Sitting of 14 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
  SCIENCE

    Deafness
    Mr. Emeryasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how much official research is being done into infant deafness; and to what extent this is carried out under the National Health Service.
    The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): The Medical Research Council has for about twenty years supported a programme of research on the cause, detection and treatment of deafness in infants. Part of this research is undertaken in National Health Service hospitals. In addition, research is carried out under the National Health Service at the Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading and the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, Gray's Inn Road, with substantial support from public funds.
    Mr. Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise what real pleasure it gives me, having known him for sixteen years, to be the person to congratulate him on his first appearance on the Government Front Bench at Question Time, and, in fact, at the Dispatch Box? I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome his appointment to the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "His P.P.S."] We would give him support, but no doubt hon. Members opposite will give him something else.
    1162
    May I attack by asking my hon. Friend whether he realises that there is a sum of about £28,000 given by Nuffield to this research unit at Reading and that this money may not be able to be used unless sufficient housing facilities—actual floor space—can be found for this unit? Surely it would be a shame that this money should be wasted?
    Mr. Freeth: It is a great pleasure to be asked my first Question by my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for his kind words. I have to tell him, however, that the matter he raises is one entirely within the competence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health.

    International Institute of Science and Technology
    Mr. Albuasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take on the proposal made by the Study Group of scientists of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for an international institute of science and technology.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: Her Majesty's Government are awaiting the report of a small working group of eminent scientists, including a British representative, which has been set up by the North Atlantic Council to give this proposal the further consideration which the Study Group recommended.
    Mr. Albu: While welcoming the hon. Gentleman's appointment, may I ask him whether he would not agree that, while we must do nothing to stop the process of catching up in our backwardness in technological education, to which the Minister of Education recently referred, there is a case for a European institute of technology and science for the more advanced types of scientific research and teaching?
    Mr. Freeth: I am grateful also to the hon. Member for his kind words. I think it is important to remember that the Report of the Armand Committee set up by the N.A.T.O. Council stated that:
    "the establishment of an International Institute of Science and Technology merits further study by an appropriately chosen group."
    This Group has now been chosen and is proceeding with this study.

    Engineering
    Sir H. Legge-Bourkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he is satisfied that the volume and quality of research in engineering is adequate to support the country's economy.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: No, Sir. Some branches of engineering would benefit from more research. At the same time, there has been an encouraging increase in both teaching and research in engineering in the universities and the technical colleges. The problem will not, however, be solved until the subject attracts a due proportion of the best intellects in the country.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does my hon. Friend agree that industry should pay far more attention to the latest report and accounts of the National Research Development Corporation, in particular paragraph 6, which says that industry compares unfavourably with private inventors? Will my hon. Friend see whether he can bring to the attention of industry the reports of both the National Development Corporation and the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy?
    Mr. Freeth: Certainly. We do our best to bring both these documents to the attention of industrialists. However, I think that the weakness of the whole problem is basically the lack of the tradition of research in engineering in many of our universities and also the undoubted prejudices against technological education among parents and schoolmasters. If we can overcome these, we might, I think, make greater progress.
    Mr. Peart: Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept from the Opposition our congratulations on his attaining this very important position? We wish him well in his office, although naturally we shall attack him where we think his Department is failing. I ask him not to be complacent about this, because there is no doubt that we are losing the battle in relation to the United States and the Soviet Union. We need many more engineers, and research facilities are important.
    Mr. Freeth: I must also express thanks to the hon. Gentleman. Whilst we must not be complacent—I do not think that my original answer showed complacency
    1164
    —we must remember that certain sections of British engineering, such as the electronics industry, have a very fine record in this respect. I fully accept the need for increasing the output of scientists and technologists from our schools, technical colleges and universities. We are doing our best to increase the output.

