matter with which the Secretary of State for War can deal.
  All the officers and a large part of the police force itself are recruited in this country from sub-inspector rank, which is a sort of non-commissioned officer's rank, upwards and there is a big Chinese element as well. It means that a British subject from this country must be paid far more as a policeman than he would be paid as a soldier, but if there is difficulty in getting soldiers why not try to get policemen if the soldiers are doing a policeman's job out there? I cannot imagine that they would be there to defend Hong Kong against aggression from the Chinese mainland. I should have thought that in the last twenty years we had seen how impossible that would be.
  420
  Reference was also made to the battalion in Trust Territory in West Africa, but I was disappointed in the remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. He gave me the impression, whether he intended or not, that the West Indian Regiment was disbanded 60 years ago whereas I find from the impressive map published with the Estimates that that it is very much in existence but is stationed in the West Indies.
  Mr. Wigg: The West Indian Regiment met the commitment in West Africa up to 1898 and then went to East Africa. I said that it did not play a part as a security force in Africa.
  Mr. Reynolds: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that clear. I think that he will find from HANSARD that he said it no longer existed.
  After looking at foreseeable commitments, which even they assume can be reduced, the Government go on to refer to the support that can be obtained from civilianisation and the women's services. We are all in favour of civilianisation, but there is a danger which I have tried to point out previously that care must be taken that it is not carried too far until it renders the Army less manoeuvreable than it ought to be. Reference has been made to the increase in fire power, which rather amused me. It cannot be argued that because our divisions and troops in Germany have greater fire power our commitments can be met by smaller numbers there, for that argument leaves out of account the fact that the opposing force may also have greater fire power at the same time.
  As to facilities available for an airlift, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley referred, according to the Air Estimates there are only 23 Britannias and 10 Comets available for a long-distance airlift at present. It will be some time yet, therefore, before an airlift will play a great part in the mobility of our Services in an emergency. We have had the boast in the Memorandum to the Air Estimates that in an exercise in North Africa, 4,800 troops, nearly 300 vehicles, 175 tons of equipment and 14 helicopters were moved to Libya by transport aircraft—a boast which does not compare very well with American experience.
  We are told that the Government are taking into account the reorganisation of

  421
  the Territorial Army and the plans for reserves. Not a great deal has been said about the Territorial Army either in this debate or in the defence debate, but a White Paper issued in July last year dealt with reorganisation and, subject to our hearing anything to the contrary, we must assume that things are going all right there. We might have a few words about this tonight from the Government spokesman.
  Different views have been expressed throughout the debate on the strength of our overseas forces. Reading through all this, I come to the conclusion, to which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley came some time ago, that one of the main factors governing the size of the forces as shown in paragraph (f) of the Defence White Paper for 1961 was the Government's calculation
  "of the size of all-Regular forces that we can afford to maintain and provide with up-to-date equipment."
  There is nothing about the number we need but purely the number that we can afford to maintain. That is all that is mentioned. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] An hon. Member says, "Hear, hear." I do not know whether he is agreeing or not.
  This rather leads me to assume that the Government would prefer an element of tax relief to security, and perhaps 3d. off Income Tax rather than modern weapons for our soldiers and a tax-free capital gain while having under-strength battalions and inadequate defences such as I think we have at the moment. If meeting the bill is the main problem, I think that that could have been done if only the economy of the country had expanded during the last five years to the same extent as the economies of overseas countries.
  Nothing is mentioned about the difficulties of recruiting. I believe that the blame for lack of manpower, efficiency and equipment is due to the Government's economic policy.
  11.32 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): My right hon. Friend has given the Committee a picture, which I think was generally well received, of the Regular Army as we
  422
  wish and plan for it to be. In debate hon. Members have questioned whether we can get the men, whether the numbers we plan to get are adequate for the tasks we have in mind, and even whether the tasks concerned are the ones we should be doing. I shall attempt to come to some of these questions later in my speech.
  Other points which have been raised by hon. Members relate to a more humdrum level where I confess myself to being rather more at home, since they are about things with which I am in more daily contact in the ordinary routine of administration. They mostly arise within the framework of what has been our main preoccupation in the last year, as it will be next year, that is, running down the strength of the Army from 265,000 and planning for the support and equipment of full Regular forces.
  There is a special point that I should like to mention. This changeover from a conscript to a regular Army brings over twenty years of National Service to an end and gives rise to a particular problem upon which I wish briefly to touch. Military service in the war years and after meant that hardly a family in the land was without some direct contact with the Army and the Army's problems. This will not be so in the future to anything like the same degree.
  I hesitate to talk about "military tradition" because these are not terms in which we usually talk about ourselves in this country. Nevertheless, I think the Committee will agree that this close and continuous contact between Service and civil life has produced something of value, certainly to the Army and probably also to the country, which I am anxious we should not lose. We must see that we can keep it, even when the Army is much smaller.
  It is, of course, to the Territorial Army—I was glad that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) and other hon. Members referred to the Territorial Army—that we must look for help in this. Its reorganisation is due to be completed early this summer so that units can go for their main period of training in camp organised on the new

  423
  establishment. It is proceeding very well, though not, as I think the Committee will have realised, without some heart-burnings, and we are grateful to the officers and men for their loyal cooperation, and also, I may say, to hon. Members of the Committee who from time to time have taken a hand. In return the Territorial Army now has a better idea of where it stands as regards its future rôle. When we see it referred to as a support for the Regular Army I do not interpret this only in the narrow operational sense, important though that is. The Territorial Army of the future will be an even more indispensable link between the Regular Army and the civil population.
  The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in a speech with much of which I found myself in agreement, was somewhat critical of the mobility of our forces, and seemed to suggest that in an emergency we should not be able to transport the men to the place where they were wanted, or that if we did get the men there they would have to wait for their equipment. I would remind the Committee of the progress we have made in recent years to meet this requirement. There is no question of the need for small, hard-hitting forces which can go by air to the scene of operations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has provided in his Estimates Memorandum impressive evidence of the build-up of Transport Command with a variety of aircraft from Comets and Britannias to Whirlwinds and Belvederes. This range of aircraft is designed to carry both men and equipment over varying distances.
  By far the greater part of the military equipment now coming into service or under development can be carried by the aircraft in the transport force which is now being built up. In this connection I would mention specifically only two aircraft. The Argosy, or the AW660, which is coming into service as a tactical freighter this year, will carry a wide variety of equipment, including the 1-ton truck, the 105 mm. pack-howitzer, the Ferret scout car and the Wombat anti-tank gun, and the Belfast strategic freighter, for which orders have now been placed, has a payload of up to 35 tons, and a range of up to 4,000 miles, and will carry the bigger pieces of equip-
  424
  ment, such as 3-ton trucks, armoured cars, armoured personnel carriers and guided weapons.
  This year, as my right hon. Friend has already told the Committee, we have a bigger programme of airborne exercises, both at home and abroad, and I would like to take this opportunity of inviting hon. Members who are interested to attend some of these exercises later in the year to see for themselves exactly what we can do. If they do not find my words on mobility convincing no doubt when they see for themselves they will find the evidence of their own eyes carries more conviction.
  Mr. Wigg: On the subject of aircraft, I have no objection to the renaming of the Britannic; I would be the last to interfere, but the hon. Member should add that that aircraft is not in service and will not be in service until 1964 or 1965.
  Mr. Ramsden: As regards the types of aircraft to which I referred I was careful to say when they were coming into service and not to indicate any more immediacy than exists.
  Mr. Paget: Is the position, therefore, that up till 1964–65 we have no means of moving the heavier equipment of our forces, and that our forces, therefore, cannot in any way be described as being airborne, or transportable at all?
  Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir, that is not the position. I have indicated the improvements in airborne mobility which will be made. We have to accept that some items of heavy equipment cannot be carried by air, and in those cases theatre stockpiles are provided. If time allowed I could elaborate on our plans for increased sea-portability, if I can invent a word. The new tank landing ships which the Army will get provide one instance, but if I spend much longer on this the Committee will not have answers to many other points which have been raised.
  Mr. Paget: But that ship will not be available until 1965 either.
  Mr. Ramsden: Hon. Members opposite are making their points about the way in which this is going along. I am not seeking to do more than give an indication of the plans we have in prospect. I must get on now and answer other points which have been made.

  425
  My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), in a speech which I was sorry to miss, but of which I have been furnished with a careful note, referred to the women's services. I was interested to note the suggestions she made. She suggested that because of the number of women who leave to get married we should concentrate on the Territorial rather than the Regular element. It is true that the wastage rate is high, but to some extent this is offset by the fact that they are paid rather less than the men, although that sounds a rather unchivalrous thing to say. They are not liable for other benefits such as marriage allowance, quarters, family passages and so on. Nevertheless the high wastage rate is something we have to accept. The problem regarding recruiting more women and widening the range of jobs which women might be able to do is that the present rate of recruiting will not sustain forces sufficient to do the ordinary jobs for which women are required. I will look into the other points made by my hon. Friend and write to her about them.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) drew attention once again to the worrying situation arising from the shortage of married quarters in Germany. I am afraid that B.A.O.R. is a rather dark spot on an otherwise rapidly brightening picture to which tribute was paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). I have seen the progress which is being made in the provision of married quarters in his constituency, and I am glad that he finds what is being done there as impressive as I did when I saw it recently.
  We are going ahead in dealing with the problem in Germany as fast as we can. We shall complete about 3,000 multiple hirings in B.A.O.R. in 1961-62. The contractors to whom the hon. Member for Barnsley referred bear the cost of the building of these flats, but we pay three years' rent in advance. On the numbers I have given this amounts to about £2 million and comes from Army Votes. The accommodation in these hirings is, broadly, the same as in ordinary Army married quarters, and the soldiers pay the standard quartering charges.
  The hon. Member for Dudley did well to emphasise to the Committee that the efficiency of the Army depends on the
  426
  quality of its "tail" arms as much as on its "teeth". He instanced the good job the Border Regiment is doing in the Southern Cameroons. I should explain why such a "tail" was sent to the Cameroons. There were four reasons: the physical nature of the country and its lack of communications and the wide dispersal of the forces which this necessitated; the climatic conditions of the country which made necessary a large medical backing; the fact that there were no existing military bases or facilities in the country when we went there; and the need to adhere to a peace-time system of accountancy. I agree that whatever pressure there might be on manpower the "tail" must not be disproportionately small compared with the "teeth".
  We believe the present administrative services are adequate to meet the normal tasks of internal security, but we recognise that in the event of a limited war we should have to call on reserves, including the newly reorganised A.E.R.
  I should like to pay tribute to the job done in the Cameroons by the King's Own Border Regiment. My predecessor was about to pay them a visit to see them for himself before he was translated to another place. I hope to carry out that visit before long.
  There has been some reference in this debate to whether or not we intend to introduce some kind of compulsory service. As far as I could sense it, I thought that the feeling of the Committee was manifestly against any such idea. Decisions on this must depend on a number of things, and I think it might help the Committee if I were to mention some of them. There is the point below which we are not prepared to allow the strength of our Army to drop; the likelihood of our obtaining an all-Regular Army of that size; and the way in which we might, if things went badly, fall short of that target. I should like to say something on all three points.
  The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) who was the most strenuous advocate of a return to conscription said that he considered our target should be 200,000 men or more. As my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, we could go for an Army of 200,000 men or more, but it was implicit in the decision to end conscription that if we were to do so we

  427
  should risk losing more than we stood to gain through the dislocation of our economic position, the reduction of our ability to assist in the cold war, and in other ways because of the expense in which maintaining a larger number of men under arms would involve us.
  We aim to have an Army of about 180,000 all ranks. For a short time at the beginning of 1963 we can get by on an Army of about 165,000 as long as it is slowly building up towards 180,000. Therefore, we should not introduce any kind of compulsory service solely to achieve the 180,000, and for the purposes of the argument on which I am embarking the figure we must bear in mind is 165,000.
  We do not yet know for certain whether we shall reach 165,000 by 1st January, 1963, when the last National Service man leaves the Army. There can be no certainty yet over this, but the chances do not look too bad and we are certainly going to ride at this fence—if I might select a metaphor from a sport of which the hon. Member for Dudley is fond and in which I hope he will be able to indulge himself this week —as though we mean to get over it. Our only guide in this is the trend of recruiting, and we all know that this can be very misleading and that it fluctuates greatly from time to time.
  We are still about twenty-one months from the time when the last National Service man will go, and it is impossible for anybody to say at this moment for certain whether we shall have 165,000. It is true that we shall have to take decisions how to remedy any shortfall before we know for certain whether there will be a shortfall, but we do not need to take those decisions twenty-one months beforehand. We still have about nine months before we need to act.
  The latest recruiting figures which I have seen suggest that we shall reach 165,000 by 1st January, 1963. The last few months have shown an improvement, and there seems no reason why we should not maintain and even improve on this. We have yet to start our television campaign which will begin in April, and our big summer recruiting drive. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that they will produce further increases.
  428
  If, however, we are short of men, it is clear that we shall be short of men with particular skills rather than men of all kinds. We may therefore have to introduce some special measures. My right hon. Friend mentioned one of them this afternoon. We may need incentives aimed at getting the right type of man. It does not seem that a blunt instrument like compulsory service will be much use to us.
  To sum up, we shall certainly not introduce any kind of compulsory service unless we expect to fall short of 165,000 all ranks on 1st January, 1963. We cannot at present tell whether or not this is likely to be the case, but the recent indications are that we have some reason to be optimistic. Whatever we do, we must produce a cure to fit the disease. It would be irresponsible not to study all manner of possibilities, among them various forms of compulsory and selective service, various forms of incentives and, following suggestions made from both sides of the Committee, whether there are untapped sources of recruits.
  We are trying to remedy any defects, such as shortage of married quarters, which may make men leave the Army or be less anxious to join. We are trying to find out if the numbers who leave the Army, either in their first thre5. months or later in their careers, can be reduced by any action that we can take. But the fact that we are studying these things means no more than that we recognise, as the Committee recognises, that there is a danger that we may not on 1st January, 1963 have 165,000 volunteers, and 165,000 of the right kind, in the Army. It means nothing more than this at this stage. I repeat that it would be irresponsible for us not to consider these things while we have time. I can assure the Committee that we are studying all the possibilities, and if hon. Members can think of any others we will consider them too.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Not a ballot, for heaven's sake.
  Mr. Ramsden: I think I have taken the sense of the Committee on the idea of selective service, and I have tried to analyse the position as we see it.
  Mr. Paget: A press gang?
  Mr. Ramsden: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells

  429
  (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) advocated a wider use of our reserves. Many hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), suggested that we should try to raise more recruits from the Colonies. While we shall look at these two possibilities, it would be wrong for me to give too optimistic an idea of the results we may get from them. The difficulty is that we need men with special aptitudes in special categories to do special jobs. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether from these two directions such men will be forthcoming.
  I end with a few words about our commitments. I want to mention first the British Army of the Rhine which, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said, is in some respects our prime commitment. Here there is an aspect of our organisation in which hon. Members may be interested. Since 1958 the Army has been deployed on the brigade group system. The hon. Member for Dudley rather naughtily said that this had been done in order to conceal our deficiency in divisions. It has meant that each brigade group has had under command its own supporting arms and administrative services. Exercises and trials conducted in the British Army of the Rhine since 1958 have shown that this may not always be the best tactical formation to adopt in battle in North-West Europe.
  To introduce a greater degree of flexibility and economy in the handling of the supporting arms and administrative services it was recently decided to introduce an organisation under which more control of these arms and services is vested in the divisional commander, thereby leaving the brigade commander more free to fight the tactical battle. This organisation will enable the British Army of the Rhine to fight either on a divisional basis or as brigade groups, depending on the requirements of the tactical situation at the time. The organisation of the Army in the United Kingdom and elsewhere overseas will not be changed as a result of this decision
  Hon. Members opposite have suggested that we might improve the balance of our conventional forces in Europe by cutting commitments elsewhere. They have cast doubts on the
  430
  value of our contribution to other regional pacts outside Europe. I doubt myself that such a course, were we to adopt it, would be received with much enthusiasm by our allies. Viewed against the whole range of the cold war, our military presence in the Far East is, I should have thought, every bit as important as our presence in Europe, and the size of the forces which we have committed there is no measure at all of their value as a contribution to our influence. I have noticed very little inclination on the part of hon. Members to minimise, for instance, the importance of our advice in the development of the difficult situation in Laos, but without the Commonwealth Brigade Group we should have been in no posture to offer any advice at all.
  Finally, there is the contribution of British troops to keeping law and order in the Commonwealth and in those places where we have treaty obligations. The hon. Member for Dudley said that the prime purpose of the British Army was to preserve the rule of law. I agree with that. Hon. Members opposite seem to suggest that these commitments are relics of an Imperial past which could be dispensed with. This is a profoundly mistaken view. In the absence of disciplined force to aid the civil power, the field is open for change by violent and unconstitutional methods. We know that it is an accepted tactic of our enemies to try to bring about such changes.
  We should all be willing to recognise that British soldiers who, by their presence in these distant garrisons, are standing between the peaceful lives of ordinary people and the consequences of violent revolution and change are doing a lob of which, in common humanity, they may well be proud, and it is right that they should enjoy the support and confidence of us all.
  In the course of this long debate, hon. Members have raised other points which I have not had time to answer. I can only say that my right hon. Friend and I will study the points which have been made and reply where necessary by letter. We have had a good debate, as a result of which I am certain that, though there may have been disagreements in detail, the Army may feel that it can go forward to discharge its tasks for

  431
  the next year with the support and confidence of the Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 283,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1962.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

RAILWAYS (BARROW-SELLAFIELD SERVICE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
11.58 p.m.
Mr. J. B. Simons: I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister the lateness on many occasions of the early workmen's train to Sellafield. This has gone on now for mare than eighteen months, and the result has been that out of 272 journeys that the train has made—the distance is 20 to 25 miles—it has been late on 176 occasions. On one occasion the train was 25 minutes late, arriving at 7.42. On 98 occasions it has been up to 5 minutes late, and on 54 occasions it has been between 5 and 9 minutes late. The train is due to leave Barrow at 6.0 a.m. and to arrive at Sellafield at 7.11.
The fact that the train is late in arriving on so many occasions of a morning makes the workmen very dissatisfied. The shop committee and the management have tried to get some arrangement made. When one station was closed the train was put back to 6.0 o'clock. On another occasion it was put back to 5.55, The train continued to be late, and the result was it was put back to 6.0.
I was promised, when I investigated the matter with the area manager, whom I met with the workmen and the management, that the matter would be looked into and rectified. It was all right for a week. It was on time. But after a week had elapsed the train was back to its normal habit. I have been informed that it is the result of the mail
432
train from Crewe being late, but that seems rather farcical to me, because they both travel on the one line and wait for each other. As, when it started at 5.55, it was running on time, I suggest it should start at that time irrespective of what time the mail train runs.
The men often get to work a quarter of an hour late. That means loss of production, and also loss of wages and production bonuses. A quarter of an hour multiplied by 220 men and 176 occasions amounts to a large total of lost production and of lost wages at the Sellafield factory. The men do not think it is fair to them, and they are looking to the Minister on this occasion to see they do not go on losing those wages which form an important part of their total pay packets.
The train at 6.40 from Whitehaven to Sellafield has had a coach taken off so that it is more difficult for the men to get from Whitehaven to Sellafield and on three occasions that train has been half an hour late. Men using that train have lost wages, too. On the last occasion, 10 days or a fortnight ago, it was 8.45 before some men got to work.
This state of affairs cannot go on at such an important place as Sellafield, and as the representative here of Whitehaven it is my duty to bring this matter before the Minister on the Floor of this House.
I do hope that the Minister will take note of the one or two suggestions I have made, in the interests of the men and the management, who are also dissatisfied, so that the men can be happy and contented in their employment.
12.6 a.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marples): The hon. Gentleman has brought before the House the difficulties encountered by his constituents and other local people because the early morning train from Barrow is frequently late arriving at Sellafield. He has explained fairly, in moderate terms and courteously, how inconvenient this is for them. They have my sympathy, but in fairness to the House and to the hon. Gentleman I should begin by pointing out the limited extent to which I, as Minister of Transport, could possibly help. Whatever the merits of the case may be, I do not have the sole responsibility in this case. I pointed this out a week ago in reply to my hon. Friend

433
the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris), who spoke about Hounslow, East, Station and complained that the width of the platforms was not suitable for the rush hours. I had to say that under the Transport Act of 1947, as amended by the Transport Act of 1953, it is the general duty of the British Transport Commission
"to provide railway services for Great Britain…due regard being had… to efficiency, economy and safety of operation and to the needs of the public, agriculture, commerce and industry."
It is quite clear under the Acts which Parliament has laid down that it is not the business of the Minister to interfere in the operation of railway services. I am bound to say I am rather glad it is not. Parliament has not laid upon me the duty of seeing that the multifarious activities of the railways are properly run. It is not my job to see that the railway stations are cleaned, that the trains are punctual, or that the railway carriages are clean. I even had the other day a letter from someone who sent me in some newspaper an old chicken served to him, he said, in the dining car. He asked what I thought of it. It arrived four days later than he sent it, and I will not, in deference to the House, say what I thought of it. It was not my duty to pass judgment on the chicken, although it passed judgment on itself.
Parliament decided that, except in regard to certain broad matters of policy, the nationalised industries should be free to manage their own affairs. I work within the rules, and day to day running is left to the Commission. I think it was Lord Chatham who said, "I am responsible for nothing but what I control." I would like to repeat that. Whatever sympathy I may have—and I am sympathetic—I am not the person to put it right. Parliament deliberately removed day to day management from the Minister.
The course followed by the hon. Gentleman in making representations to the District Traffic Manager is the correct one. He had an interview, I think. He could have gone a bit further, and possibly approached the General Manager of the London-Midland Region of British Railways, and I am certain he could have approached the Chairman of the Commission, Sir Brian Robertson,
434
who is extremely courteous and meticulous in answering letters and complaints from hon. Members and from members of the public. If the hon. Gentleman had written to him I am sure he would have done his best to see what he could do to help.
Another way the hon. Gentleman could further his own cause, if he is dissatisfied with the results of his present approaches to British Railways, is to go to the Transport Users Consultative Committee for the north-west area. They would consider the matter. It is their duty under the Transport Acts to consider any matter affecting the services and facilities provided by the Commission. I may be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but according to the advice which I have received, no representations have been made to the Committee about the late arrival at Sellafield of the early morning train from Barrow.
Having explained my limited responsibility in the matter and having told the hon. Member for Whitehaven that there is very little that I personally can do in the matter, I should like to say that I have made some inquiries and I should like to give him the results of those inquiries. This train is scheduled to leave Barrow at 6 o'clock for Sellafield. It is a curious thing, but it is called "not an advertised train." It is not on the schedule. There is nothing to say what time it starts. I saw a play in the olden days called "The Ghost Train," and this train which we are discussing tonight seems to be similar to that ghost train. It is not mentioned in the public time tables. It seems to be a special train laid on for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and I should have thought that he would be grateful. However, it appears that he is not as grateful as I thought he would be.
Most of the passengers are employed by the Atomic Energy Establishment at Sellafield. This train, I am told, stops at all stations. Its time for completing the journey is 71 minutes. The distance is 35 miles, and there are 12 stations, including Barrow and Sellafield, the terminal points.
I asked the British Transport Commission, because I knew the hon. Gentleman had this Adjournment debate, to look into the record of punctuality, and I am told that over the first two months

435
of this year the weekly average has varied between 1½ and 8 minutes late. I have got all the figures here. During this period the train was late by more than 15 minutes on only two occasions; 16 minutes on 13th January and 20 minutes on 17th February.
The main causes of the delays are operating difficulties. The Commission says that the operating staff at Barrow have to co-ordinate the running of the special workmen's train with the running of a parcels express which is scheduled to leave Crewe at 3 a.m. for Whitehaven. If the parcels express that leaves Crewe is delayed, difficulties arise, as both trains use the same route beyond Barrow. I suppose the staff are never quite certain whether to let the Crewe train or the other train through first.
Recently there has been a further problem because in that part of the country not only do they produce tenacious Members of Parliament—and I well remember the hon. Gentleman's predecessor who was in this House for many years—but it rains a great deal. I used to go there, walking in the hills and climbing rocks, and I found that ultimately the rain wore me down. It has done exactly the same thing with this railway line, because a culvert has collapsed at a place called Askam. It is fair to say that this is being attended to as quickly as possible, but there has been a temporary speed restriction at that point and heavy rains last month have made the matter worse.
In an endeavour to overcome the problems the District Traffic Manager at Barrow has proposed the same thing that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, namely that the workmen's train should start at 5.55 a.m., five minutes earlier than it does, and he wrote to the Atomic Energy Authority at Sellafield on 21st February seeking their views on the proposal. He is awaiting their reactions.
436
The Atomic Energy Authority management will have to consult their workshop staff about the proposal, but if the workshop staff agree they will have to get to the station from which they start five minutes earlier.
I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that I cannot do more. Parliament did not lay this duty on me, nor did it give me the commensurate salary to carry out this sort of detailed work which the hon. Member wishes me to do. I must therefore end where I began. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter, and I hope it will do good. I promise that I will send the OFFICIAL REPORT of this debate to Sir Brian Robertson and ask him to go into the matter, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman; so that his complaint will receive attention at the highest level in the British Transport Commission. I will ask the Chairman himself to look at it and I will write to the hon. Gentleman when I have his reply.
To sum up it is not my business to interfere and to say how this train should be run. It is a matter for British Railways and I think that it is clear that they are aware of the problem and are seeking a solution to it. I am glad that the hon. Member raised the matter. I am sorry that I cannot do any more, but Parliament did not give me the power to do more. I hope therefore that I shall be acquitted of any discourtesy if I repeat that this is all I can say in this debate, but I will certainly direct the attention of the chairman of the British Transport Commission to the points which the hon. Member raised in his reasonable and very lucid address to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  North-West Durham
  North-West Durham
  Whisky Advertisements (France)
  Whisky Advertisements (France)
  Renfrewshire
  Renfrewshire
  Dunbartonshire
  Dunbartonshire
  Kilmarnock
  Kilmarnock
  British Newspapers, U.S.S.R.
  British Newspapers, U.S.S.R.
  Dunbartonshire, Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire
  Dunbartonshire, Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire
  Magazine Publishing Industry
  Magazine Publishing Industry
  Library Gramophone Records (Tape Recordings)
  Library Gramophone Records (Tape Recordings)
  Gateshead
  Gateshead
  Export Services Branch (Inquiry)
  Export Services Branch (Inquiry)
  European Economic Community (British Subjects)
  European Economic Community (British Subjects)
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Monopolies Commission (References)
  Monopolies Commission (References)
  Bishop Auckland
  Bishop Auckland
  SIR ROY WELENSKY
  SIR ROY WELENSKY
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
SCIENCE
  Wool Production
  Wool Production
  European Nuclear Energy Agency
  European Nuclear Energy Agency
  Dragon Project, Winfrith Heath
  Dragon Project, Winfrith Heath
  Rutherford Laboratory (University Students)
  Rutherford Laboratory (University Students)
  Scientists and Technologists
  Scientists and Technologists
  Land Reclamation and Coast Erosion
  Land Reclamation and Coast Erosion
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Brick Supplies
  Brick Supplies
  St. Stephen's Hall (Staircase)
  St. Stephen's Hall (Staircase)
  St. Stephen's Crypt
  St. Stephen's Crypt
HOUSING
  Rent Tribunals, Islington and Barking
  Rent Tribunals, Islington and Barking
  Aluminium Bungalows, Easington
  Aluminium Bungalows, Easington
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Welsh Museums and National Library (Grants)
  Welsh Museums and National Library (Grants)
  Wine Street Area, Bristol (Development)
  Wine Street Area, Bristol (Development)
MAURITIUS
  Hurricane Damage
  Hurricane Damage
MALTA
  Public Meetings
  Public Meetings
SCOTLAND
  Maternity Services
  Maternity Services
  School Building, Lanarkshire
  School Building, Lanarkshire
  Remand Homes (Report)
  Remand Homes (Report)
  Law Reform (Intestate Succession)
  Law Reform (Intestate Succession)
  Hire Purchase
  Hire Purchase
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Post Office Posters (Cost)
  Post Office Posters (Cost)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Iron and Steel Securities (Sale)
  Iron and Steel Securities (Sale)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  UNITED NATIONS
  UNITED NATIONS
  CONGO
  CONGO
ROYAL NAVY
  Chief Petty Officers
  Chief Petty Officers
  Chief Artificers
  Chief Artificers
  Engine Room Personnel
  Engine Room Personnel
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sheep Dipping Regulations
  Sheep Dipping Regulations
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Land
  Land
HOSPITALS
  Non-medical Staff
  Non-medical Staff
  Doncaster Royal Infirmary
  Doncaster Royal Infirmary
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Surrendered Firearms, Ballyhackamore
  Surrendered Firearms, Ballyhackamore
  Women's Prison, Theydon
  Women's Prison, Theydon
  Drunkenness
  Drunkenness
EMPLOYMENT
  Stranraer
  Stranraer
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
RAILWAYS
  Great Central Line (Marylebone-Manchester)
  Great Central Line (Marylebone-Manchester)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool
The Earl Graham (D. Montrose)—Took the Oath.

ISSUE OF FIREARMS CERTIFICATES
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 whether they will consider introducing some form of safety and proficiency test before members of the public are issued with gun licences or firearm certificates.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRIETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, a gun licence is a revenue licence and does not, of itself, entitle the person to whom it is granted to possess or use a firearm. The possession and use of firearms and ammunition are controlled by the Firearms Act, 1937, under which the responsibility for the issue of firearms certificates rests with chief officers of police. A firearms certificate is issued only if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the applicant has a good reason for requiring the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made and can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition without danger to public safety or to the peace. On the information at present available, Her Majesty's Government have no reason to think that there are sufficient grounds for introducing a further safeguard on the lines suggested by the noble Viscount in respect of firearms for
278
which a certificate is required. The question whether further restrictions should be imposed on other types of gun is raised in a Bill which is at present in another place, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I did not know what he has just told me—namely, that a Bill has been raised in another place on this subject. As that is so, I have no further comment to make.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does not the noble Earl think that the noble Earl, Lord Home, might be subjected to an early test?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that, at a suitable moment after half past three, my noble friend Lord Dundee will be making a statement about hydro-electricity in Scotland. I should also like to tell your Lordships that it has been agreed, through the usual channels, that. because of the large number of speakers to-morrow the House will meet at two o'clock.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Warsop, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BETTING LEVY BILL
An Amendment reported (according to Order).
NURSES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Bill read 3a, according to Order, and passed.

CENTRAL AFRICA
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWELrose to call attention to the situation in Central Africa; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the exceptionally long list of speakers on this Motion, and the advent of a distinguished newcomer to our debates, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, whose experience as a member of the Monckton Commission will be of special value to us, show that your Lordships on both sides of the House are fully aware of the seriousness of the present situation in Central Africa. We all realise that there is a grave and imminent danger of strife and bloodshed between Africans and Europeans. There are many different views—and no doubt they will be voiced in the course of this debate—about what the Government should do to secure the orderly constitutional change characteristic of British policy. Some will say that the pace of change is too fast; others will say that we are going too slowly. But such differences of opinion are not confined to one Party. I believe they cut across Party lines, and they all deserve respect, whatever their practical merits, as an honest interpretation of British responsibility at a very critical moment in the history of Central Africa.
I must say frankly that we on these Benches are closer to the Government in its recent policy than many of its supporters in this House and in another place. But whatever distance we may stand from one another—and I hope the Government will not draw too much comfort from what I have just said—I believe we all share the keen hope that nothing we may say will increase tension between the races, or be used to encourage either side to overstep the law. Perhaps, indeed, we might go one step further together. Could we not join in a friendly appeal to Africans and Europeans in the Federation not to allow their strong—and understandably strong— feelings about political issues to explode in violent deeds or unconstitutional behaviour?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Judging from the support I have received from several of your Lordships in my state-
280
ment just now, this might be a timely message to send out from this House and I hope noble Lords who follow me will be good enough to say whether or not they agree with my suggestion.
Now, my Lords, I shall try (I do not know how successfully) to look at the situation in Central Africa, and the events which have led up to it, as objectively as possible. Your Lordships will remember that since our last debate on the Monckton Commission Report three important events have taken place in the political life of Central Africa. These are, in roughly chronological order, the first stage of the Conference on the Revision of the Federal Constitution at Lancaster House, the Southern Rhodesian Constitutional talks at Salisbury and the successive stages of the discussions on the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia in London. I think that the question which springs most naturally to the mind in regard to the Federation is whether its prospects have improved or deteriorated as a result of these Conferences and this background of political developments since our last debate on Central Africa. And I fear that the answer to this question—at least, it is the answer that I give, having tried to study the facts as objectively as I can— is that the prospect of holding a Federation together is more slender to-day than it was when the Lancaster House Conference met in December. There appears to have been a distinct hardening of African opinion in Northern Rhodesia and of European opinion in Southern Rhodesia against the Federal set-up.
My Lords, this hardening of opinion on both sides, which undoubtedly we all regret, is, I think, easy to understand. African distrust of the Federal Government has been increased by the attitude they have adopted to constitutional change in Northern Rhodesia and by the attitude of both main Federal Parties, the United Federal Party and the Dominion Party, towards political advance for Africans in that territory. In a nationwide broadcast on February 21 Sir Roy Welensky said that he would "resist" (I am using his own word) any attempt to introduce the constitutional proposals of Her Majesty's Government for Northern Rhodesia "with all the

281
means at his command." By threatening to "resist" the imposition of the British proposals, the Federal Government appeared at any rate to be offering support for interference in the internal affairs of the British Protectorate. Everyone knows, of course, that the Federal Government have the right to be consulted about constitutional changes in the two Northern Territories, but it is for the British Government to decide what these changes shall be, and any form of resistance other than persuasion would clearly be illegal and treasonable.
It is reassuring to know that Sir Roy Welensky does not mean to act unconstitutionally or to encourage anyone else to do so. Indeed, no one would expect such action from so experienced and capable a statesman. Since he arrived in this country, he has said publicly that he is not prepared to consider any of the suggestions about unconstitutional behaviour that have been made to him. Nevertheless, the Africans in Northern Rhodesia may be excused for thinking that when he talked about resistance by all the means at his command, he meant something more than a verbal protest against changes of which he disapproved. I hope that the statements Sir Roy has made since he came to London will be as widely publicised in Central Africa as his earlier statements made in Africa.
Another action of the Federal Government that has added to African fears and suspicions was the call-up of four battalions of Territorials. Although, of course, the Federal Government were entitled to do this, it does not normally take place in a Protectorate except at the request of the Governor. I do not believe that such a request was made by the Governor of Northern Rhodesia. I hope that the Government will correct me if I am wrong. Tension has certainly been relieved by the subsequent demobilisation of these Territorial units.
The other factor in the hardening of African opinion in Northern Rhodesia against the Federation has been the uncompromising opposition of the two main Parties in the Federal Legislature to increased African representation in the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council. The White Paper on Northern Rhodesia (Cmnd. 1295), issued by Her Majesty's Government, informs us on
282
page 4 that the reason why the United Federal Party boycotted the recent talks in London was that their representatives —and I quote:
"challenged the view that there was any justification either for a substantial increase in the number of Africans in the Legislative Council, or for an extension of the Franchise."
The Dominion Party took the same line about Northern Rhodesia and objected to Sir Edgar Whitehead's modest proposal for African seats in the Southern Rhodesian Legislative Council, where, of course, at the moment there are no elected Africans at all. Can we be surprised, in these circumstances, that the Africans in Not thorn Rhodesia see no hope in a Federal Government controlled by Parties determined to block even this gradual degree of African political advance?
The hardening of European opinion in Southern Rhodesia is due, I think, partly to a mounting fear of African rule in the protectorates and partly to the concessions made to Africans in the proposed revision of the Southern Rhodesian Constitution. The narrow margin between these two Parties, the Dominion Party and the United Federal Party, in Southern Rhodesia, would certainly make it difficult for Sir Edgar Whitehead to win his referendum in the summer. While I am sure we all hope he will succeed, no one can predict the outcome.
These being the facts of the case as I see them (I am perfectly prepared to revise my judgment if any noble Lord opposite can convince me that my interpretation of events is mistaken and I sincerely hope that my interpretation is mistaken), and that being the state of opinion in the Federation, is a major factor that the Government have to take into account in framing their policy for the future of the Central African Federation.
It seems to me that there are three possible courses open to the Government. First of all, they can go on hoping, as we all hoped last year, and as I think we all still hope, for agreement between Africans and Europeans to accept a revised Federal Constitution. But this hope has lessened with the failure of the first stage of the Conference—failure to reach agreement, at least—and the subsequent hardening of African and European opinion, as I

283
have already pointed out, against Federal relationship. I cannot myself see any good reason for convening the Conference again unless there is a reasonable prospect of agreement between the races to make the Federation work. Only the Government can judge whether such a prospect exists. To the outsider, at any rate, it looks extremely difficult.
It should not be forgotten, if the Conference is abandoned or finally breaks down, that the Monckton Commission said quite plainly that the Federation cannot continue in its present form; in other words, it would have to be imposed by force on people who do not want it. This is only a theoretical alternative, for I cannot really believe that anyone wants the Federation to be kept going by force or that any British Government could pursue such a policy. The third course, which I hope the Government will seriously consider, if they have not already done so, is to tell the people of the two Protectorates and of Southern Rhodesia that they will be permitted to secede from Federation if they express the wish to secede at some future date. There is surely a better chance that the two races will work together if they find that they will not be compelled to live under a form of government they do not want.
In the meantime (this is another suggestion that I should like to offer; I am really thinking aloud), consideration might he given to the possibility at some future date of a much wider Federation of British Africa than the present Central African Federation. Many African leaders have declared their support for a Central and East African Federation, which would take in Tanganyika, Kenya and possibly Uganda, after these countries become independent, as well as self-governing Central African territories wishing to accede. A Federation of this size, which would be the largest political unit in Africa, would give political strength and growing prosperity to a vast area of the African Continent for which we are at present responsible.
Whatever the Government may decide about the future of the Federation and this is a matter not for us, but for the Government in the exercise of their responsibility—I think we all hope that they will make up their mind as quickly as possible, and that the present political
284
uncertainty will not be allowed to continue for a moment longer than is necessary. Political uncertainty is killing the economic life of the Federation. Development plans are being abandoned or cut down; capital investment is drying up. This disastrous process will not stop until two essential conditions have been satisfied. The first is that the Government should declare their hand about the future of the Federation; the second is that a sense of stability should be established by agreement between the races about their political destiny, whether within or without the Federation.
I should now like to make a few comments on the other two events to which I have alluded—namely, the constitutional discussions in Southern Rhodesia and those in London about Northern Rhodesia. I think your Lordships will agree that the recent talks in Salisbury marked a strong forward step in the constitutional development of Southern Rhodesia. The Secretary of State, who presided at the meeting, scored, I think, a remarkable personal success; and Sir Edgar Whitehead showed a great deal of courage in putting forward proposals which obviously alienated a good deal of Euorpean opinion. If these proposals are confirmed by the referendum that will take place this summer, Africans will be represented for the first time in the Legislative Council, and a Declaration of Rights enforceable by the courts will he entrenched in the Constitution in place of the reserve powers of the British Government.
It cannot have been easy for the African representatives, led by Mr. Nkomo, to accept these proposals, because the Declaration of Rights is not retrospective in regard to racial discrimination, and because the Africans cannot get more seats without the support and consent of the European Parties. So it was all the more striking that Mr. Nkomo accepted, and has only since retracted under the very strong Party pressure to which political leaders in many parts of the world are submitted. If this revised Constitution is approved by the electorate in Southern Rhodesia and enacted by the Legislative Council, I think that we shall all hope that it may be possible for the Africans to take full advantage of the opportunities that will be offered to them