    Civil Scientific Research
    Sir H. Legge-Bourkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how the level of civil scientific research in the United Kingdom compares with that in other countries.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: A broad comparison can be made with the United States. This indicates that expenditure on civil research and development may be of the general order of 1¼ per cent. of the gross national product of both countries. Without appearing complacent, I think it is satisfactory that we do not appear to be behind in this respect. It is not feasible at present to make such a comparison with other countries.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Can something be done to ensure that if there is any reduction as a result of inter-dependence in the amounts spent on research and defence matters there will be an equivalent increase in the amount spent on civil research?
    Mr. Freeth: This is the sort of problem which I can assure my hon. Friend that my noble Friend has very much in mind.

    Scientific Literature (English Translations)
    Mr. Neaveasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what steps have been taken to secure the availability to research scientists of translations from foreign languages, especially Russian, of scientific literature.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The National Lending Library for Science and Technology is collecting and making available published translations into English of scientific literature. The Library has made special efforts to collect all the existing translations from Russian into English. In addition, the Library arranges for translations from Russian and co-operates to this end with similar institutions in the U.S.A.
    Mr. Neave: Is my hon. Friend aware of the need for co-operation with Europe in this field? What arrangements exist in that respect with regard to the more difficult languages of scientists?
    Mr. Freeth: I am, indeed, appreciative of the need for this. The O.E.E.C. is in the process of setting up an independent organisation—the European Translation Centre—which will be attached to the University at Delft in Holland. This centre will be used to some extent by the National Lending Library and will translate into English, French and German from Eastern European languages, which I presume are the ones to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (Graduates)
    Mr. Albuasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what is the meaning of the phrase, graduates or equivalent, in Table III of the Report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on Research and Development Requirements of the Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Industries.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The heading "graduates or equivalent" refers to the definition of "qualified" scientists and technologists used, by the Ministry of Labour and the Committee on Scientific Manpower of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, in the surveys of Scientific and Engineering Manpower carried out in 1956 and 1959.
    Mr. Albu: Is the Parliamenary Secretary aware that this definition is completely misleading? The White Papers drawn up by the Ministry of Labour on Scientific and Engineering Manpower very carefully avoid this definition. In the shipbuilding industry the majority of qualified people are members of the Institute of Marine Engineers who obtained their qualification when they obtained a Board of Trade sea-going certificate, which has no resemblance whatsoever to a university graduate's qualification?
    Mr. Freeth: If it would make the matter clearer, I will arrange for a detailed note of the qualifications referred to by the hon. Member in his supplementary question to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Albu: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree, however, that the definition was carefully avoided in the White Papers on Scientific and Engineering Manpower?
    Mr. Freeth: In the shipbuilding industry the surveys did not cover technicians, with the exception of those holding Higher National Certificates and Higher National Diplomas, nor craftsmen, nor skilled operatives. In so far as it went, the definition was in itself restricted.

    Scientific Information
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what arrangements are made by the Atomic Energy Authority, outside electrical energy, for research information, ripe for development, to be passed to British industry.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Authority advises me that it brings such information to the notice of the appropriate sections of industry by every suitable means. New patents are widely publicised, development contracts are given to firms, and facilities are available for firms with interests in specific fields to obtain unpublished technological information under training or access agreements.
    Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some apprehension in this industry that certain secret information which is released to foreign Governments is being made available to foreign industry but is not available to our own industry? Will he look at this in the interests of the export trade?
    Mr. Freeth: Certainly. I have no knowledge of any such thing happening. Perhaps my hon. Friend will write to me and give me full details. I will then ask the Authority to look into it.
    Mr. Peart: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Atomic Energy Authority is a remarkable example of public enterprise? [Interruption.] Certainly. It has given wonderful scientific information to private industry, as private industry itself acknowledges. After all, there should be a partnership in this matter.
    Mr. Freeth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the praise which he has

    1167
    given to the Atomic Energy Authority during a period of Conservative rule.
    Mr. Peartasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what are his proposals to improve the collation and dissemination of scientific information.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the recent establishment of the National Lending Library of Science and Technology and to the statement made in another place by my noble Friend, on 31st May, 1960, about the Government decision to establish a National Reference Library of Science and Invention. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has recently established a Standing Committee on the Dissemination of Scientific and Technical Information. The Atomic Energy Authority also has a well-organised system of disseminating news of developments in atomic energy projects to interested parties, both in the United Kingdom and overseas.
    Mr. Peart: The Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned the D.S.I.R. Is he aware that in the Advisory Council's Report on Scientific Policy this problem was stressed, but as yet we have not enough liaison officers? Will he bear in mind the type of organisation which has existed in the agricultural industry, namely, the National Advisory Service? In future he should think on similar lines.
    Mr. Freeth: I think the hon. Member has a Question down for a future date on liaison officers. Setting up something like the National Advisory Service would have to be a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in the same way as the National Advisory Service is under the Ministry of Agriculture.