285
under the new Constitution. But I am sure that it would be very helpful to Mr. Nkomo (perhaps I may venture this point, with all humility; because, of course, we have no constitutional rights in a matter of this kind) if it could be made clearly understood in Southern Rhodesia that this is only the first step towards further political advance for the African inhabitants.
It would he a tragic thing if the African leadership in the Rhodesias were to pass out of the hands of moderate men like Mr. Nkomo, in Southern Rhodesia, or Mr. Kaunda and Mr. Nkumbula in Northern Rhodesia and into the hands of extremists. But this is quite likely to happen unless these moderate men are offered terms which they can sell to their own supporters. That, of course, is the story of Party politics in every country. One of the greatest dangers in the present Constitution—and it is something that might easily occur if the Government were to go back on the constitutional proposals they have made for Northern Rhodesia—is that African leadership will pass from the moderates to the extremists, leaving no one with whom we can continue to negotiate. I hope that certain noble Lords opposite, whose proposals would make the task of the moderate Africans much more difficult, fully appreciate this very serious danger.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to make one or two comments on the proposed constitutional changes for Northern Rhodesia. Whatever view we may take about their merits, what matters most in that controversy about them should be conducted in a reasonable spirit and with a proper respect for constitutional procedures. I very much hope that the Government may find themselves in a position to stick to the broad outline of the plan outlined by the Secretary of State at Lancaster House. I say that for this reason, and without pronouncing any view about the merits of the plan as a whole. Any change made at this stage to the disadvantage of the Africans in Northern Rhodesia would be regarded as a surrender to the Federal Government and would make our task in bringing about orderly political constitutional advance much more difficult. The Federal Government was fully consulted through its representatives, both in London and Salisbury, before the plan was tabled. If it had wished to argue
286
its case while negotiations were going on, the United Federal Party should not have boycotted the Conference at Lancaster House. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will tell us whether they feel that this constitutional duty of consultation has been fully discharged, and to their satisfaction. Sir Roy Welensky has the undoubted right to make further representations while he is in London, and I have no doubt that the Government will give them serious and careful consideration. But unless there has been a failure to consult, it is difficult to see how the Government could go back on a decision taken only last month, and at a time when the views of the Federal Government must have been known to them.
There will, of course, be art opportunity for further discussion of the plan at Lusaka with the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, and I hope that the many important details and gaps that remain to be filled in, including franchise qualifications and delimitation of constituencies, will be filled in with the advice of and full consultation with both the African and the European Parties in Northern Rhodesia. This weapon of a political boycott, whoever uses it, is absolutely devastating to any sort of negotiated, reasonable agreement, and one hopes very much that both the African and the European Parties in Northern Rhodesia will take part in these discussions in Lusaka, which, I trust, will be as the Government intend them to be, about matters of detail.
Again, in the Government plan there are advantages and disadvantages from the African point of view. They will not get an elected majority in the Legislative Council, and, of course, they must feel some sense of grievance about this because it was one of the recommendations of the Monckton Nevertheless, there will be a large increase in the African electorate and in the number of African seats on the Legislative Council. Indeed, when it is realised that the balance of power will almost certainly be held by the Liberal Party—and I think it is extremely gratifying that the Liberal Party is doing so well in Northern Rhodesia under the able leadership of Sir John Moffat—it is obvious that the plan is a move in the direction of democratic self-government. This being so, one greatly hopes that,

287
whatever its defects, everyone concerned will make the best of it.
The whole future of Central Africa depends on the possibility of friendship and co-operation between races that are, unfortunately, steadily growing apart. A failure to settle their differences by agreement even if it is their agreement to differ, would mean a disastrous set-back, political and economic, to the Federation itself, and would have repercussions on race relations throughout Africa and far beyond it. But an agreement presupposes the willing acceptance by both races of something each does not really want. For the Europeans it means endorsement of the principle that operates in the whole democratic world, the principle of majority rule, as the target of constitutional development within the Federation. For the Africans, it means the patience and self-discipline required to go through the successive stages of constitutional development before majority rule can be attained. Partnership has hitherto been more often honoured in the breach than in the observance, but partnership could still become a reality if equality between the races were accepted as the common goal. I beg to move for Papers.
3.4 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for putting this Motion down at a most appropriate moment, at a time when our thoughts are full of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, and also for the painstaking and careful way in which he has deployed his arguments to us this afternoon. So far as I am concerned, and so far as my Party is concerned, we fully endorse the warning that the noble Earl gave to peoples in those areas, and we, too, trust that no one there will do anything to impede the normal flow of orderly government in those territories. It is very easy to raise the devil, but it is not quite so easy to calm him down when you want to, as we know only too well. The words of the noble Earl to that effect will, I am sure, have considerable impact in Africa.
We have had a number of debates on this subject in the last ten years—I think I have taken part in every one of them, except one, when I was indisposed—and,
288
whatever happens in Central Africa, no one can say that we in this House have been unaware of their problems. Before I say anything about those problems in detail, I should like, on behalf of the Liberal Party and on my own behalf, to express our wholehearted support of the Government and of Mr. Macleod in the action they have taken in Northern Rhodesia. We believe that their action there is one of courage and imagination, and therefore we support them. We do not necessarily say that the plan they are proposing for Northern Rhodesia is the one we should propose. But it is a plan which should have a fair run. We should give it a trial, and I hope the people of Northern Rhodesia of all races will give it a trial.
So far as I am concerned, I have always maintained that federation was most desirable for Central Africa, and I maintain that to-day. It is interesting to note that every single part of the Monckton Commission's Report—not only the Majority Report, but the Minority Reports as well—recognised the fact that it was essential for the economic progress of those territories to have some sort of association, whether federation or otherwise. As the noble Earl has pointed out to-day, quite rightly, the Africans themselves are thinking of a much larger Federation. They are thinking of a Federation which will embrace the whole British East African territories as well as Central African territories. I would ask the people of Central Africa not to destroy the Federation at this time, because if they do it will be very difficult indeed to restore it when they want to do so. I would say to them, "Get in and work it", and as two of these territories are shortly to have African majorities there should be no difficulty. There is no longer any complaint that the Federation is dominated by the Europeans; it will not be. I hope it will not be dominated by anybody, but the people who have the majority say in that Federation will be the Africans.
The second principle we should establish in this very vexed matter is that the majority of the population must have political control. The majority of the population is, of course, African. Her Majesty's Government have acknowledged that proposition right through

289
East Africa. In Kenya, when the elections which are now going on are concluded, we shall see without a doubt that there is an African majority. In Uganda—there is no doubt about it—there is an African majority. There is nothing else. Certainly a few Asians and perhaps Europeans will be members of the Legislative Council, but the vast majority of the members will be African. The same applies in Tanganyika and in Nyasaland. It is only in the Rhodesias that this principle, to which I am sure we should all, as democrats, adhere, is in any sort of doubt. And what is the reason? It is not because of the backwardness of the Africans. The Africans in the Rhodesias are not more backward than they are elsewhere in East and Central Africa; probably the one territory where they are most backward is Nyasaland. Both economically and in every other way they are extremely backward as compared to those in some other territories. It is not their fault; they do not get the opportunity. Yet in the corning elections they will have an African majority in Nyasaland.
Therefore, we see that the question of whether a territory in Africa has an African majority or not is nothing to do with the African. The question is how many Europeans there happen to be in that territory. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I feel that the result of this new Constitution in Northern Rhodesia will be that at the next elections there will be certainly a majority of African electors and probably a majority of African Legislative Councillors. I am very glad that the noble Earl paid a tribute to and welcomed the fact that the Liberal Party in Northern Rhodesia, as the Liberal Party in this country, is supporting the Government of Northern Rhodesia in this particular Constitution He also welcomed the fact —and I hope that this is a prelude of things to come—that the Liberal Party is likely to hold a balance in Northern Rhodesia. No doubt, as things are going, it will soon hold the balance here, too, and we are quite ready, I may say, to take up that role if the electorate in this country is good enough to give it to us. We have no doubts of our own capacity whatsoever.
I myself do not feel pessimistic about all this. I feel that the Government are pursuing the right course, and I hope that they will stick to it. One of the
290
great troubles in Central Africa has been that people did not take a firm line, that they wavered and dithered: there were too many cooks making that particular broth. But they have a firm line now, and I hope they will stick to it. I am quite sure that things will come out all right. I am not one of those who believe that there is going to be civil war and all those troubles. My view is that if Her Majesty's Government play the thing carefully and do not rush matters, things will come out all right. I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that they should make up their minds quickly on federation and try to force an issue. I would say just the opposite: do not force anything through at this moment; let things settle down. That, I am quite certain, is the proper way to handle the situation.
What do we gain by forcing the federation issue through at this particular moment? I do not think we gain anything, and we may lose a lot. Therefore, I suggest that they should follow the policy of going very carefully indeed and letting things sort themselves out, as indeed they will. I am sorry in this case to depart from my usual sort of principle of having firmly established rules and pushing things through. I am not one, as a rule, as your Lordships know, who pursues this sort of policy, or wishes the Government to pursue it. I am usually stirring up the Government to take action; I am rarely trying to urge them not to take action. Therefore, in this case it is an unusual role for me. But perhaps they will realise how strongly I feel about it in asking them to play a very careful rôle in this vexed problem of Central Africa.
My Lords, there are only two other points I should like to make. The first is in the economic field. Those of us who have to deal with the economic problems of East and Central Africa are very much disturbed about the economic field. Up to now I have been urging the European element in Central Africa to realise the political realities of the day. I now ask the Africans to realise the economic realities. Just recently one of the leaders in Northern Rhodesia made a statement (people of all races seem extraordinarily eager to make statements, and just now I think it would be better if they were not so eager) saying what he was going to do, what taxes he was going to impose on

291
various industrial and commercial enterprises. He must be very careful: if he is not careful he may have very few to tax, because those concerned with these areas know that the credit situation is most serious. It is most difficult to get credit for East and Central Africa simply because the political situation is in so much doubt in the minds of investors. Anyone who thinks I am wrong can easily check my statements by going down to the City of London and trying to raise a couple of million pounds for East or Central Africa, or by putting a telephone call through to New York or Bonn, or Frankfurt, or Zurich and see how much money he will get from any of those centres of finance. I can assure your Lordships that he will get precious little. So the African leaders, in my view, need to be most careful of their language, and they need to realise that without European and Asian collaboration in the field of economics the only freedom they will give their people when they get independence is freedom to starve.
There is something that we can do, and should do and that is in the realm of education. In Tanganyika there is only one African barrister. Some of your Lordships who have not a great admiration for the legal profession may say what a fortunate place Tanganyika is. But, after all, the legal profession forms the basis of the Judiciary, of the magistracy; and, quite apart from that, it is essential in commerce and in the operation of the legal system; and a country which is just about to have independence which has only one African barrister is certainly not over-supplied with that particular product. The same thing goes right through the other professions and trades, both in East Africa and in Central Africa. We have not done anything like as much to train these people as we should have done. Even now there is no university in East Africa. There is one to be established quite soon, but it has not yet been established. The same thing is true of Central Africa, and I believe that the contribution we in this country can make, and should make, above all else, is to go in for a really big scheme of education and technical training, for the Africans in those territories. Unless we do that,
292
when the time comes to hand over we shall not have done our duty.
Finally, my Lords, I would say this. I think that the Royal Tour of India, Pakistan and the other countries has shown above all else, with the enthusiasm that it created in the minds of the people in the countries which Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness visited, what a link still remains between us and them. And that is true of all Commonwealth countries which have become independent in the last ten or twelve years. And why is that true? It is because we helped them towards their independence. We did everything possible to make the transition a smooth one; they acknowledge that, and are grateful for it. And I believe that the same thing is true of Africa. It is already true of West Africa, and I think that it will be true of East and Central Africa, too. If we help them now in every possible way to achieve their independence within the Commonwealth, to achieve their nationhood, then I believe that we shall reap a thousandfold the gratitude that they will be only too eager to give us.
3.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on his prescience in putting down this Motion, I think about a month ago, because nothing could be more opportune than that we should have this debate at this time. With the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I welcome the debate not only because of its general importance—the proof of that is the many eminent noble Lords who are going to play their part in what is to be a two-day debate—but also because it gives me an opportunity to talk in particular about the Northern Rhodesian Conference on which there has been so much misunderstanding indeed, I intend to concentrate almost entirely on that aspect of the debate. I feel that that is the way that I can best help your Lordships, remembering that I have been present at nearly all the meetings of the Conference, whether they were formal or informal, whether they were the full Conference or just talks that we had outside of the Conference. At some of them I presided.

293
What are my main impressions of the Conference—and I refer particularly to the second part of the Conference when, unhappily, there was a boycott of the Europeans, and only the Liberals were there.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? When he speaks of the "boycott of the Europeans," does he mean the Europeans or the United Federal Party? I think it is important, from the point of view of the Record, that we should get this right.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I meant to say "the Europeans except the Liberals", bearing in mind that it was not only the United Federal Party but also the Dominion Party. As I was about to say, the impression above all else that I gained, was the responsible and responsive attitude of those who were present. Your Lordships will recall, for example, that the Africans sought universal suffrage: a clear majority in the Legislative Council and Executive Council. None of those things, in the event, was forthcoming; yet, if I may so put it. they stuck it, despite their feeling that they were being strung along while a different set of negotiations were being conducted between Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government in Salisbury. As the outcome of the Conference shows, this feeling was not based on fact. We did, of course, consult the Federal Government, as we are pledged to do. But the point that I wish to make is that I felt that all the Africans present showed a sense of responsibility and impressed me with their capabilities: that they are well suited to play a part in the Government of their country.
Before turning to the constitutional proposals as they are set out in White Papers Nos. 1295 and 1301 I want just to touch on the general question of federation. I, too, deeply believe in the Federation and will do all that I can to see that it is preserved. I know that in saying that I speak equally on behalf of my right honourable friend who has again and again expressed his belief in the Federation—indeed, that is true of all Her Majesty's Government. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, taking the same point. I need not go into the reasons why I believe in
294
the Federation. Clearly, the economies of the three territories are complementary. There is also great advantage in this Africa of so many small States having one or two units which are strong and which are composed of all races.
But we have to realise, in regard to the Federation, that we are up against the fears of the Africans. The Monckton Commission, which was so widely based and so wisely chosen, stressed these African fears: the fear of domination by the white man, the fear of Salisbury and the fear that there was an end to African advance. These fears are there, and I am afraid that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, may be right when he says that our task, as a result of the last weeks, is now no easier when there is this fear. Your Lordships will recall that the Monckton Commission proposed that to combat these fears in the Northern Territories there should be African majorities, and they also proposed that certain of the powers which are at present Federal powers should be transferred to the Territorial Governments. I do not propose to comment on these proposals—indeed, it would not be appropriate, for the Conference to consider these things is adjourned. I would stress that it is adjourned, and
I am confident that it will not fail. But it will be recalled that the Monckton Committee welcomed the changes that have taken place in the Nyasaland Constitution, welcomed the changes that were proposed in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution, and pressed for similar changes in the Northern Rhodesian Constitution.
Here for a moment I want to recall that when we had the last Constitution for Northern Rhodesia, in 1958, it was laid down, or stated specifically in the White Paper at that time, that it was hoped that there would not be drastic changes every few years. The fact that we have, or propose to have, a new Constitution now is something for which we are on many sides strongly attacked. But those who attack us should also bear in mind that in Southern Rhodesia there was a Constitution set up in 1957 and that Sir Edgar Whitehead has changed that within three years. When he did it, what did he say? He said—and I quote:
"They have been years of very rapid change, and the proposals that we are discussing

295
to-day, I admit to you candidly, would have been unthinkable three years ago."
It would have been folly to ignore this trend, folly to ignore the recommendation of the Monckton Commission and to resist any move to go forward with Northern Rhodesia.
My right honourable friend said in May that he had no plans in mind for constitutional change in 1960 in Northern Rhodesia. But he added that he recognised that after publication of the Monckton Report he might have to look at things again. How wise and right he was in his prognostication! In fact, what did happen? What started these Northern Rhodesian Constitutional talks? It was not Her Majesty's Government that started them, but rather the Government of Northern Rhodesia. They took the initiative, and all Parties —I was going to say I stress "all Parties", but I am not sure whether it is true of the Dominion Party—but, at all events, all other Parties in Northern Rhodesia, welcomed the move, and of course it had the fullest support from this country.
The Governor talked with the various Parties in the autumn, but unfortunately they came to a deadlock on the key question: should there be an African majority or a European majority in the Legislative Council? As a natural sequel, the Conference was transferred to this country, with the hope that we might resolve the deadlock here. There was a complication—namely, that at that same time there was in being the Federal Conference, and it was agreed by all, including the United Federal Party, that the two Conferences should run concurrently. I hope that I have been able to show that we could not stand pat on the 1958 Constitution, remembering, too, that if we had done so the Monckton Commission—I am sure they were right—felt that the hope of a continuing Federation was small or non-existent. I welcome the support of the noble Lord. Lord Ogmore.
I think it may be helpful if, briefly, I set out the main changes from the 1958 Constitution. First of all, the Legislative Council will be enlarged from 30 to some 50-odd members. Of these, the elected members will be about one-third European, one-third African and one-third
296
either race. There will still be six officials and one or two nominated members. Secondly, the franchise will be widened. There will be, instead of a potential African register of some 20,000 voters, a register of some 70.000. But—and I shall come back to this later—the voters will still be highly qualified. Thirdly, the Upper, Lower and National Roll seats will replace the ordinary, special and reserved ones; but the national seats, at least, will compensate for the loss of the cross-voting arrangements which existed in the last Constitution. There will be a House of Chiefs. We propose that there shall be a Bill of Rights and probably a Council of State. But in the present Constitution, as in that of 1958, the Executive Council will be advisory to the Governor. In both, we have been guided by the same principles.
I hope that, having made this thumbnail sketch, it will be appropriate for me to turn to the issue on which the Conference in Northern Rhodesia was deadlocked, namely, whether there should be an African or European majority in the Legislative Council. My right honourable friend, at the beginning of the Conference on December 19 in London, said that we should consider arrangements
"which will produce in practice something like equal European and non-European members in the Legislative Council or something short of that or something going a little beyond it."
And at the end of the Conference our position was entirely consistent with his statement. I emphasise this because I know that many of our friends believe that Her Majesty's Government changed their minds in midstream owing to pressure from Salisbury.
What is the outcome of those proposals? What is the outcome of the statement of my right honourable friend on December 19, which I have read? Which race will have the majority in the Legislative Council? The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said he believed it would be the Africans. I, frankly, do not know; and I think that is right. I feel that it is for the electorate to say who should have the majority. But what I do know, and what matters very greatly, is that those having the main say in the Legislative Council and the Executive Council will be those who make the greatest appeal to all races. That must be right, remembering, as I

297
will show your Lordships later, that the voters who are to have this responsibility will be men of right and good qualifications.
Several times the question has been put to me and to others of the Government: why did we not merely enlarge on the 1958 Constitution, if any change at all were necessary? The answer is necessarily somewhat detailed and complicated, because these issues are by their very nature complicated when one is endeavouring to maintain a delicate balance between one race and another and at the same time so 10 arrange things that those concerned in the elections have to appeal to all races rather than just to their own race. I believe that what was worked out in 1958 by my former chief the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton (and I in some small degree had some responsibility in it) was effective and good, given the conditions at that time; but I also believe that in the present circumstances, when one wants a greater number of African members and an enlarged electorate, it would not have been as suitable as what we now propose. But—and I shall keep coming back to this point—if your Lordships will study both sets of detailed proposals you will find that there is no basic change from the 1958 principles. Rather, the development is a natural one, given, as I have said, the need to enlarge the Legislature, increase the number of African members and widen the franchise.
Let us look at the principles which governed the 1958 position. The first principle shown in Part IV of the White Paper (Cmnd. 530)—was that politics should be on Party and not racial lines. That must mean that candidates to be successful must appeal to all races. The National seats, which we have tentatively set at one-third of the total, are indeed specifically designed to this very end. Without such an overall appeal no Party could hope to win the National seats. The second principle was to move away from the pre-1958 system of racial representation in the Legislative Council. I believe our present proposals do this just as much as did those of 1958. The old rural and line-of-rail seats, as they were known, are in effect the same as our Lower and Upper Roll seats, and the
298
probability remains that in one the Africans will be returned, and in the other, the Europeans.
At this time in the development of Northern Rhodesia it would be foolish to ignore the continuance of some degree of assured racial balance. It may be argued that the non-racial feature of the 1958 Constitution, whereby appeal had to be made in all these seats to both Europeans and Africans, is lost. This is, in measure, true of the Lower Roll but not so true of the Upper Roll. But let us remember that in practice, if we had stuck to the old system, the value of the proposed enlarged franchise would have been little or nothing, since no more than a certain percentage of votes is allowed to count. It was this kind of consideration which led us to the alternative proposals we have put forward to-day.
The epitome of the 1958 Constitution was an electoral system to encourage the return of men and women prepared to consider the interests of all racial groups. That is equally the epitome of our present proposals. No one, I suppose, would dispute that this is the case for the National seats; and, for the other seats, can it seriously be argued that only extremists will be returned, when it is remembered that for Parties to hope to get an overall majority they must also appeal to voters in the National seats? Parties cannot sing with two voices, one for the Upper and Lower Roll seats and one for the National seats, when the latter will straddle the whole country and have the same electors, and for which the elections will probably he held at the same time as the Upper and Lower Roll elections. I apologise for having gone into such length in this matter, but I believe it is of great interest to some of your Lordships and it is important to try to explain why we have made changes from 1958 while following the general pattern of that Constitution.
Let me now turn to the very important matter of the enlarged franchise we propose. In passing, I might mention that not only did the African Parties urge universal sufferage but even the Chiefs supported them in this. However, we are very clear that at this time universal sufferage is not appropriate, and that

299
only those best qualified and most responsible must be picked. It is just this that we have tried to ensure. To begin with, we have taken the highest wage earners, provided they also have an ability to read and write English, and given them the vote—which means some 40,000 out of a population of 2½ million. Then we have taken two or three categories of citizens who play a responsible rôle or are doing, or have done, a particular service for their country. I have in mind the ex-Servicemen, the registered farmers, who are specially qualified as experienced and good farmers, or, again, the village headmen of registered villages. These three categories together probably number about 20,000. In addition, there are one or two other groups, including wives, who are responsible and have a mind of their own; and thus we reach our total of approximately 70,000.
Surely, my Lords, these 70,000 voters, as I have detailed them category by category, are just the right types we should have playing their part in the Government or in choosing the Government of their country at this time. There is little that I can say on the Upper Roll, because we have deliberately not finalised the qualifications pending consultation with the European Parties mainly concerned with this roll. This was not possible earlier because of their absence from the recent Conference. We have, however, said that we have in mind to increase the African votes by between 1,500 and 2,000. This should mean that there will be about 30,000 voters on the Upper Roll and one-sixth will be Asian and African; the rest will be European. A question has often been asked why we propose to change the Upper Roll qualifications at all, since it breaks the uniformity of pattern with the rest of the Federation. I think my answer to this is, very simply, that uniformity is of little or no relevance where the conditions in the various territories are quite different in regard to both the proportion of the races and the allocation of seats and constitutions generally.
Then we come to the National seats. Here, again, we have set out the framework, but we have not filled in the detail. I am sure that this is right because such matters as the delineation of boundaries and what should be the mini-
300
mum percentage of each roll that a candidate must obtain are details, and vastly important details, which should be settled in the territory itself or, in any event, thrashed out there. This has been the practice in almost every Constitution that has been set up.
It may be that the Governor will not be able to reach final agreement in Northern Rhodesia and reference back here will be necessary. Whether this be the case or not, it is my earnest plea to all the European Parties—I particularly have in mind the United Federal Party—that they collaborate with the Governor in trying to work out the details. We must go forward, and without their help our task is very much more difficult. It is sad that they were not with us during the last Conference, not only because we missed the value of their counsels but also because I found one of the features which has been present in almost all conferences of this kind was lacking. I have in mind the fact that when people of all races are sitting together and trying to reach a common solution to a problem, again and again one finds that much of the mistrust that is between the people disappears, and they realise, if I may put it this way, that the other fellow, the other race, is not, after all, so bad; indeed, he is someone to work with. That, alas! was missing in this last Conference.
I will touch briefly on one or two other parts of the White Paper which are of great importance but have not been the subject of the same controversy as the issue of the Legislative Council and the franchise. The Executive Council will have both European and African members without too close a definition of exactly what the proportion should be. It may well be equally that there will be an Asian, too. Unofficials will out-number the officials and, most important, it remains advisory to the Governor. There is to be a House of Chiefs. I am a great believer in a House of Chiefs, for they represent traditional authority. Theirs is an influence for moderation, and they, in their wisdom, are naturally averse to moving too fast. I feel very sure that the part they have to play in the future of Northern Rhodesia will be of great significance to all races. We believe that the new Constitution should have a Bill of Rights and a Constitutional Council, perhaps in

301
the form of a Council of State, to protect races or individuals against discrimination. Lastly, I would comment that the plan does not cover Barotseland, for that is a matter we must discuss with the Paramount Chief.
My Lords, I am nearing the end of my speech, and I have endeavoured to show why a new Constitution so soon after that of 1958 is essential for Northern Rhodesia and also essential if we are to preserve federation. Yet we have been bitterly attacked for making this change by those very people who welcome the move in Southern Rhodesia and proclaim that when Sir Edgar Whitehead did this his was indeed an act of a statesman. I have endeavoured to show that a mere enlargement of the 1958 Constitution was unsuitable. But we have not deviated one jot from the 1958 principles, above all, in regard to the Constitution being non-racial and responsible; and yet, my Lords, I am told that we have "sold people down the river". And, lastly, I have endeavoured to show that the new Executive Council remains advisory and is designed to help all to learn the art of government while Her Majesty's Government remain in control; yet I am told we have betrayed our trust to our kith and our kin. My Lords, if we had done less we should have betrayed our trust to the Africans, to whom we have an obligation. We may or may not have got things exactly right. Again, I would appeal to all Parties to help us in the final stages of this Constitution. But our unchanging and firm purpose is to help all people in Northern Rhodesia go forward to self-government within the Federation. We shall not heed threats, but we will listen to all in our part of this task.

ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN SCOTLAND
3.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will read the statement on hydro-electricity in Scotland which is now being made in another place by the Secretary of State:
It is eighteen years since the Cooper Committee submitted the Report which led to the setting up of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. Since
302
then the Board has developed Highland water power resources effectively and with general approval. It has so far connected 92 per cent. of the present potential consumers and has brought great benefits to the area it serves. During these years there have been technical advances in other methods of generating electricity, and while the relative cost of thermal generation is taken into account when individual schemes are under consideration there has been no general examination of the whole subject since 1942.
The stage has now been reached where the basic issues involved call for careful and thorough examination in principle rather than in the context of a public inquiry into an individual scheme. My right honourable friend has therefore decided that the general interest would best be served by the appointment of a Departmental Committee which would review the general arrangements for generating and distributing electricity in Scotland, and I am glad to say that Mr. Colin H. Mackenzie, C.M.G., former Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Federation of British Industries, has agreed to act as Chairman. The other members of the Committee will be:

Sir Josiah Eccles, Deputy Chairman of the Electricity Council,

Professor Alan Peacock, Professor of Economics at Edinburgh University,

Mr. James Keyden, Director and General Manager, Pressed Steel Co., Linwood,

Mr. James Craig, County Clerk of Aberdeen,

Mr. James Grant, Editor of the Stornoway Gazette.

The Committee will have the following terms of reference:—
"To review the arrangements for generating and distributing electricity in Scotland having regard to (i) the availability and cost of hydro-electric power and of other sources of electricity; (ii) the rate of increase in the demand for electricity; and (iii) the needs of the remoter areas: and to make recommendations".
The appointment of this Committee will not preclude the simultaneous consideration of the specific objections which have been lodged regarding the Glen Nevis scheme, and my right honourable friend is considering whether

303
a public inquiry into these objections should be held at an early date. No final decision to proceed with the Nevis scheme would be made until the Departmental Committee's report had been received and considered.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I always feel a little handicapped on such occasions as this, when Scotland is involved, and for the moment we have not a Scottish Peer behind us; but I am a little anxious about this statement. What is the real intention of this Departmental Committee? What question of principle is involved? I do not quite understand the necessity for holding an inquiry with such terms of reference. I hope this is not another "dig" at what has been an enormously successful, nationalised industry in Scotland. As to the composition of the Committee, although you have a first-class electricity man in Sir Josiah Eccles, besides a Professor of Economics, I am not impressed at first sight (although I am not a Scot) with the composition of this Committee, with such wide terms of reference. I wish we could have a little more information.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, talking from a Scottish point of view, I think we must certainly welcome this statement. The hydro-electricity scheme has done an enormous amount of good to the Highlands, which were being depopulated, and the more such work we can bring into the country the more pleased will be the people who are interested in Scotland, and the better it will be for the future of Scotland.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, there is certainly no intention of disparaging the admirable work which has been done by the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board, about which I think we all agree. The only purpose of this Departmental Committee is to review in principle matters which have not been reviewed for nineteen years—that is to say, to assess the relative cost of producing electricity, and its relative effect on demand at high-peak periods as between hydro-electric power and power produced by other methods of generation, such as surplus stocks of coal, and so on. It is in order to furnish my right honourable friend with fresh informa-
304
tion on that matter of principle. I think my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has tabled a Motion on this subject which your Lordships will be debating on Thursday of next week, and your Lordships will then have the fullest opportunity of discussing all these questions in great detail.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, whilst I am not quite happy, I do not want to hold up the discussions of the House on this very important debate. If it is going to be debated next Thursday week, it can be said then. Has Lord Strathclyde, the Chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board, been consulted on this matter?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Of course he has been consulted, my Lords. It would be impossible to take a step like this without consulting the Chairman of the Board.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is their experience so unsuccessful? I think it has been magnificent. Are they in any way involved in the composition of this Departmental Committee?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It would hardly be possible to put a member of the Board, or an engineer who is personally concerned with hydro-electric schemes in Scotland, on the Committee; but I will remind the noble Viscount of its terms of reference:
"To review the arrangements for generating and distributing electricity in Scotland having regard to (i) the availability and cost of hydroelectric power and other sources of electricity; (ii) the rate of increase in the demand for electricity; and (iii) the needs of the remoter areas:…"
These are all broad questions of principle which my right honourable friend thinks it is time to review again, in the light of the changes which may have taken place in the relative costs and efficiency of different methods of electricity generation.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, will the noble Earl say whether, within these terms of reference, it is intended to consider the question of subjecting the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to competition from, for example, private companies? Is it intended not merely to disturb the set-up as between one form of generation and another, but, as in the case of other

305
publicly-owned industries, are the Government favourably considering subjecting this North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to intervention and competition from private capitalist concerns? Would the noble Earl tell us the answer to that simple question which my noble friend put?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not see how that can come within the terms of reference of this Committee, which are simply to consider the relative costs of generating electricity as between hydro-electric power, coal, atomic energy and so on.

CENTRAL AFRICA
3.56 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have made so many speeches within recent months on the subject of Central Africa that I hesitate to trouble your Lordships with yet one more. But there have been developments during the last few weeks which seem to justify—and, indeed, even necessitate—a further examination of the position; and I am sure we are all extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for tabling this Motion and for framing it in such broad terms that it enables every aspect of the problem to be dealt with. I can, at any rate, assure noble Lords that although in what I say I may speak as a moaner and a croaker, I shall not speak as a cynic; for no one believes in the British mission in Africa more passionately than I do. The main new features, my Lords, as I see it, in an already sufficiently complicated situation, are, of course, the meeting of the Northern Rhodesian Conference in London, the decision of the United Federal Party to take no part in it, and the virtual deadlock (one may hope temporary deadlock) which has been reached.
It is my good fortune this afternoon to follow the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who, as always, has been moderate and courteous in everything he has said. He, very naturally, holding the position he does, has dealt principally with the details of the latest scheme for constitutional reform in Northern Rhodesia, which has emanated from the Colonial Office and has the support of Her
306
Majesty's Government. I do not want to discuss that so much as the origin and causes of the present acute tension between Her Majesty's Government in this country and the Federal Government in Africa. Now I believe that it is of first importance that we should clear our minds about this, for, unless we can do that, we are unlikely to find an acceptable solution to our present troubles.
That, as I see it, involves an appreciation of the position, not only as people in this country understand it, but as it is understood by the loyal communities in Africa, white and black, whose position has hardly been mentioned in the original speeches by Lord Listowel and Lord Ogmore, and not very much by Lord Perth, but whose co-operation is essential to any satisfactory settlement—or, indeed, to any future prosperity in the countries concerned. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has given us at length, and with great moderation, what I may call the African view. Your Lordships, will not object, I am sure, if I give the view of other sections of the population whom I believe to be equally important.
The first tiling which it is necessary we should all realise is this: that what we are face to face with is essentially a crisis of confidence. I do not say that There are not wide divergences of view between the two Governments concerned. Of course there are; and perhaps to some extent that is inevitable. But it is not that which has made the situation so intractable. It is the miasma of mistrust that has arisen to cloud the issue and to embitter the controversy. Until only a few months ago, as your Lordships know, the attitude of White Rhodesians to the Home Government was one of complete loyalty and deep affection. I. have been there many times over the last thirty or forty years, and I know that Rhodesia was the most British, in the fullest sense of that word, of any of the realms and territories of the British Crown. Now, within the space of a few months, those feelings have given way to others of a very different kind: of suspicion, of contempt, almost of hatred of the home Government.
How has this terrible thing come about in so short a time? It is essential, I repeat, that we should find out, if confidence is to be restored. And unless

307
confidence is restored, make no mistake, my Lords, matters will drift on from bad to worse. How, I repeat, has this change come about, and who is responsible? I am afraid, my Lords—and I think it is necessary that we should all speak frankly in the pass which we have now reached—that the main responsibility must rest on the present Colonial Secretary. I say this from no desire to belittle the remarkable qualities which the right honourable gentleman undoubtedly has. He is, as we all know, a man of most unusual intellectual brilliance; and he is, moreover, both brave and resolute. Those are valuable and not too common attributes in politics. But the fact remains that I believe he has adopted, especially in his relationship to the white communities of Africa, a most unhappy and an entirely wrong approach. He has been too clever by half.
I will try to explain what I mean in this way, which I hope will not be considered offensive by the right honourable gentleman—it is certainly not meant to be. I believe that the Colonial Secretary is a very fine bridge player. Indeed, in the days before he attained such political eminence, he was (so I am told) the bridge correspondent of one of the leading British newspapers, which makes him a very great authority indeed. Now bridge, my Lords, is a game where two players are matched against two other players. They are not enemies of each other; on the contrary, they are often most intimate friends. But they are opponents, and the aim of each pair is to outwit their opponents. It is not considered immoral, or even bad form, to outwit one's opponents at bridge. On the contrary, the more you outwit them, within the rules of the game, the better player you are. It almost seems to me as if the Colonial Secretary, when he abandoned the sphere of bridge for the sphere of politics, brought his bridge technique with him. At any rate, it has become, as your Lordships know, the convinced view of the white people in Eastern and Central Africa that it has been his object to outwit them, and that he has done it most successfully.
The first occasion on which what I might call the "bridge technique" became apparent, in the view of these
308
European communities, was at the Lancaster House Conference on Constitutional Reform for Kenya, in the early part of last year. That Conference began, so we understand, in the usual manner, by what amounted to a Second Reading debate, a debate in which pretty wide differences of view became apparent. Then, after not very lengthy consultation, the Colonial Secretary planked down on the table a Constitution of his own which, particularly in the very wide franchise which it granted to Africa, went far beyond anything that any of them, even Mr. Blundell and his supporters, expected or thought safe. It is quite true that after the laying of the Macleod proposals further negotiations took place, but they were only on the basis of his scheme. No others could be considered.
Now that, I think we shall all agree, was extremely clever. The Europeans found themselves completely outwitted, and they were driven to the conclusion (if I may revert, for the last time, to the bridge metaphor) that it was the nationalist African leaders whom the Colonial Secretary regarded as his partners, and the white community and the loyal Africans that he regarded as his opponents, in the game he was playing.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Shame!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount says "shame". I am stating the view of the white communities in Africa.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Then I want to know if it is the view of the Marquess, and if he believes in the complete insincerity of the Colonial Secretary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No. I think the Colonial Secretary regards this as the way to conduct the negotiations. If the noble Viscount, or anybody else in this House, thinks that I am being guilty here of exaggeration in the account I give of the views of the white communities in Africa, then he had better go to Kenya or to Central Africa, where he will find that, if anything, I am under-stating their case. They were very indignant, but they felt that all that was left to them was to make the best of a very had job; and that is what they have

309
done. But, my Lords, what happened to them came as a severe warning to others in a similar position.
It is an illusion, I think—one that seems common to Governments of every political colour—that it is possible to deal with problems of this kind concerning particular territories, each entirely on its own, as if it were sui generis; and that one could then, as it were, close the chapter without repercussions elsewhere. In fact, experience shows that the actions of Governments nearly always have repercussions that go far beyond the areas to which their policy was originally intended to apply. What a Government does, say, in Cyprus is immediately noted by people in, for example, Kenya; and what is done in Kenya is equally carefully noted, to take a very simple instance, in Central Africa. That, my Lords, is exactly what has happened in this case. The people of the Central African Federation saw a technique which had been employed in the Kenya Conference, and they saw other evidences of the same kind.
I will give only one instance, because I do not want to take up too much time of the House. There was the unfortunate episode of a guarantee which was given by the Prime Minister to Sir Roy Welensky, that the subject of secession would be outside the terms of reference of the Monckton Commission. I am not going to re-traverse all the ground which was covered in our earlier debates on this subject: I am sure that it is fresh in the memory of your Lordships. I would say only this. It may well be true, as the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons—and I am sure it is true—that the wording of the guarantee which he gave to Sir Roy Welensky was open to differing interpretations. But surely he and the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, equally should have known the nature of the guarantee for which Sir Roy Welensky was asking, what he meant when he asked for it; and if they put a different interpretation on the guarantee which the Prime Minister gave—if they meant something else from what Sir Roy meant—then I think they should have told him so. For by keeping him in the dark about something that he and his Government regarded as a vital matter, they did a great deal of harm. They
310
confirmed the impression that was already in the minds of him and his Government: that Her Majesty's Government were bent on outwitting them, and that they could not be trusted. I am not saying that this is my view, but it is the view they held, and still hold.
The effect of this, and of other experiences of the same kind, has been deplorable. The former mood of trust and affection for the Government here has given way to one of deep suspicion. When the United Kingdom asked the Federal Government (the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has told us about it), at the beginning of this year, to take part in a Conference on the future Constitution of Northern Rhodesia, they were determined not to be outwitted as, in their opinion, other European communities had already been outwitted in Kenya and elsewhere. When they were told, as I believe they were told—I shall be corrected, if I am wrong—that the Colonial Secretary would put forward a plan at the Conference, they decided that they must make certain, before they sat down at the table, what the basis of negotiation was really going to be. Until they were certain that it was one on which they could safely negotiate, they felt that it would be much better not to take part, for they would run the risk of suffering the same fate as Kenya. And, my Lords, holding the views they did, and having the suspicions they had, who shall blame them?
Undoubtedly their decision put the Government, and particularly the Colonial Secretary, in a position of considerable embarrassment. It was evident that to use the method which was quite successful in the Kenya Conference, under which the Colonial Secretary put his own plan on the table and it became the basis of negotiation, would not work in this case. They had to find some other procedure; and so, as Sir Roy Welensky said in his speech in Salisbury the other day—and I have not heard it denied—no fewer than three plans were successively produced and submitted privately to the Federal Government. When I say three plans, I mean three plans or three variations of a plan. But none of them alleviated the anxiety of the Federal Government, and it was eventually decided, it seems,