    Common Cold
    Mr. Neaveasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress has been made by the Common Cold Research Unit of the Medical Research Council.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Common Cold Research Unit of the Medical Research Council has made an important advance in the study of the common cold with the successful isolation and growth of
    1168
    certain cold viruses. This has opened the way for rational investigations into methods of prevention and treatment.
    Mr. Neave: Is my hon. Friend in a position to say in what way members of the public can help the work of the Unit? How many members of the public have so far volunteered?
    Mr. Freeth: Yes. The Common Cold Research Unit urgently requires volunteers in order to test the success of the new methods being developed. Very comfortable and centrally heated accommodation, their keep and a little pocket money are given to volunteers, of whom 6,784 had visited the Unit up to the end of 1960. Of these, 3,051 were men, 3,733 were women, and there were 799 married couples among them.

    Listening Post, Dartmoor
    Mr. Haymanasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he will make a statement on the proposal of the Atomic Energy Authority to establish a seismic instrument site in the Dartmoor National Park.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I am advised by the Atomic Energy Authority that it proposes to set up a small temporary listening post, for occasional use during the next twelve months, on War Office land near Okehampton in the Dartmoor National Park. It would provide information on the detection of explosions in support of the Geneva talks on the control of nuclear tests. Small charges of conventional explosives would be detonated elsewhere in the course of these experiments, but there would be no explosions on the site. Care will be taken to ensure that there is no interference with the amenities of the district.
    Mr. Hayman: First, was the Dartmoor National Park Committee consulted before this site was set up? Secondly, is it really necessary to have a site on Dartmoor, because there is plenty of granite elsewhere in Devon and Cornwall? Thirdly, will the Parliamentary Secretary ask the Atomic Energy Authority to reconsider the whole proposal and bear in mind that the national parks were not provided as playgrounds for Government Departments?
    Mr. Freeth: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, no less

    1169
    than six bodies were consulted, namely, the Duchy of Cornwall as the landowners, the Dartmoor Commoners' Association, the Devon County Council, the National Parks Committee for Dartmoor, the Okehampton Rural Di strict Council, and the Dartmoor Preservation Association. Only the Dartmoor Preservation Association objected to this site being used for this purpose. The site was chosen because of the special geological formations and because it is away from main roads and railways, thus providing a suitable silent background for the work. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's third question is, "No, Sir".

    Asthma and Bronchitis
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what research is being undertaken into bronchial asthma and bronchitis and their resulting effects on the health of children and adults.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Medical Research Council supports a considerable amount of research into the cause, natural history and treatment of bronchial asthma and bronchitis. In addition, research into both of these conditions is being undertaken in the hospitals of the National Health Service.
    Mrs. Slater: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that there are about 30,000 deaths annually from all types of bronchitis; and that this death rate is three times as high as that in Belgium and thirty-six times as high as that in the United States of America? Therefore, we need a great general speed-up in research into this dreadful illness, particularly in constituencies like mine, where people are more susceptible to it.
    Mr. Freeth: I fully agree with the hon. Lady that this is a question for research, and, in fact, a considerable amount of research is being done, not only at Stoke-on-Trent but elsewhere in the country. This question involves such things as pneumoconiosis research. It also involves the policy of clean air and a number of analogous subjects. We are trying to press ahead with them all.