311
by Her Majesty's Government here that matters must be brought to a head.
So, my Lords, on February 11, the Federal Government were given "the barest minimum of details" (I am using Sir Roy Welensky's own words) of a new scheme, a fourth scheme, and they were told that they must give their reactions to it by February 14, the date of the next meeting of the Conference—that was, in less than three days' time. It was the weekend, and the scheme was of the most complicated kind—based, as your Lordships know, on three different franchises. I am not going into the details. I will say merely that the Palace of Westminster has been filled ever since with Members of both Houses trying, with knitted brows, to make out what it really does mean in practice—and even after hearing the noble Earl's most lucid explanation this afternoon, I still find it very difficult to understand. Is it surprising then that the Federal Government found it extremely difficult to take a decision which was vital to them on it over the weekend?
Faced with that message from the Home Government, as I understand it, Sir Roy Welensky offered to come over himself to discuss the new scheme, and to examine it in more detail to see whether it was in any way possible for his Government to accept it as the basis for negotiation. But, strangely enough, this offer, which one would have expected would be so warmly welcomed by the Government here, was refused. He was not encouraged to come. Why, I do not know. Perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will tell us at the end of this debate. But the effect on the Federal Government was that the Kenya technique was again to be employed, and they were to be faced, as the Kenyans had been faced with a scheme which represented the Colonial Secretary's own views, which would be laid on the table and become the basis of the final Constitution. And, in due course, on February 14, as we all know, the scheme was laid on the table of the Conference and was published to the world as a basis for further discussions, as they had expected.
So much for the unhappy past, as it appeared to the vast majority of white Africans in the territories of the Federation, who are different from us sitting
312
here in this House only in that they know Africa, as most of us do not. And that is the way that it appeared also, I think, to a great many of the moderate black Africans, who are more silent than they would be in this country because they are more frightened of what might happen to them.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess, who has always been absolutely frank with the House, whether he personally agrees or disagrees with the view that is widely taken: that the Colonial Secretary has ignored his duty towards the European community in Africa? Would he tell us?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, my Lords, I frankly think that he has. I do not think that I have in any way exaggerated the views of those people of whom I have spoken. I am sorry to have taken so much of the time of your Lordships over the past. Now, what of the future?
The main question before us all now, as I have no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would agree, and I think we should all agree, clearly is: how is the present deadlock to be broken? What is to be done about the situation? I still believe that an agreed solution could be found, just as an agreed solution has already been found—and all credit goes to the Commonwealth Secretary and to Sir Edward Whitehead for that—for the constitutional future of Southern Rhodesia. But before that can happen in Northern Rhodesia, confidence must be restored. And personally I can only see one way—other noble Lords may feel different—that is, for us to return to the Lennox-Boyd Constitution of 1958 and seek to widen the African franchise within the ambit of that. That is the course I make bold to recommend, with great diffidence, to your Lordships this afternoon.
To start afresh on that firm basis would, I submit, have certain immense advantages. Both the United Kingdom Government and the Federal Government have accepted the Lennox-Boyd Constitution. Therefore, it provides a common jumping-off ground for a further advance. The Federal Government could hardly refuse to talk on the basis of the Lennox-Boyd Constitution; nor would they wish, I feel sure, to

313
refuse. Moreover, to make that the basis of new negotiations would be in accord with all those solemn assurances which have been given only so recently by the United Kingdom Government to the Federal Government. Your Lordships will, I am sure, remember the words in the White Paper published at the time of the adoption of the Lennox-Boyd Constitution in 1958, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote just a few of them. The White Paper said:
"In order to inject stability, certain provisions would be entrenched in the Constitutional instrument so that"—
and I ask your Lordships' particular attention to the words that follow:
"the main lines of constitutional advance would be settled for some time ahead and the confidence of the people would not he continually jeopardised by the prospect of drastic changes every few years."
That was the spirit in which both the United Kingdom Government and the Federal Government agreed to the new Constitution; and it is surely the right spirit.
Moreover, the United Kingdom Government, or their spokesman, reaffirmed that position even more earnestly in 1959, which is only two years ago. Early in 1960, less than a year ago, in a speech in Central Africa, the then Commonwealth Secretary, the noble Earl, Lord Home, who is here to-day, gave, I understand, explicit assurances that no reviewing of the Northern Rhodesia Constitution was contemplated until it had run its full course, which I think was five years—I may be wrong about that time. The present Colonial Secretary, Mr. Macleod, also in a speech in Central Africa, reminded the Federal Government that he had already said in the House of Commons that he had no plans for further constitutional reform in Northern Rhodesia (I am not using his exact words, but I think I am giving a fair account of them) except as a consequence of changes that might have already been made in the Federal Constitution. The noble Earl shakes his head. Is that not right?
THE EARL OF PERTH: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Something to that effect. There will be opportunity to put me right later in the debate. And Mr. Macleod said that no
314
changes have been made yet in the Federal Constitution. To revert to the Lennox-Boyd Constitution for a solution of the present difficulties, therefore, would be in fullest accord with very recent statements on policy by Her Majesty's Government; and it would involve no loss of face by either of the two Governments immediately concerned. I do recommend it most earnestly to the attention of the Government and of this House.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth just now stated that Sir Edgar Whitehead had agreed to changes in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution after only three years, and asked why, therefore, was it wrong to go ahead with changes of a smililar scope in Northern Rhodesia. But to anyone who knows that part of the world at all it is quite impossible to draw any exact analogy between those two territories. Southern Rhodesia has 200,000 white inhabitants and far more advanced Africans than Northern Rhodesia. Northern Rhodesia has only a small white population and even now a very primitive African population. Such an analogy, if the noble Earl meant it to be exact, would, I am sure, be entirely false. By all means let us go forward—we all agree about this—both in Northern Rhodesia and in Southern Rhodesia, but not necessarily at the same pace.
I would add this—and it is the last thing that I want to say. Do not let Her Majesty's Government hug the illusion that this is a matter on which the Government of the Federation or the people of the Federation are likely to give way beyond what they think right. They simply cannot go beyond a certain point to meet Her Majesty's Government now. For, my Lords, while we may be playing for high stakes, they are playing for far higher: their stake, they are profoundly convinced, is the life and liberty of every loyal African, white and black, within the territories of the whole Federation; it is the very existence of their State as a civilised community.
It may be impressive to us 5,000 miles away here in London to be told that this is a question on which the Cabinet in their combined wisdom are united. But to Rhodesians, and especially to White Rhodesians—those little communities, including wives and children, scattered

315
about among primitive people, in lands bordering on the Congo—such statements are not impressive. They are regarded merely as a yet more offensive example of the doctrine that "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best". In the Lennox-Boyd Constitution of 1958 we have something that does not exist in the Macleod Constitution of 1961 or in any of the Macleod Constitutions of 1961: we have the basis on which a United Kingdom Government and a Federal Government can stand together, and from which they can go forward together. That, and yet more education for the Africans—and here I cannot say how strongly I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—I firmly believe, are the best hope for that part of the world. I beg Her Majesty's Government, and I beg the Colonial Secretary himself, not to let the opportunity slip of reaching a settlement on these lines. For it may be the last chance of clearing up a situation which is fraught with danger, both for the British Commonwealth and, possibly, for the future of the whole world.
4.26 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not feel that I am unduly forward in addressing you so soon after my introduction, but I think it only right and proper that, having subscribed to the Majority Report of the Monckton Commission, I should take this opportunity of justifying what I then signed. I cannot hope on this subject to command the assent of all your Lordships, but if I defend the recommendations of the Monckton Report I trust that I shall not be regarded as being unduly controversial. I hope to show that our facts were arrived at after close study and that my conclusions were not lightly or irrationally reached.
We had not been long in Northern Rhodesia before we became aware that certainly more than 80 per cent. of the witnesses who came before were opposed to Federation—I think 90 per cent. would be nearer the mark, but I will put it at 80 per cent.—and those were not the extremists. The extremists, Mr. Kaunda and Mr. Nkumbula, boycotted us. We found that even the Chiefs who came before us took the same point of view; and the Chiefs of Northern Rhodesia, like your Lordships, are not disposed to
316
recommend lightly a departure from established institutions. I think that perhaps a well authenticated but slightly humorous anecdote may serve to point how widespread is this dislike of Federation and the very word. We were told by a certain official who understood the vernacular that he was walking past a house that was being built when a bricklayer's mate dropped a hammer on the toe of the bricklayer, who, in the pain and exasperation of the moment, turned on him and told him that he was an adjectival Federation.
When we began to study the position in Southern Rhodesia we found that the Dominion Party was opposed to Federation; that Sir Edgar Whitehead, leading the United Federal Party, had a majority of only three; that the majority of three had arisen out of the single transferable vote, and that on the first count the Dominion Party, which was openly hostile to Federation, would have had a majority. Before we signed our Report we knew that Mr. Harper had split the Dominion Party in order that the section of the Party which he led in Southern Rhodesia should be able to come out clearly and boldly on "Go it alone". It was because we found that the great majority of African opinion in the two Northern territories, and a very large minority of white nationalists in Southern Rhodesia, were all equally opposed to Federation that we arrived at the conclusion that
"The Federation is too much disliked to survive in its present shape."
Like successive Secretaries of State and everybody else who has studied this problem, we were convinced that it was most desirable, in the economic interests of all, that Federation in some form should be preserved. We recognised also that this was a great experiment in co-operation between the races, and we said very clearly and bluntly that it would be a great tragedy if that experiment failed. So it was that in our Report we did everything we could—we applied our minds to every expedient—in order to see how the good principles of Federation and partnership could be preserved. It is not always realised that the Monckton Report is a passionate declaration in favour of the desirability of Federation, and that we were doing our best to preserve it in the only way in which it could be preserved. That

317
was why we recommended the transfer of some subjects from the Federation to the territories, and that there should be in reserve the right to secede.
I do not understand why so many of those who have spoken and written upon this subject always refer to the contingent right of secession which we recommended as arising in five years' time. We said that it might be five years, four years or three years. Our main argument was that it must necessarily be given at the time when the territories reached that independence which the British Government has promised shall be their ultimate political goal. How can those territories have independence without having the right to secede? Independence does not mean only independence from the Government in Westminster; it must also mean independence from a Federal Government if they wish to secede. You have to look at it from a practical point of view. Suppose they were not given the legal right to secede. If you have a nationalist majority, a nationalist Prime Minister, a nationalist Minister in charge of the police and law and order, and a nationalist Minister responsible for finance, then, surely, it would be quite impossible to prevent a territory enjoying independence with a Government enjoying those powers from seceding.
It was because we put forward those recommendations in our earnest desire to preserve the unity of that territory that we have been accused of going outside our terms of reference. We were furnished with very good legal advice on the Commission. There was an ex-Attorney-General of the United Kingdom, an ex-Solicitor-General, an ex-Attorney-General of Southern Rhodesia and a Judge of the High Court of Southern Rhodesia, and they were all of the opinion that it was within our terms of reference to be able to make a recommendation of that kind. I know that the Federal Government have obtained an opinion from a distinguished constitutional expert to the contrary. I have read that document, but it appears to me more of a political than a legal opinion. I should have thought that its fundamental fallacy was to suppose that the Central African Federation, after seven
318
years of existence and containing two Protectorates which are under the control of the Colonial Office, is constitutionally in the same position as the Dominion of Canada, which has enjoyed independence for seventy years.
No Commission worth its salt would have been willing to ask what the meaning of its terms of reference were. It is the right of every Committee and Commission to decide the meaning of its own terms of reference. Had it been the idea that the Commission was merely to act as a rubber stamp for advance towards a further degree of independence, without any right at all to consider the events of the last seven years, we should certainly not have obtained the services of distinguished representatives from Australia and Canada, and ex-Governors to serve on the Commission.
I shall return to the Federal problem, but I want to say something now about the Northern Rhodesian Constitutional Conference. A complaint has been made that a new Constitution is being devised. But even Mr. Greenfield, the Law Minister of the Federal Government, expressed the view on April 6 last year that it was one of the tasks of the Monckton Commission to consider the territorial Constitutions. That being so, it was obviously impossible for any pledge to be given that the Monckton Commission and, thereafter, the Federal Review Conference, would not recommend changes. It was obvious to us, when we were beginning to review the evidence that we had received in Lusaka, that further changes would have to be made.
The Colonial Secretary has accepted for the Northern Rhodesian Legislature one of the proposals that we made for the election of the Federal Assembly. I hope that this will result in an African majority. I do not think that it could be regarded as a satisfactory Constitution if it does not do so. I cannot think that it will be possible, after the Constitution that has been given to Nyasaland, for the Constitution to be given to Northern Rhodesia to fall far short of it. I am aware that the Colonial Secretary said that there are great differences between Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia—and so there are. The number of whites is now about nine

319
times as great in Northern Rhodesia as in Nyasaland, and there is also the great copper industry. But I made special inquiries from responsible people in Northern Rhodesia as to what the effect would be upon Northern Rhodesia of a great step forward in Nyasaland. I was told that in their view it would be essential that the two African territories should be granted reasonable parity of treatment so far as their Constitution was concerned.
I cannot understand why the United Federal Party, which claims to be a multi-racial Party, should take such exception to one-third of the seats being of a multi-racial character, and the electorate being one that combines both whites and blacks. If it were in fact the case that the United Federal Party had a substantial following among the Africans of Northern Rhodesia, a Constitution of this kind ought to be satisfactory to them. I think that in point of fact it serves to show that they have not forgotten the results of the last election in Northern Rhodesia when the following they had among the Africans turned out to be extremely small. And I believe that further confirmation is given to that in the speech of Sir Roy Welensky in the Federal Assembly about a fortnight ago, when he said that it appeared to him certain that this Constitution which has now been proposed by the British Government would result in an anti-federation majority being returned in Northern Rhodesia.
Paragraph 4 of the White Paper shows why the crisis has arisen, and here I venture to give an answer to my noble friend Lord Salisbury. Paragraph 4 of the White Paper says:
"The United Federal Party representatives challenged the view that there was any justification either for a substantial increase in the number of Africans in the Legislative Council, or for an extension of the franchise."
There are one or two more sentences, and then it goes on:
"The time was approaching when Northern Rhodesia was entitled to make the advance to responsible government, which should be established on the basis of the franchise and electoral arrangements laid down in 1958."
My Lords, the present Prime Minister has stated in terms that the undertaking that the protectorate status will not be withdrawn from the Africans of Northern
320
Rhodesia without the consent of the inhabitants meant of the inhabitants, and not merely of the voters. Therefore the claim made by the United Federal Party that the time has come for advance to responsible government on the basis of the present electorate, with 68 per cent. of the voters representing the 72,000 Europeans while 25 per cent. of the voters represent the 2½ million Africans, would be a clear breach of the pledges that have been given by this and previous Governments to the people of the Northern Protectorate. The United Federal Party representatives have not only walked out of the Conference but have deliberately put forward a claim which Her Majesty's Government in honour could not possibly accept. And, therefore, my answer to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is that the responsibility for this crisis in the Northern Rhodesian Conference rests fairly and squarely on the United Federal Party and the Dominion Party who are supporting them.
We hear much about the need for responsible behaviour by African politicians. I cannot avoid drawing attention to the action of the Ministers of the Northern Rhodesian Government. One of the provisions of the 1958 Constitution was that there should be collective responsibility. I do not know how Mr. Roberts and his colleagues were able to justify to their consciences continuing to remain Ministers in the Governor's Cabinet while at the same time boycotting the Conference in which he and their other colleagues were taking part. If I wished to criticise Her Majesty's Government it would be that, despite this boycott by the European Ministers, Her Majesty's Government continued to negotiate with them down the back stairs. Very harsh things have been said about Africans when they have been guilty of boycott—even as recently as last December when they walked out. How much more reprehensible is it that Ministers of the Crown should behave in this way!
It is not only the United Federal Party Ministers and the Northern Rhodesian Government who I think are open to very severe criticism. It is also the intervention of the Federal Government. In 1951, at the Victoria Falls Conference, when the Africans expressed the fear that federation would result in a holding

321
up of their political advance, this statement was incorporated in the proceedings of that Conference:
"The political advancement of the peoples of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, both in local and territorial government, must remain as at present (subject to the ultimate authority of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom) the responsibility of the Government and Legislature of each territory and not of any federal authority".
That I regard as a pledge that was given to the Africans. But in case what I might call the "Hailsham doctrine" should be said to apply—that, because the Africans did not co-operate, therefore the pledge ceases to operate (and I would say in its other connotation I respectfully agree with the Hailsham doctrine)—on this occasion, in order that there should be no doubts about this being an abiding and binding principle of the Constitution, it was incorporated in the Preamble to the Constitution.
It is quite true that an undertaking was later given that
"as regards amendments of the Territorial Constitutions, the existing machinery and the responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom remain unchanged, but Her Majesty's Ministers would naturally seek the views of the Federal Government before advising Her Majesty."
Clearly, that explanatory statement afterwards in no degree reduces the binding force of the pledge or diminishes the ultimate authority of Her Majesty's Government. I read that Sir Roy Welensky said last week—he quoted the latter part but not the earlier part of what I have quoted this afternoon:
"It was never meant to imply that the views of the Federal Government would merely be sought and rejected."
But that is just what those words say, and just what they mean in appropriate circumstances. After all, it is common in Statutes here that a Minister of the Crown is put under an obligation to consult, say, county councils or trade unions, or whoever it may be; but the responsibility for the final decision rests with Her Majesty's Government. I fear that this flagrant and open intervention, similar to what has been suspected by Africans on previous occasions, can only harden African hostility to federation.
That comment, my Lords, brings me back to federation and to the final words I have to say. The Monckton Report was, of course, advisory. We repeated
322
that on a number of occasions. But Africans will not accept less than the recommendations that we put forward. That, I think, is because we were an impartial body, including nominees of the four African Governments, and, perhaps I might also mention, four members of the Conservative Party. Sir Roy Welensky's anger at the recommendations that were made is due to his recognition, as a realist, that it will not be possible to secure African agreement to anything less than our recommendations. But there is one, and perhaps the most important of all, of our findings in regard to which I rejoice that Sir Roy Welensky is in agreement with us. We said that
"to hold the Federation together by force we regard as out of the question".
Sir Roy Welensky speaking in the Federal Parliament on October 25—it is at Column 3146 of Hansard—said:
"I would he the first to agree. Clearly, the Federation cannot be held together by force, and no sensible body of people would attempt to do so."
I can only hope that all those responsible for conducting these negotiations will steer a course that will not involve us in any effort to hold the Federation together against the wishes of the great majority of Africans. History, from Ireland to Cyprus, has warned us of the dangers of doing so; and it is because I am confident that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to do so that I am glad to assure them of my support.
4.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, it is my good fortune to follow what I think your Lordships will all agree is one of the most remarkable maiden speeches we have heard in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, came to us with a great reputation for independence of mind, judgment and courage. Now he has shown in this speech that he will be a great asset to your Lordships' House. It was a speech that, while out of the ordinary run of maiden speeches, could not have been called controversial because it was factual; it was authoritative and based on experience and hard fact. From that point of view, it seems to me that it was a devastating answer to the critics of the policy that Her Majesty's Government are now pursuing. We congratulate the noble Lord.