    Scientists and Technologists
    Mr. Peartasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will give details of the number of British scientists
    1170
    and technologists who have left the United Kingdom during the past five years.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: There are no complete statistics of British scientists and technologists who have left the United Kingdom during the past five years. Such estimates as are available indicate that about 2,000 leave, and about 1,000 enter, the country every year.
    Mr. Peart: Will the hon. Gentleman consult or ask his noble Friend to consult the Minister of Labour on this matter, as I am sure that the statistics can be given if the attempt is made? Even on the hon. Gentleman's own figure, is not this drift rather serious?
    Mr. Freeth: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that one can get fully accurate statistics only from passenger-movement statistics—by collecting a lot of detailed information from a very large number of travellers, which might lead to objections from other quarters. The net loss of 1,000 to which the hon. Gentleman refers relates to an annual output of about 18,000, and part of the net loss consists of Commonwealth students returning home after taking higher degrees.

    Conservation of Natural Resources
    Mr. Owenasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will now appoint a research council which will be responsible for the research into the conservation of natural resources.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education gave the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) on Friday, 3rd February, 1961.
    Mr. Owen: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the concern expressed by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy about the importance of the conservation of our natural resources, and is he not willing to reexamine the whole question in the interests of national prosperity and progress?
    Mr. Freeth: The Advisory Council is at present considering the matter, as my

    1171
    right hon. Friend the Minister of Education stated, and we must await its detailed recommendations before any actual steps can be taken.
    Mr. Peart: But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Advisory Council in principle accepted the need for an organisation? It decided that in principle —why wait?
    Mr. Freeth: If the hon. Gentleman cares to read paragraphs 27, 36 and 37 of the Advisory Council's Report he will see that the Council suggested that the question of a natural resources research council was still one that needed a lot of further research, and that we are now doing.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend please convey to his right hon. Friend the very real concern there is on this matter on both sides of the House, and point out that the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy has referred to one important gap in responsibility which a research council of this kind would fill? Would he press on to see whether we cannot set up such a research council.
    Mr. Freeth: This, of course, raises a large number of very varied questions and very varied responsibility. I think that we should await the Advisory Council's further Report before we decide to set up a new body to coordinate all the existing work being done by a variety of Departments.

    Industrial Research, Scotland
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what proportion of Government-financed industrial research is at present being carried out in Scotland.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: It is not practical in the industrial field to distinguish expenditure on research from that on development. The information requested by the hon. Member is therefore not available.
    Mr. Willis: Could not the Parliamentary Secretary give some information on the two expenditures combined? That might be helpful.
    Mr. Freeth: That would entail a very large amount of work and would take
    1172
    some time, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to put such a Question on the Order Paper we will do our best.

    Office Buildings (Survey)
    Captain Litchfieldasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what is the purpose of the survey of modern office blocks, instituted by the Central Office of Information on behalf of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; what is the number of persons, directly or indirectly, engaged on this survey; and what will be its total cost.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The purpose is to analyse experience in the use of recent office buildings in order to improve design of future buildings. Thirty part-time interviewers will be employed for one month under a senior information officer, and some technical staff for analysis of the data. Estimated cost of this survey is £5,500.
    Captain Litchfield: Does my hon. Friend need this information? Does he not agree that investigations of this sort, even of a modest kind, should be reduced to those that are really essential?
    Mr. Freeth: I think that this is a survey that can do a lot of good in making people happier in offices and, therefore, more efficient. We believe that a great deal more information is still needed on, for example, such aspects as the inadequacies of heating, lighting, ventilation and noise reduction.
    Mr. Albu: Will the Parliamentary Secretary not listen to his ractionary friends behind him, but realise that the use of social science research will be of great help to those constructing buildings, especially in view of the ignorance of most architects on this subject?
    Mr. Freeth: I have no doubt that the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield) was born of a natural desire to conserve the nation's financial resources; I naturally support the desire of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) to have the maximum amount of information that we can get within the resources available.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Royal Parks (Road Accidents)
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Minister of Works if he will give the figures of road accidents in the Royal Parks for the first four months after the speed limit was increased to 30 miles-per-hour, with separate figures for injured and killed, and comparable figures for the same period for three previous years.
    The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): For those parks where the sped limit was raised to 30 m.p.h. on 4th August, 1960, the following are the figures required of accidents, injured and killed.

    1957–50 accidents, 62 injured and none killed.