323
My Lords, a number of criticisms were brought out by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I am sorry that he has just left the Chamber.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Where is he?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Some of the statements the made—I do not think they were really arguments—were statements of the state of opinion among Europeans in Rhodesia. As to his criticisms of Her Majesty's Government, I do not think it is for me to answer for the Government; I think they can deal with his criticisms themselves. With regard to the criticisms that have come from Sir Roy Welensky, I think that those also can be answered by the Government. But sonic of the statements made about the Northern Rhodesia Conference do deserve an answer. One is the complaint that it was too soon to convene a Conference to review the Northern Rhodesia Constitution. It was curious that the noble Marquess thought it was not too soon in Southern Rhodesia to review the Constitution. As a reason for the difference between the two countries he said that the Africans were entirely different: that the Africans in Southern Rhodesia were so much more advanced than those in the North. The Southern Rhodesian Governments have never thought fit to give them the vote, which perhaps is strange. In Northern Rhodesia, thousands of Africans have for decades been working in the mines and have reached quite high levels of skill as artisans; they have lived urban lives, and I think if is a quite untenable position to take up, to suggest that the difference between the Africans in the North and the South gives any reason for complaining of the Government's action over Northern Rhodesia.
Moreover, the fact of the Conference being held in 1960 at all was, it is generally believed, at the express desire of Sir Roy Welensky. By the Constitution of the Federation the Review Conference need not have been held for another two years, until the 9th year after the Federation came into effect, but it was at the urgent representations of the Federal Government and Southern Rhodesia that, we believe, the Conference was brought forward to the earliest possible moment that it could be held; and the Northern Rhodesian Con-
324
stitution obviously had to be reviewed and reformed simultaneously with that of the Federation.
Another thing the noble Marquess and others who have taken part in this controversy elsewhere have complained about is that the present proposals of the Secretary of State for Northern Rhodesia constitute racialism—or a retreat from nonracialism. "Non-racialism" is a fashionable word just now. All these words have their day and then they go out of fashion. Originally we had "partnership", and then it got discredited and blown upon, and it gave way, I think, to "multi-racialism", and now multi-racialism has given way to non-racialism. There seems no doubt that the use of that phrase "non-racialism" covers a plain desire to retain domination of the country by the white inhabitants. But, frankly, it is pure humbug to say that the Constitution should be on a non-racial basis in order to allow Africans to take more part.
Another point the noble Marquess brought up was that Sir Roy Welensky had himself offered to come to London to take part in the discussions on the Northern Rhodesian Constitution. Sir Roy Welensky himself, in a speech in the Federal Parliament, mentioned that too, and he seemed to think it almost an insult that he had suffered at the hands of Her Majesty's Government that his offer had not been accepted. I think it needs saying again, although the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said it quite plainly, that the question of the territorial Constitutions is a matter to be settled between the territorial Governments and Her Majesty's Government here, and the Federal Government has only to be consulted. Sir Roy Welensky, no doubt, would have been most welcome in London, but he had no part constitutionally in the discussions that were going on at that time in London. So I think Her Majesty's Government can be acquitted of any desire to insult him or to be rude to him.
We had brought in once again—and I have no doubt we shall hear it later in this debate—the question of the Congo. The Congo is something used to make our flesh creep. It is used as an awful warning. On this occasion the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, used it as a warning of what would happen if we were to go too fast in Northern

325
Rhodesia. I think we want to look rather closely at this analogy of the Congo. It seems certain that horrible events, outrages and other things have been taking place there; but ever since last autumn information has been so scarce that it is difficult to be sure of the extent of these outrages, and by whom they have been committed. What is certain is that the country has lapsed into a state of chaos, with warring tribal or provincial leaders. But whose fault was that?
Was it because Africans were given the vote and responsibility in Government? It was the precise opposite. It was because the Belgians, although they had for many years pursued an enlightened policy in health, welfare and primary and secondary education, and economically, had kept the inhabitants of the Congo completely backward politically. I can only say it would appear to the ordinary newspaper-reader that when the Belgians felt that the rising tides of nationalism were getting too much for them, they panicked and abandoned the country in a great hurry. So bad was the condition in which they left the Congo that magistrates and doctors quitted their posts without leaving the means for their successors to carry on and even without appointing their successors. Administrators left without providing the means of continuing the administration.
That was in no sense a result of excessive speed in handing over to Africans; indeed, it was the precise opposite, and shows what would happen if the extreme white nationalists in Central Africa had their way. Africans have been gaining power all over that Continent in the last year or two, many of them within the last few months. Something like a dozen new independent States, entirely African, have resulted from the ending of the French Community in Africa. There is no disorder there, so far as we know. Most of them never get into the newspapers—and that is generally a good sign. And although they may not have Constitutions and democratic systems precisely on the London pattern, they appear to be getting along, whether, like Guinea, they choose to be associated with the Communist countries or, like many of the others, with Western countries; so there is nothing inherently wrong or dangerous in giving power to Africans. Some noble
326
Lords may say that those are countries where there is no colour problem, and no white immigrant problem. That is true. But the country where there is a white immigrant problem is Algeria; and there, if you like, is an awful warning of what might happen in Central Africa if the brake is applied too rapidly.
The noble Marquess and I would agree that there is a crisis of confidence, that the basis of many political troubles in the world is mutual distrust and fear. I cannot help thinking that the noble Marquess does not appreciate that the lack of confidence is mutual; and some of the things that some white leaders say are at least as alarming to the Africans as what the most extreme African nationalists say. The Acting Federal Prime Minister last December talked about the Red Flag flying from the Cape to Cairo within ten years if the Federation was "sold out". He talked of Mr. Macmillan fanning the wind of change into a hurricane. He said that the Federal Constitutional Review talks could become an African "Munich" if Britain's leaders were to give in to the demands of African "demagogues". That kind of wild talk on the part of responsible Ministers in the Federal Government keeps alive the fears of the Africans, that the white inhabitants of the Federation are out to keep them in a position of subjection.
There is one other instance, and this brings up the question of defence. The Monckton Commission, in the course of their Report, mentioned defence, pointing out (as is obvious from a study of the Constitution itself) that defence is a Federal subject. They said that Africans strongly criticised the use of Federal forces in emergencies in the Northern Territories. In fact, they said, Africans described them as "Southern Rhodesian troops" although technically they were Federal troops. The Monckton Commission recommended that defence should remain Federal, but on the following conditions:

"(a) that 'defence' means defence primarily against external aggression;

(b) that the defence forces will not be used in any Territory for the purposes of internal security except at the request of the Territorial Government concerned; and

(c) that the defence forces will not be used outside the boundaries of the Federation except with the consent of Her Majesty's Government."

327
The question I want to ask (and I have not seen it asked or answered anywhere else) is why, when Sir Roy Welensky decided to call up some of his forces in Northern Rhodesia a few weeks ago, did he call up Territorials? The Federation maintains a Regular Army. There are four infantry battalions—two former King's African Rifle battalions and two others recruited in Northern and Southern Rhodesia—and, of course, ancillary troops, Regulars, and an Air Force. In passing, I believe (I will not vouch for this but possibly the noble Lord, Lord Robins, who follows me can speak on this) it is a fact that in the Federal Army no black African can be commissioned. When one comes to think of that, it is a curious anomaly, to put it no higher, that of two young Africans who pass out of Sandhurst with the Queen's Commission, one can be commissioned in the King's African Rifles and serve alongside the British officers in an officers' mess; and another who wants to go to a Federal battalion cannot. It is a small thing, but it is an indication of the extraordinary lag in thinking among the leaders in Southern Rhodesia. British units in West Africa for years, and in East Africa for two or three years past, have had African officers brought into the ranks of the army.
But to come back to the crisis and to these precautionary measures that were thought necessary to be taken in Northern Rhodesia, if there were four Regular infantry battalions, Africans, why did Sir Roy choose to call out a few hundred Territorials who were Europeans, who had to be taken away from their civilian jobs when they were embodied? That point, I think, deserves a little more attention than it has had up to now.
I only want to say, in the end, that I think many of your Lordships must have been disappointed with Lord Salisbury, having recollections of him as Leader of this House and having had great admiration for him. I think we must have rather regretted the tone he permitted himself in talking of Her Majesty's Government. He is not here, unfortunately, and I come to the end of my speech. But I think that something should be said in this House upon the tone and attitude of the noble Marquess.
328
My Lords, many noble Lords, I expect, say—and it is commonly said in Southern Rhodesia, I am sure—that the Labour Party think only of the Africans. My Lords, that is nonsense. We are thinking of white and black. The white inhabitants of Rhodesia should get it into their heads that they are there to stay by their own wish; they are a minority among Africans. If they rule by force that would mean a small minority holding down an enormous mass of inhabitants by force, by threats. We know what happens when bluffs are called, when threats are no longer of any use: it means shooting; it means killing. And the consequences of a policy that ends in force in African countries with European settlers is too horrible to contemplate. The sooner those leaders in Southern Rhodesia realise that, the better. They have got to move with the times; and, for all their talk about restricting government to responsible people, they have got to take the people who are there and give them the power and work in combination with them. Unless they do that Her Majesty's Government cannot help them, and nobody else can.
5.14 p.m.
LORD ROBINS: My Lords, I should wish, if it is not presumptuous, to be able to join with the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, in offering my warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Molson on a most brilliant and informative maiden speech. Unfortunately, he is not in his place, but I hope that to-morrow he will perhaps read Hansard and know that I should like to associate myself with the congratulations which have been proffered. I only wish I could go further and say I agree with all the arguments which he produced. But I know he will understand that it is quite impossible for me to do that, and we appreciate each other's views on the points which he put forward.
I have no wish to be put down at my age as a cantankerous old man, but I must endorse what my noble friend Lord Salisbury has already said about the feelings of distrust and suspicion of Her Majesty's Government which are held throughout the Federation, and particularly of the way in which they have conducted the constitutional negotiations regarding Northern Rhodesia. I say

329
that with the greatest possible regret, because I have spent 33 years of my working life in the Federation. I have grown up with its institutions, and I have come to know a large number of its African inhabitants well and can call them my friends. I have the greatest respect for them. So I think I can speak with some knowledge, apart from political knowledge, of the conditions in that country.
I have just come back from a visit there and I was struck right through, in both Northern and Southern Rhodesia, with the deep feelings of distrust and suspicion which are held by people, quite apart from political life and quite apart from the colour of their faces, on the way in which Her Majesty's Government are dealing with these constitutional affairs. I deeply regret having to say that. I feel very strongly that we shall get nowhere in our further talks or in arranging these constitutional matters for the future unless we are able to dispel the atmosphere of suspicion and distrust which is so prevalent.
May I, before I make my few remarks about the proposed Constitution for Northern Rhodesia, refer to one or two points which have arisen in the course of the debate? In the first place, perhaps I. should reply to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the question he asked about the use of military force in Northern Rhodesia. So far as I am aware, military aid of the civil power is exactly the same in that country as it is in this country. The Federal Government would not send military forces to assist the police without the Governor of the territory asking them to do so. There is no reason at all why the Territorial forces should not be called up for training, and, indeed, it is very desirable that those untrained young men from the Copper Belt and elsewhere in Northern Rhodesia should know what they are doing if any crisis should arise when they are called up. That is the only explanation I can give. And there is no reason at all why battalions of the King's African Rifles should not be called up if an occasion should arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in the course of his speech, deplored the fact that there was no university, first of all in East Africa, and then he added "or in Central Africa". I should like to place on record that we have in Central Africa
330
a very flourishing institution which enjoys the receipt of degrees from the University of London and which is now starting a medical school and an engineering school, and will, in due course, have all the faculties which a modern university enjoys.
I should like to enlarge a little on what I said about this feeling of distrust, although I do not wish to pursue it for too long. One reason why this distrust has grown up is that the Secretary of State, in both March and May, 1960, stated that no constitutional changes beyond those consequential on changes agreed at the Federal Review Conference were contemplated. That was taken as meaning exactly what it said, without reservation. This, as noble Lords fully realise, has been reversed in the White Paper which has been produced. The second point which has caused a considerable amount of suspicion is that people in the Federation consider that there was no proper preparation for the resumed Northern Rhodesia Conference in January of this year: and that in contrast to the long months of careful preparation, discussion and conference which took place before the 1958 White Paper was published.
Furthermore, this White Paper is, I think, the fourth of a series of efforts to bring about a satisfactory Constitution. Even then, this has been reached only after a lot of consultation by telephone—which, in my own view, is not a very satisfactory way to engage in such negotiations. I am, of course, prepared to be told that one reason why the Constitutional Conference on Northern Rhodesia failed was because it was hindered in its work by the nonattendance of the United Party delegates, but clearly, I think, the Secretary of State had already made up his mind what he was going to do, and those delegates, quite naturally, were not prepared to take the risk of finding themselves committed when they sat down at the conference table.
My Lords, I am going to leave that subject, and I want to say only a very few words about why it is thought that the provisions of this new Constitution are unacceptable. In the first place, they perpetuate racial representation, which the Constitution of 1958 specifically denounced. I hope that I shall not weary

331
your Lordships if I quote one paragraph, paragraph 19, of the White Paper of September, 1958:
"Constitutional arrangements should ensure that the government of the country will continue to rest in the hands of responsible men, men with understanding and of sufficient education and experience of affairs to be able to reason and to exercise judgment between alternative courses of action. The electoral system must encourage the return of men or women who are prepared and, indeed, disposed to consider and balance the interests of all racial groups, and who are prompted primarily by a spirit of public service to the whole community; it must discourage the return of extremists who would look to sectional interests alone."
Paragraph 18 of the same White Paper said:
"Politics should be encouraged to develop on Party and not racial lines: unless political Parties can eventally cut across racial divisions it will be impossible to achieve a united Northern Rhodesia".
In the new White Paper, as your Lordships have already been reminded, it is proposed that membership of the Legislative Council should consist of 15 on the Upper Roll, 15 on the Lower Roll and 15 National representatives—a combination of both Rolls. It is quite clear what will happen. The Upper Roll will be entirely Europeans; the Lower Roll will elect entirely Africans, and I think it is quite impossible to predict who will be elected as the 15 National representatives. To my mind, this, indeed, is perpetuating political apartheid.
Then there is the very difficult question of delimiting constituencies. It is bad enough if you are dealing with 15 on the Upper Roll and 15 on the Lower Roll, but it is complicated to the nth degree if, in addition, you have 15 National seats. Although I have studied the Memorandum to the White Paper very carefully, I cannot see how those 15 National members are going to be elected, and how the country is going to be divided into constituencies which will give proper representation. This may be a matter of detail which will be worked out later by what we are now pleased to call a "Working Party", but it is too complicated for a country like Northern Rhodesia, where the people are simple and have not been educated up to such a standard of politics.
Sir Roy Welensky, who recently arrived in London, has made it quite
332
clear, not only in his recent speeches in the Federal Parliament but also in statements that he has made since he arrived here, that he has an open mind, and that he is ready to reopen discussions on this subject. I do appeal to Her Majesty's Government to look at this matter again, and to revert, if possible, to the principles, if not to the exact letter, of the 1958 Lennox-Boyd Constitution—it has had only two years' trial, and, from my own experience, it is working extremely well—and particularly to reiterate the cardinal principle that Party politics should cut across race and give the country a Legislative Council of responsible people. By all means amend that Constitution in detail, for nobody wants to see the country stand still; expand the franchise, if it is really necessary; set up a Council of Chiefs; have a Bill of Rights; have a Council of State. Nobody can object to those provisions at all—but give the territory stability. There will be shouts of disapproval from the extremists, but, my Lords, they will be drowned by the sighs of relief from the rest of the community
5.27 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, may I start by saying for the record, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is no longer in his place, that I should like to congratulate him most warmly on his maiden speech. Tried in the fire of debate in another place, I think he gave convincing evidence that he has found the atmosphere in your Lordships' House at least as congenial. Although, like my noble friend Lord Robins, I should not find myself wholly in agreement with some of the things he said, I most warmly welcome his declaration on behalf of the Monckton Commission of their belief in the ideals of the Federation and of partnership, and his declaration of faith, as I think he put it, in the future of a Federation in some form.
On a previous occasion when Central Africa was being debated in this House, I referred to the company in which I have spent most of my working life, and which has had substantial interests in that territory for upwards of half a century; and, from knowledge so acquired, I spoke about some of the things which we and other industrial firms have done to contribute to the

333
economic and educational advancement of the African. There is, of course, an element of self-interest in this, but we have felt, and still feel, that if the progress of the African to political and social maturity is to be sure and lasting, it should march with, or closely follow, economic and educational advancement. To-day, attention is directed to constitutional issues, with particular reference to political advancement. I must make it clear that, in addressing your Lordships on this subject, I am not speaking for the company, for the company as a company has no politics; but it is perhaps not irrelevant to say, as part of the general background to my remarks, that, as a company, we believe in the future of Central Africa, and, so long as general conditions continue to permit it, and so long, particularly, as law and order are maintained, we will continue to operate there and continue to do what we can, whatever the complexion of the local Government, to help to ensure that the tobacco-growing industry, which s so important to that territory, may continue to flourish.
In these days, when nationalism is so much the fashion and when early independence so common an aim (with sometimes little regard for economic viability), it is perhaps natural to say, as some have said, that, for those who have power to influence the pace, it can be more dangerous, politically, to go too slow than to go too fast. That, my Lords, I think could cover a multitude of follies. After all, is it not a matter of degree? Just how fast, or how slow? Many consider, and I personally think with some justification, that progress in the Federation since 1953 towards full partnership between the European and African has been disappointingly slow. But surely, we should not presume to condemn out of hand those who, in theory, have had the power to set the pace, because it is not easy for us here to assess their difficulties in putting theory into practice. Nevertheless, whatever grounds for disappointment there may be, there is no gainsaying the fact that in the last two years the rate of progress in the economic field has substantially advanced; and there is no doubt, too, that in the political sphere, as has already been said this afternoon, the Southern Rhodesian Constitutional Agreement, recently concluded under the
334
chairmanship of the Secretary of State, was a great step forward.
If one could look at this objectively, this would seem to he a time when the dangers of putting on too much pressure from outside would be obvious. But I am afraid that we cannot look at this situation with complete objectivity. This country, the United Kingdom, has special responsibilities for the two Northern Territories. But they are responsibilities which I think we can honourably discharge only in full consultation with the Federal Government; and no one who has read the full 'text of Sir Roy Welensky's speech to the Federal Parliament on February 27 and who believes, as I do, in Sir Roy's absolute integrity and honesty of purpose can be convinced that, as yet, there has been full consultation in regard to the latest version of the Northern Rhodesian franchise proposals.
I am sure no one would wish to minimise the difficulties of recent negotiations. I listened with the greatest interest and care to the account given by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I have no doubt that what has been done was done not only with the best intentions, but with every desire to secure political advancement without creating or crystallising racial antagonisms. I am sure that was the intention; but I feel that the way in which this thing was done was unfortunate. The feeling on the part of the Europeans and many moderate Africans that they have been let down, and that encouragement has been given to the extremists, is, to my knowledge, very strong. And the fact that the extremists are not satisfied with the situation, believe me, is not evidence to the contrary. If there is anything in these present proposals which increases African representation in a way that plays into the hands of the extremists, I think that much of the ground that has already been gained will be lost and a dangerous situation created.
As I see it, the proposal for the "Three Fifteens" could conceivably do just that, and be a hostage to fortune. They must surely create, as the noble Lord, Lord Robins, said, a racial bloc at each end of the scale, each bloc matching exactly the other in voting power. It does not take much imagination to foresee that the Lower Roll, in these circumstances, could be exploited

335
by extremists who may not shrink from intimidation to ensure that its representatives are of their way of thinking. That, in turn, will certainly tend toward producing a white extremist bloc at the other end. In the middle, the National Roll, which in theory should constitute a balanced bloc of moderate opinion, both European and African, will consist of three representatives of each of the five constituencies, which together cover an area of more than three times the size of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Even if the voters in these constituencies can be made to understand how this system is intended to work (which is asking rather a lot), it takes a great deal of imagination to see how candidates will be able effectively to canvass their constituencies, or represent them if elected.
My Lords, as I said, I listened with great care to all that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said. I do not think he really gave an answer to what I have just said, but if there is anything wrong in that rather broad interpretation of the proposals I hope the noble Viscount who will reply to the debate will make it clear. However, still more do I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not attempt at this time to nail their colours more firmly to this particular mast, but will show a willingness to listen to further representations.
There must be few who would not agree that the crux of the problem is to have a franchise that reflects the desire to give encouragement to legitimate aspirations on the part of Africans for a greater participation in Government, that makes it clear that what is now proposed is not the limit and that further advancement will be possible as more and more Africans show themselves qualified to take the responsibility, but withal a franchise that does not tolerate violence or intimidation. Northern Rhodesia, as all your Lordships know, is adjacent to the Congo. I am not going to draw the kind of analogy with the Congo that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, feared might be drawn, but these hard facts are there. In the Congo tribal warfare has been unleashed—for the moment. The border between Northern Rhodesia and the Congo is not drawn on any ethnological, economic or
336
tribal lines. Tribes in one country spill over into the other. Of course, we all hope that without the employment of outside military force the warring factions in the Congo may be reconciled, and that there may evolve a Government, perhaps on some kind of federal system, flowing from these present discussions at Malagasy, which eventually will weld together the different races and tribes into a nation. But that will take time, and until that happens the danger of Congo chaos reacting on Northern Rhodesia is very real.
I submit, my Lords, that we here cannot adequately assess the danger. We know that there are extremists, that there is intimidation, and that intimidation of moderate Africans is by no means confined to Nyasaland. I am sure there are very many Africans in all these territories who have come to appreciate the advantages of education for themselves, and still more for their children; whose standard of life is rising, and who do not regard political power as the first essential. Yet under threats to themselves, their property or their children, they may be forced to join in violent action, or to support those who favour it. Increased political power will come to the Africans: it must. But for the sake of the country and all in it, white and black alike, let it come in orderly fashion. As I said, let intimidation and disorder be not tolerated.
I would not presume to outline any satisfactory alternative to the latest proposals. Various noble Lords have argued for standing on the 1958 franchise. Whether that gives sufficient recognition to African aspirations to-day I should have some doubt, but at least it is free from some of the objections in principle to the "Three Fifteens". It has the merit of a Common Roll, and inevitably more and more Africans will come to qualify as voters, so that one set of constituencies need not indefinitely be regarded as the prerogative of the Europeans. Moreover, one can see in that kind of arrangement some prospect of flexibility which, as I see it, would largely be absent from the "Three Fifteens".
I would not seek to elaborate this point for, in the context of the present situation, the first essential is surely that the views of the people on the spot must be fully considered. Therefore, I

337
would urge that Her Majesty's Government should see fit to ensure that the reference of the proposals in the White Paper (Cmnd. 1295) to Lusaka should be on a wider basis than that implied in the two concluding paragraphs of the Secretary of State's statement—in short, that there should be, in a real and practical sense, full consultation before the die is cast.
5.42 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I first have the pleasure of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Molson, on a most welcome contribution to this debate. I must confess that in our association over the years in another place, I never thought the time would come when I should say to him that I agreed completely, not only with the form of his speech but also with the substance.
The curtain has been raised this afternoon on a very important debate, a debate on Central Africa, which I believe will attract world-wide attention. While we have been discussing certain aspects of Central Africa—the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia and the position of Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—I think that we should bear in mind that Central Africa is only a microcosm of the whole of the African Continent. Furthermore, I think that we should bear in mind that the attitude of a politically mature Government, such as our own, is being closely observed by all those countries which are desperately trying to establish their own independence. Indeed, I would say that our handling of this problem provides the world with a measure of worthiness in the conduct of international affairs.
There are those, as we have heard this afternoon, who predict disaster if the recommendations in the White Paper on constitutional changes in Northern Rhodesia are followed, who say that here there is too rapid a transition. I would ask your Lordships to imagine what might happen if we dragged our feet on this occasion. Examples in Africa have been mentioned. It has been implied that if the recommendations on Northern Rhodesia were accepted, there might be trouble similar to that which we have seen in the Congo, which is adjacent to these Territories in Central Africa. But surely it was the failure of
338
the Belgians to promote the interests of the Africans in the Congo which precipitated a situation that is to-day so fraught with hazard that nobody can confidently predict what the outcome will be.
Algeria, too, was mentioned. Algeria presents a struggle between the native Arab and immigrant populations, and the position to-day is that those who are responsible have allowed political affairs to drift in such a manner that it now seems almost inevitable that war will continue. In all these circumstances it might have been thought that those closely concerned with Rhodesia's problems would recognise the explosive nature of the situation and exercise the greatest restraint. On the contrary, the speeches of Sir Roy Welensky have been calculated to exacerbate the situation, and the speech we have heard this afternoon from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, which paraphrased the article he wrote in the Sunday Express, could well have been interposed in any of the speeches of Sir Roy Welensky.
Expediency makes strange bedfellows. I am sorry that the noble Marquess went out just as I began to speak. I must confess that I mentioned to some of my noble friends that I was going to raise the points he had made, and I am sorry that he has left the Chamber. When I came to your Lordships' House, I was told that the verbal exchanges were not quite so violent as in another place, but this afternoon I have listened to an attack on the Colonial Secretary by the noble Marquess which descended to the level of gutter oratory. His attack was utterly vicious. The Colonial Secretary was accused of having been a paid bridge correspondent of a newspaper. This in itself implied some disgrace. The "bridge" theme was developed, and it was suggested that the tactics used by the Colonial Secretary were a little suspect.
I would say to the noble Marquess, if he were here, that, though he does not approve of the standards of bridge players, he mixes with prize-fighters, and I take it that the level of sportsmanship among his friends in the prize ring is little higher than that of bridge players. It seems to me that the noble Marquess

339
is establishing for himself a reputation as the modern Canute. In the Sunday Express—and his speech to-day was a paraphrase of his article—he wrote of
"the ultimate attainment of equal partnership between black and white"
No doubt the Prime Minister of the Federation subscribes to this lofty ideal, provided that the loosest interpretation is placed on the words "ultimate". My remaining knowledge of Latin tells me that "ultimate" means the last thing we may expect. When the noble Marquess pontificates, he shows himself to be blissfully unaware that justice must eventually prevail over privilege.
He has suggested that a great many people will get the vote without understanding—presumably because many of them are illiterate. But the compulsory illiterate are not necessarily unintelligent. Even an illiterate knows on which side his bread is buttered. Furthermore, the literacy of the Africans is not a reflection upon them but upon their oppressors. The argument that the African has not reached an intellectual standard to merit the vote was used by the prejudiced opponents of the franchise for women many years ago. Indeed, it was only two years ago that your Lordships felt that women were fitted to make their modest contribution to the counsels of this House. Now we are warned of the dangers of African domination. But all the Colonial Secretary is advocating, surely, is non-racial control, instead of the present domination by a white minority.
Great emphasis has been placed upon the distrust (the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, called it "the miasma of distrust") which has arisen to cloud the relations between the Home Government and the British people overseas. Is it not more necessary that we should have the minimum of distrust among the Africans? I am pleased to see that the noble Marquess has now returned to the Chamber. I am afraid that I cannot bore the House by repeating everything I have said, but he will no doubt be able to read it in Hansard to-morrow. However, I would say to him that when he talks about the miasma (a delightful word) of distrust which has arisen to cloud the relations between the Home Government and the British people overseas, he speaks as though the British
340
people overseas were the majority and not a very small minority of the people for whom we in this country are responsible. I ask him: is it not more necessary that we should have the minimum of distrust among the Africans—that great majority of people who are looking to us for help and guidance?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I might answer the noble Lady. My point was that one must not ignore, as the noble Lady's opinion would tend to, the Europeans, because they are the only people at present creating the prosperity of the countries in question, from which the Africans also benefit.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: If the noble Marquess will be a little patient, I will come to that point, and I hope to satisfy him that the people for whom he speaks, the small minority of whites, have been well represented at all the Conferences that have taken place and are well aware of what has happened. For the noble Marquess to suggest that his friend Sir Roy Welensky is such an innocent surprises me. He is far from being an innocent: he is a very shrewd man of the world, and the noble Marquess must not think that he is not aware of what is happening.
What I want to say to the noble Marquess, again, is this. Surely, although he may feel this (and it is difficult to believe that he really can feel it in 1961), at this stage in our history it is of paramount importance that we should concern ourselves with winning the confidence of the African people, having regard to the Afro-Asian world in the Commonwealth. Does that not appeal to the noble Marquess? He is a great Commonwealth man. Does he realise that tomorrow morning there is to start in London a great Conference, and that we have watched one Afro-Asian representative after another arriving in this country? When they come to read his speech tomorrow, does he think that their confidence in this Government will be increased or decreased?
Furthermore, I would say this to the noble Marquess. It should not be forgotten—he knows this country so well—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What was that?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: If the noble Marquess puts his ear instrument

341
up he will hear me better; I cannot shout any louder. It should not be forgotten that there are some white settlers who feel that they have a vested interest in the non-emergence of the Africans, and that it is against their interests that they should emerge. This supremacy of the while settlers can end only when the African has parity of opportunity.
The last speech which Sir Roy Welensky made to the Federal Parliament (it has been referred to by one noble Lord) on February 27, and reported in The Times on February 28, was less bellicose than his previous announcements. Indeed, one is inclined to think that his bluff has been called. He now claims in his latest speech, which I have read carefully, that he has new plans for increasing the level of African representation. He said in that speech that these plans were secret to himself; that he had given no publicity to them before. But what reliance can be placed upon his assurances? His second thoughts will certainly not impress African opinion. One noble Lord this afternoon said that he had complete reliance upon Sir Roy Welensky's word.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Hear, hear!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I remind the noble Earl, who has a better past in this, as I recall, and the House of what happened in 1957–58, and leave your Lordships to judge as to whether a great deal of importance can be attached to Sir Roy Welensky's word? His Government then passed the Constitution Amendment Bill and the Electoral Bill, both of which were designed to minimise African influence and representation. Both these measures were opposed by the African Affairs Board. It will be recalled that the African Affairs Board is a body created to secure less discrimination against Africans; and I am sure that many Lords, when that Board was set up, felt reassured that the interests of the Africans would be protected. Sir Roy Welensky's Government introduced Bills which were opposed by the African Affairs Board because, they said, the Bills discriminated against Africans. Nevertheless, the Tory Government ignored the representations of the African Affairs Board and agreed to both measures. Can you trust somebody who has done that?
342
Furthermore, the Federal Government's refusal to meet the legitimate constitutional aspirations of the Africans led to the disturbances in Nyasaland in 1959. In the Federal Parliament on April 7 of that year Sir Roy Welensky said that some Labour Members' accusations had been evil and foul; and he added:
"The refusal to accept the undoubted plans for a wholesale massacre of people of all races in Nyasaland shows an irresponsibility which has removed any faith we might have had in the judgment of those concerned."
This very offensive speech was, in effect, repudiated by the Devlin Report, which revealed that not only was there no evidence of a massacre planned in Nyasaland, but that Nyasaland was being run as a Police State. Again, Sir Roy Welensky tried to bluff the world.
Now he wants to start discussions all over again. He says—and he is supported by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—that he has not been consulted, and he asks to start discussions all over again. Those noble Lords who might think that this is a reasonable request should recall that his Party, the United Federal Party, boycotted the Northern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference; and they did this because there was a proopsal to give the Africans increased political representation. Your Lordships have had read out to you an extract from page 4 of Command Paper 1295, but as, in my opinion, this is the very essence of 'the debate I do not apologise for reading the first few lines again. They say:
"United Federal Party Representatives challenged the view that there was any justification either for a substantial increase in the number of Africans in the Legislative Council or for an extension of the franchise."
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, comes here to-day and tells your Lordships that it has not been fully understood, and that there was not sufficient discussion. Sir Roy Welensky's representatives came to the Conference before Christmas; they heard all about it and knew precisely what was going on, and they then decided not to come again in January. Indeed, Sir Roy Welensky's Party boycotted the Conference because they believed that nothing should be given to the Africans. Therefore it is a little difficult to reconcile the latest change of front regarding the secret desires to increase African representation with this premeditated action.

343
Having regard to this record, we must recognise the fact that the Prime Minister of the Federation is merely adopting delaying tactics, and that the stumbling block in the situation is an underlying determination to resist the granting of human rights to the African population. It might be tempting to the Government to compromise or to delay, because this decision does not command universal approval. Apart from the morals of the situation, about which there can be no question, I would say that the question before us is: Can we afford to take either course? To compromise will inevitably alienate the African members, who only very reluctantly are now prepared to accept the Colonial Secretary's proposal, and to delay may well precipitate a crisis, a situation which is now familiar to us. I would say this, out of my experience of politics: that in politics correct timing is almost as important as the action itself. Therefore it is better to accept now these proposals graciously, rather than be compelled to do so later by the grim pressure of events.
6.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Lady will, I am sure, excuse me if I do not follow her in her diatribes or her dialectics. Conscious as we are of each other's shortcomings, I still think it is not helpful at this moment, and in this debate, to conduct a sort of inquest into how and why we are where we are. I would say rather that the approach of all of us should be: facing the facts as they are today, what can we each contribute towards a solution which is right in principle and workable in practice—a solution which will preserve the Federation, for the Federation is not only essential to the progress and prosperity of all the three territories but is a great endeavour in racial partnership.
Many views may be taken, and a good many have been expressed, about the Monckton Report. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Molson, on his maiden speech; it was admirable, but one expected that from his speeches in the House of Commons. But I would say, in passing, that, able no doubt as the Monckton Report is, it is not really the ten Tables or two Tables, or whichever Moses brought down from the mountain—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): Two.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: It is not that, and it is not necessarily the inspired word. If he will forgive my saying so, it was not the only thing I did not agree with in his speech but the only fault of taste, perhaps, in his speech was when he said that of course the Government had no option except to accept and swallow the Monckton Report whole. But one thing in the Monckton Report and in the noble Lord's speech with which I think we should all agree—he emphasised it himself; let me do him that justice—is that no one could be more emphatic on the importance and the value of the Federation than the Monckton Commission were on both counts. On the economic side they said that
"dissolution would lead to hardship, poverty and distress".
and on the social side:
"To break it up now would be an admission that there is no hope for a multi-racial society on the African Continent and that differences of colour and race are irreconcilable."
It is in that spirit that I would venture to offer two suggestions. The essence of Federation is racial partnership, and that is declared in the preamble to the Constitution which my noble friend Lord Salisbury and I wrote together. To have in the membership of a legislative assembly, or in voting for a legislative assembly, opposing blocs of black and white, appears to me to be the antithesis of partnership. And racial rolls of electors voting for separate constituencies must tend to perpetuate that division.
I was greatly interested to find the noble Lord, Lord Robins, who knows this country better than any of us and who has done so much for all races, supporting that view. It is for that reason that I am attracted in the Government plan by what is in effect a Common Roll of Upper and Lower franchise groups, voting together for National constituencies. As I understand it, under the Government proposal one-third of the members of the Assembly would be elected on that combined Common Roll. I would much rather see all the members of the Assembly elected on a combined Common Roll. But if it is

345
felt that there must be some constituencies elected by separate electorates, would it not be wiser to have the number of separate constituencies smaller, and the National combined constituencies larger—say one-quarter, one-quarter and one half? That election by a combined Common Roll would be racial partnership in action and, what is more, it would, I am convinced—or I certainly believe—encourage and strengthen the moderate men of both races.
Whatever be the number of the Combined Roll seats, I hope the system of voting will be a fairly simple one. The procedure set out in the Southern Rhodesian White Paper—and I join in congratulating both the Secrtary of State and Sir Edgar Whitehead on that achievement and, indeed, all who took part in that Conference in Southern Rhodesia—as I read it is simple and clear. But when you compare it with the Northern Rhodesian proposal I find the Northern Rhodesian proposal very complicated. Under that proposal paragraph 4 of the White Paper—it says that candidates must obtain the same prescribed minimum percentage of votes cast on each Roll; and that votes on each Roll will be equalised by averaging the percentage of votes on each Roll secured by each candidate. Even after my noble friend Lord Perth's admirable and clear exposition, I still have great difficulty in following that. I suppose it is intentionally left rather vague because it is hoped that the Lusaka meetings will work out the percentages.
But is it not rather unnecessarily complicated? Here in this country we—I beg your Lordships' pardon, not all, but all with the exception of some of the Liberals—have always favoured a simple electoral system. The horse that gets first past the winning post wins the race—unless, of course, it is disqualified by the stewards. I should have thought that a good deal simpler system was desirable where there is a number of new and inexperienced voters.
My other suggestion is this. Certainty and stability are very important factors in framing a Constitution, and in its operation. There is no doubt that there is much anxiety in Africa to-day that Constitutions meant to be tried and proved in practice tend to be ripped up
346
and rewritten before the play is half over. I do not seek to assess the validity of these fears, but they are there; they are a fact, and they are a fact which must be taken into account. When we framed the Federal Constitution it was agreed and laid down in the Constitution itself that it would last for ten years. May not that be a helpful precedent? I believe it would be easier to secure agreement over Northern Rhodesia if that precedent of the Federal Constitution were followed and if it were laid down in the Constitution itself that it should last for a fixed term of years. I put forward these suggestions because I believe they would be right in principle and workable in practice, and I put them forward because I believe that they would encourage inter-racial partnership and responsibility. And surely that must be the goal of us all.
6.12 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it was not my intention to occupy your Lordships' time until to-morrow, but the attack which my noble friend Lord Salisbury has made on my colleague the Colonial Secretary is one that none of your Lordships would expect a colleague to let pass and be continued without answer until another day. I have a very simple view of the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility: it can be summed up in the motto of an old French house, "Who touches my brother touches me." And that is a view which I believe calls for an answer from me to-night.
The grounds of the noble Marquess's attack were, in the main, two. He said that my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary was "too clever by half". That remark, which can only be calculated offensiveness, was, I suppose, designed to imply that my right honourable friend was disingenuous; it could not have any other meaning. Then the noble Marquess was kind enough to say that my right honourable friend, as a bridge player, approached probably the most serious problem that faces mankind to-day—namely, how this world is going to continue with different races playing different parts—with a desire to outwit his opponents. My Lords, of course the answer is that anyone else who knows my right honourable friend would not accept that statement for a

347
moment. It is poles apart from his character as his friends and colleagues know it. As I say, I felt—it is not a question of doing my duty—that I could not have rested easy to-night until I had at any rate put my view before your Lordships in contradistinction to that of the noble Marquess.
My Lords, let us look at the evidence which the noble Marquess puts forward. Of course, it is not evidence in the sense of anything that any tribunal or court would look at. But when you are going to make an attack you gather from every hedgerow and byeway anything that you can say which will traduce the object of the attack. The first one was the general allegation which I have mentioned, that my right honourable friend approached his conferences with a desire to outwit his opponents. The only answer one can give to that is that it is entirely untrue, having regard to my right honourable friend's state of mind and proved record of action. The second attack was that he had, so the noble Marquess said, confronted the Lancaster House Conference over Kenya and—I think the words were, if my note is right—"planked down" the Constitution in front of them. Well, my Lords, they discussed the Constitution. The noble Marquess can he assured that he may interrupt me as much as he likes; I have got over that momentary feeling of not wanting to be interrupted.
These are the facts. The conclusions of the Lancaster House Conference on Kenya were accepted by all the Parties except—I think my recollection is right—that led by Group Captain Briggs. It was certainly accepted by the Party led by Mr. Michael Blundell. One ought to use other people's names with great discretion in a body to which they do not belong. But I have known Mr. Michael Blundell for many years. I have discussed African problems with him, in this country and in Kenya, and I think that to say, without further evidence, that my right honourable friend had used discreditable methods in that Conference when it had been agreed to by Mr. Michael Blundell and by others is a use of an opportunity without evidence which I think wants further consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble
348
and learned Viscount that what I said was that the proposals went much further than any of the delegations expected, and further than they liked; but they made the best of a bad job. I thought it was common knowledge that neither Mr. Blundell's Party nor any other liked the proposals. They accepted them as the best they could get, but they did not like them. That is what I said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Marquess say how that justifies either of his two suggestions against my right honourable friend; first of all that he is insincere, and secondly that he used these Conferences to outwit his opponents?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it justifies my statement. I think they did not expect the plan to be put down. It went much further than they expected, and there was nothing they could do about it, and therefore they accepted it with such amendments and modifications as they could get. I do not withdraw a word of what I said. The noble and learned Viscount can abuse me as much as he likes. I will not withdraw it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I know perfectly well that when the noble Marquess has committed himself to an attack on my right honourable friend he will not withdraw a word of it. But what I am saying is that when one looks at the evidence on which he based the attack, it is non-existent. I say that is the first example.
The second example was an even more generalised remark: that my right honourable friend looked at one Colony at a time and was not able to keep the conspectus for colonial territories in front of him. The noble Marquess spoke of from Cyprus to Kenya and from Kenya to Central Africa. The noble Marquess has been Colonial Secretary himself. It may be that all wisdom deserted the Colonial Office when he left. But I have been a Minister for thirteen years. I have seen a great number of Colonial Secretaries of many Parties, and I have yet to find a Colonial Secretary who found it physically possible to ignore the whole colonial scene in the way the noble Marquess suggested. So I am not putting my case too high. But what I am saying is that wherever you examine

349
the attack of the noble Marquess there is not a jot or scintilla of evidence to support it.
I am not going to use adjectives. I have never used adjectives without regretting it. I always remember the good advice of Ned Carson when he was at the Bar and he was appearing against another formidable opponent, who is also dead but who believed in adjectives. He having attacked Ned Carson's client with all the adjectives that he could find, Ned got up and said:
"Of course, my learned friend has called him this, he has called him that. No doubt I could reply, but I shall not. I will put the adjectives in my pocket for the next time I have a tainted case."
I am simply content with the negative answer so far, to the noble Marquess, that on the analysis that I have given the bitterest attack that I have ever known on a Minister in my 26 years in Parliament is baseless and without foundation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite prepared to leave the dispute between the noble and learned Viscount and myself to the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So am I. That is why I am speaking. I have never been afraid of leaving anything to the judgment of other people; nor has the noble Marquess—and he need not say that in an atmosphere of great triumph. That is what we are both doing, leaving the House to judge. I will go a little further. I will leave the personal and come to the facts of this case. As I say, the noble Marquess has accused my right honourable friend—I use studiously careful language—of being disingenuous. Let us see what happened here, because this was part of the noble Marquess's impassioned oration.
What happened here was that on December 20 of last year my right honourable friend addressed the Conference, which at that time included the representatives of the United Federal Party. If the noble Marquess suspects me of being "too clever by half", he can follow it, if he desires, in the White Paper. But in his speech my right honourable friend laid down six principles and announced them to the Conference. The first was
350
"It seems to me essential that the next stage of constitutional advance should provide for a substantial increase in the number of Africans in the Legislature. I myself consider"—
I ask the noble Marquess to note this because he did not refer us to it—
"that this should be achieved not by a racial approach, such as rigid reservation of seats in the Legislature, but more flexibly by means which would maintain the development of a non-racial approach towards politics".
I have listened most carefully to the noble Marquess. I read his article in the Sunday Express more than once. I never heard him depart from that principle. I never heard him deny to-day that it was necessary to increase the number of Africans.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my point on that, if I may say so, was that I believe that this new scheme does depart from that principle. It is a matter of opinion. I think the Lennox-Boyd Constitution did not depart from this principle, and I prefer that Constitution. If the noble and learned Viscount tells me that this does not depart from the principle of nonracial representation, then we must agree to differ. But he cannot get very angry with me because I hold a different view from him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the last thing I should ever be angry about, because the world is full of people who hold different views from myself, and I take them as they come. What I am saying is—perhaps the noble Marquess will appreciate the point—that these six principles, of which that was the first, were announced by my right honourable friend Mr. Macleod to the Conference on December 20, and there was no question of concealing from the Conference what the principles were which he asked them to discuss. Therefore I entirely refute that, on this contention, the noble Marquess has any right to talk about "outwitting" and being "too clever by half." The second principle was
"It has been the pattern of democratic evolution everywhere to relate political advancement to social responsibility and to proceed to universal suffrage by the gradual road of qualified franchise."
The noble Marquess practically took that for his Sunday Express article. He had almost the same words in the article.

351
The third principle was
"I understand that it has been already agreed between you in your discussions at Lusaka that there must be a transitional period before the Territory reaches the stage when all Ministers are elected and become solely responsible to the Legislature."
I do not suppose the noble Marquess attacks Mr. Macleod for announcing what other people have agreed to; so he cannot complain of No. 3. No. 4 is
"I also regard it as desirable that in addition to the Governor retaining his full executive powers, with an advisory Executive Council, he should retain for the time being some power of nomination to the Legislative Council, and we should discuss the purposes for, and the manner in which, this power might be used."
I did not hear the noble Marquess (because he did not attack that principle at all; he limited himself to personalities) complain that it was going too far that the Governor should have an advisory Executive Council but retain his full executive powers.
Then the fifth principle was that the Conference
"…may not think it too soon to turn its attention now to safeguards, both for the individual and for the minority communities,"
and these are the safeguards that find expression in a Bill of Rights and a Council of State. I should be the last to suggest for a moment that my view might be preferable to that of the noble Marquess. He may think that this is a modern fantasy, but I happen to be bred to the Common Law and I think it vital that at this stage in African history we should introduce a Bill of Rights, as something which protects and safeguards the position of minorities—and I am not colour-conscious when I talk about minorities. The minorities may be of one colour in one place and a different colour in another: they may be of one faith when one goes North and another when one goes South. I believe that these are vital matters, and I am glad to see that they are in the Constitution. The sixth principle was that special arrangements must be made to give the Chiefs some special place.
Those are the six principles which my right honourable friend put to that Conference. Having listened to every word of every speech, as I have done to-day, I have not heard anyone, even the noble Marquess, differ or derogate from the principles that my right honourable friend put. That is what he said to
352
them. That is what he asked them to discuss.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount a question? All those principles were present in the Lennox-Boyd Constitution. Why has that been scrapped?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Those principles are present in a better form in this Constitution.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I find it difficult—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am going to deal with that. I will never protest; I want the noble Marquess to interrupt as often as he wishes. But I am going on to deal with that point, and I will tell him seriously, because it is a very important point, that I believe it answers his innuendo that it is the practice of my right honourable friend to try to outwit people by—if I may follow the noble Marquess' reminiscences into my right honourable friend's past—not putting his cards on the table.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Withdraw!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, throughout his speech the noble and learned Viscount has dealt with all this as if it were I, and I alone, who thought these things. I stated this, from start to finish, as the view of a vast proportion of the white communities in Africa. That is true, and the noble and learned Viscount cannot refute it. If I happen to agree with that, it is not important. What is important is that Her Majesty's Government have somehow to come to a deal with the white community. That is absolutely vital. The noble and learned Viscount speaks as if I were speaking for myself and for no one but myself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess did not take any personal responsibility until he was interrupted by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel; and then he did. I am dealing, therefore, with the personal responsibility which he assumed. If, when the noble Marquess was a Minister, someone had attacked a colleague of his, would he not have replied? Surely he cannot object to my doing so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite prepared for the noble and learned Viscount to reply and I will take whatever he says to me and leave it to the House to judge—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Withdraw!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: —but when he says that this is only my view—and he has not said anything else from the beginning of his speech—it is not true.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say that. The noble Marquess took responsibility—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, I do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —and therefore I have dealt with the first point, he having clearly implied that in regard to this Conference my right honourable friend had (and the noble Marquess used the metaphor) not put his cards on the table. I have stated the principles which my right honourable friend announced for discussion. That is the first point.
Let me now take the noble Marquess's next attack on my right honourable friend: his statement that he changed; that having in March, April and May of 1960 said it was not in his mind to change the Lennox-Boyd Constitution, later in the year he did change it. I hope that I have put it fairly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is quite all right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The position is this. My right honourable friend did say that. There were three speeches. In two of those speeches (and I do not think it matters which, for they were all made within a couple of months) my right honourable friend said that while he did not have this in mind, some things might have to be considered. First, in one speech he said that the position might have to be considered because of the Federal review. In another speech he said that that might have to be done because of the Monckton Report. The noble Marquess can accept that as correct, for I have it in front of me, if he should want to verify it. That was the position in the early part of the year. Apart from general changes of thought with which I shall not deal,
354
because I want to keep this as factual as I can, I should just like your Lordships to remember what ensued during that period.
I believe there were five matters that ensued. There were constitutional changes in Nyasaland. The noble Marquess may remember, because we discussed this very fully, that my noble friend Lord Perth had gone out to deal with constitutional changes in Nyasaland before the emergency started. These were retarded for eighteen months from the spring of 1959, and changes were made in August, 1960. That was the second part, apart from the generally changing scene. In Southern Rhodesia, as has already been discussed, the last change was made in 1957, and the Government—that is, Sir Edgar Whitehead and the Commonwealth Secretary—were engaged in discussions at about the same time, that is, the autumn of 1960. That, then, was the second point.
Then there was the Report of the Monckton Commission, and my noble friend Lord Molson, in the congratulation of whom I join with the greatest pleasure, has explained that the Commission thought that there should be an African minority in Northern Rhodesia. But they also thought—and the Commission say—that many Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland saw the Federation as a road-block in the path of constitutional progress, and that, in order to remove this feeling, immediate political advances were essential in Northern Rhodesia. And the Commission recommended that a Conference should be held. That was the third point, apart from the general one. But the real point, as I believe the noble Marquess—who at every other time I have heard him has been a very fair debater—will know, is that the proposal for consideration of changes in the Northern Rhodesian Constitution resulted directly from local initiative; and I give the noble Marquess the evidence.
In announcing on September 28 of last year that the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State had agreed to the proposal from the Governor in Northern Rhodesia that informal discussions should be held with the leaders of political Parties to prepare the ground for a formal Constitutional Conference, the Governor expressed his satisfaction that

355
the initiative for constitutional discussions had come locally, rather than from outside the territory, and that the leaders of both the Government majority Party and the principal Opposition Party in the Legislative Council supported him in his advice.
My Lords, if any Colonial Secretary had had that general position—Nyasaland, Southern Rhodesia, the Monckton Report and then the Northern Rhodesian people, including the U.F.P., coming and asking him for discussions with a view to constitutional change—is it really fair to suggest that this is all the effort of my right honourable friend to outwit and get the best of other people? I do not think it is. The noble Marquess never dealt with the point that this was a written suggestion supported by the U.F.P. in Northern Rhodesia. Before he makes charges he should ascertain all the facts.
TIIE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if the noble and learned Viscount says that I over-stated the case, of course I will accept that. But the fact remains—and I must say it—that this was said. I have the words here. He is not the only one who has the words; I have the words too. What the Colonial Secretary said only a year ago was that the British Government had no plan for changes in the Northern Rhodesian Constitution except what was consequential on a review of the Federal Constitution; and the noble and learned Viscount has now added, I think, the Monckton Report. Is that right?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not know that any of the recommendations of the Monckton Report had yet been put into effect, and certainly review of the Federal Constitution is still completely in the air. I think it was rather surprising that this advance should have gone on over the Constitution of these one or two territories, which was originally, as I understood it, to be carried on pari passu with the Federal review. I still think it was an odd arrangement; and one of the things it shows is how frightfully complicated the Federal scheme was, with two territories under the Colonial Office and one territory having its own Government. I must take as much responsibility as anyone else, because I was one of the delegates;
356
but I still think that, in the light of the quotation I have shown, it was a surprising development that they did go ahead.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very sorry, but the noble Marquess cannot have listened to what I said. I mentioned these points, and I said that after they had happened there would have been five things: a general change; Nyasaland; there had been Southern Rhodesia; there had been the Monckton Report, and then an appeal from the people, including the U.F.P., in Northern Rhodesia itself. Those are the facts which the noble Marquess did not mention.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not questioning the facts. All I am saying is that it was a contravention of the Government statement made on that date a year ago.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I know that one has to show a very clear change of circumstances. But if, when the noble Marquess was Colonial Secretary, he had said that he was not going to make a change, and then political Parties in the place asked him to make a change, I think he would have considered it. That is what my right honourable friend did here. So that point goes. The suggestion that my right honourable friend did this out of a desire to outwit or mislead goes. He did it for these reasons which I have mentioned.
The noble Marquess says (I am dealing with the general points) that this Constitution does not carry out the principles of the Lennox-Boyd Constitution. The principles of the Lennox-Boyd Constitution, if your Lordships will bear with me, are set out, as my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve mentioned, in paragraph 18 of the White Paper. The first is that already mentioned:
"Politics should be encouraged and developed on Party and not on racial lines. Unless political Parties can eventually cut across racial divisions it will be impossible to achieve a united Northern Rhodesia."
And the second was that the basic lines—this is the basis on which it is founded—should be settled and should not be subject to change.
My Lords, I really did think that the best answer to the noble Marquess's fears

357
(and I realise that this is not a personal matter; this is a fear based on the Constitution) is the speech, to which we all had the privilege of listening, from my noble friend Lord Swinton, immediately before I spoke. The noble Earl expressed the principles, and these are principles which we desire to carry into effect—namely, that (I take the first one) politics should develop on Party and not racial lines. We thought that the best way to do that was to try to have some seats—my noble friend Lord Swinton would extend the number, and that is a very interesting point which deserves further consideration—which should be on a nonracial basis. I take the point of my noble friend Lord Swinton. He was rather sympathetic to the view (I am not sure whether he attributed it or not) that it would be a good thing to have all the seats of the non-racial type. I think there is an answer to that: that when you have these definite elements in a country, which are recognised and making their contribution, there is something to be said for ensuring, that both elements are represented in the Legislative Council.
But then we come to the question of deciding how we are going to make our non-racial or all-racial seats. I have lived with this matter and therefore I apologise because it seems easier to me than it does to some of your Lordships who have spoken; but I do not think it is very difficult. One has only to cast one vote. Then you have to get a percentage, which is still a matter of agreement—I want to return to this point, which is very important—on each of the Rolls, the Upper Roll and the Lower Roll. I take this only as an example because I do not want to prejudice the discussion—this is essentially a matter for discussion—but we could take 12· per cent., because we have taken that as the amount on which people lose their deposit; one-eighth. You have to get that percentage on each Roll. Then you count up the votes on each Roll and take the percentage of the votes in each Roll, add them together and divide by two. That is not going to worry the voter; that is a matter of what happens after the vote. And, of course, it has the effect of making them equal, for it affects the Upper Roll and the Lower Roll, because you do it by averaging the percentage of each. That would mean that
358
if someone got 10 per cent. on the Upper Roll and 60 per cent. on the Lower Roll, then you would take an average, as I have said. There is no difficulty about the vote: there is only a difficulty about whether the method of counting is, in the ordinary view, a fair and reasonable one.
Now, my Lords, I come back to the seriousness of this position, and I should have thought that that was a matter which really transcended the personal elements, interesting, sometimes exciting, though they are. What we have now to consider is the next step for considering the scheme. We all agree that there should be two objectives: one, the nonracial or multi-racial (whatever you like) element in the election; the other that that should give a chance of the politics developing on Party lines. I believe that there is still enough to be discussed at Lusaka for that profitably to be considered by people whose views differ, as views must differ, as to the pace of advance.
If noble Lords will turn to the present White Paper, they will see, first of all, that, in paragraph 19, we stress the importance that is attached to this, but it finishes by saying:
"Her Majesty's Government attach considerable importance to the concept of a group of seats on a 'national' basis as described above, but naturally would be prepared to consider other proposals which would have a similar result."
If noble Lords will look on to paragraph 30, they will find that the Secretary of State requests the Governor
"to give early consideration to all the matters which now needed to be worked out in detail within the framework of Her Majesty's Government's plan—the delimitation of constituencies, the way in which national members are to be returned, and the revised franchise qualifications. The Governor, after such further consultations as may be necessary with the political groups in Northern Rhodesia, will submit his recommendations…."
My Lords, at the end of the day, whatever views are held by the noble Marquess and by other people, I do very seriously ask him to lend the great weight of his name and his achievements to trying to get people to discuss the form, if you like, in which this can be developed to give the best exhibition of what we both want: the non-racial approach and Party, and not colour,

359
politics. I believe he could do a lot. I know him far too well to believe that any words of mine are anything more than he, with his great Parliamentary experience, would expect after making the speech he has made. He speaks, of course, for himself, and he says there are other views. I say this—and I ask the noble Marquess to believe me. I have worked with Iain Macleod for sixteen years. He is not the man who, to chase easy popularity or make things less difficult for himself, would for one moment consider doing what he thought was wrong; and I assure the noble Marquess that he has the same two ideals as animate the noble Marquess, and certainly animate me. Here we are, at one of the most difficult moments in the history of Africa. It is only ten years since a friend of the noble Marquess and of myself, the late Field-Marshal Smuts, made the great remark:
"To-day, nobody talks of Africa; in ten years, they will be talking of nothing else."
The noble Marquess and the noble Earl who sits beside him were the architects of what I believe is a great experiment in multi-racialism, in non-racialism, in races living together—a problem which no nation has yet solved in the twentieth century. I do ask him to forget all feuds, and to do what he can to help in—
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor? Surely, when he talks of the architects of the scheme, he should pay some tribute to Sir Roy Welensky and his Government, who have done their best to make it work.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, my Lords, I am very glad to do that; but I was dealing with the period before Sir Roy Welensky came on to the scene. I was dealing with the period, when I happened to be a member of the Government myself, when my two noble friends were working very hard—and my noble friend Lord Chandos, too, from the other point of view, was working very hard—to get this great experiment into being. I have the greatest respect for those who have worked it, but I am dealing with the previous period. To-day, at this time, which is so serious for Africa, probably the most important thing for the future of Africa
360
is that a non-racial experiment should succeed, because if it did succeed who knows how widely and beneficially its effect would be felt? So I ask all the parties concerned to see whether they cannot go to Lusaka and consider the wide points I have suggested, and try to hammer out a solution which will be creditable to all. There are many question in the world to-day, and, as I say, there are innumerable questions in Africa. I do not ask for a reply from the noble Marquess now, for he may feel difficulties, but I ask him to look at that point, and see whether, once again, your Lordships' House cannot point a way to sanity and friendship.
6.58 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I can speak only by leave of the House, but what I have to say is very brief; and it is this. My noble friend the Lord Chancellor has made a very moving appeal to me and to people who think like me. As he knows, and as I think many of your Lordships know, I cannot be regarded as an enemy of federation. I am one of the pioneers of federation: I gave a great deal of my life to it. But I think, as I said to-day, that what is at present threatening it more than anything else is what I called "a crisis of confidence". I think that if we in this House ignore, or if anyone else ignores, the reason for that mistrust and that lack of confidence, we are not getting to the bottom of the problem. The object of my speech was, as it were, to get it out. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor did not agree with what I said: he thought it was unfair. But what I said is what is believed by the great majority of younger people in Africa, and by a considerable number of people in this country. I do not think it is a bad thing that we should have it out in this House. All I can say to him at the moment is that I still feel as strongly about the importance of the continuation of federation as I have ever done, and anything that will help toward making it a success and a model for Africa should be done.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess, before he sits down, whether he proposes to withdraw his malicious attack on the Colonial Secretary?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Lady is rather foolish to raise that issue again at this moment. I never said that the Colonial Secretary was disingenuous, as I was said to have said. I think he was rather unscrupulous, and I will not withdraw that. I regret greatly that the subject has been raised again, and I think it is a great pity that the noble Lady has raised it.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Silkin, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

RTO TINTO RHODESIAN MINING LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at one minute past seven o'clock.