    1958–62 accidents, 74 injured and 2 killed.

    1959–69 accidents, 70 injured and 2 killed.

    1960–69 accidents, 87 injured and 2 killed.

    Mr. Johnson: Can the Minister, having studied the figures as a whole, say whether they show that the proportion of fatal accidents has increased since the speed limit was raised? Is he aware that there is increasing evidence that the new higher speed limit is being ignored, and that there have been convictions for driving in Richmond Park at speeds of up to 60 m.p.h.? What steps is the Minister taking to see that these new speed limits are rigorously enforced?
    Lord John Hope: I am taking the steps I told the House I would take when these matters were debated, and that is why there are now more convictions. The answer to the hon. Member's Question is that there have not been any more killed since these Regulations came in.

    House and Office Building
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Works if he will state the proportion of the building industry's resources devoted to council-house building and office building, respectively, today, and 10 years ago.
    Lord John Hope: In 1960, the proportion of the building and civil engineering industries resources devoted to building council houses is estimated at 10 per cent. and for offices at between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. In 1950, the proportion for council houses is estimated at 20 per cent.; the figure for offices was 1 per cent.
    Mr. Allaun: Do not those figures show —and, in any case, is it not manifest—that while office building is soaring, particularly in London, Manchester and other cities, council-house building has been slashed by the Government's policy, thus leaving in a hopeless condition hundreds of thousands of families who cannot afford to buy their own homes? Will the Government, therefore, revise their priorities?
    Lord John Hope: Revision is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing, but I would not have thought that the hon. Member was wise to use those figures for criticising the Government's housing policy. The point is that 26 per cent. of the resources of the industry are still being used for building houses.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Minister think that it shows a proper sense of values that we should, apparently, be regarding council-house building as only half as important as it was ten years ago, and office building as being twice as important? Looking at that situation, does the Minister regard it as reasonable?
    Lord John Hope: To start with, the hon. Member has his figures all wrong. The number of local authority houses completed in 1960 was 125,000 as against about 164,000 in 1950, so his remark about office building being twice as important is quite irrelevant.
    Mr. Russell: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there has been a great demand from hon. Members opposite, in particular, for better office accommodation? Do we not have to take the rough with the smooth?
    Lord John Hope: My right hon. Friend's housing policy has done both, with remarkable success.

    Stonehenge (Defacement)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Works whether he will make a statement on the defacement of Stonehenge on the night of 1st-2nd March, 1961.
    Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. During the early hours of 2nd March, the words "Ban the Bomb" and an emblem

    1175
    which, I understand, represents a movement concerned with nuclear disarmament were applied in distemper across nine of the stones; and on the following night crude images of animals etc. were daubed with buff-white paint on ten stones. The police are pursuing inquiries and are co-operating by increasing their patrols in the area. The paint has been removed and no serious damage has resulted from these acts of vandalism.
    Mr. Hayman: While we are all grateful that there has been no serious damage to this prehistoric monument which means so much to the country, will the right hon. Gentleman and the police do all they can to get hold of the vandals responsible in each case? Will the Minister also bear in mind that the general public will not grudge any extra expense which may be necessary to safeguard this monument?
    Lord John Hope: Yes. Of course, we will do what we can. The only ray of hope I can offer the hon. Member is that the moon was full that night and these people therefore may have been lunatics.

    House of Commons (Heating and Ventilation)
    Mr. Thorpeasked the Minister of Works whether the Library, Members' and Strangers' Dining Rooms, Tea Room and Chamber are air conditioned; and what is the average temperature and humidity at which it is sought to maintain them.
    Lord John Hope: Of the accommodation mentioned, only the House of Commons Chamber is air conditioned, and this is maintained at an average temperature of 67º F. and 55 per cent. humidity. The, same temperature is maintained in the Library, Dining Rooms and Tea Room, but the humidity in these areas cannot be controlled.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is the Minister aware that last night the temperature in the Members' Dining Room soared above 80° F.? How much longer are hon. Members to be cooped up for hours on end in this building in these stifling Turkish bath conditions with hon. Members precluded from removing the necessary amount of clothing to make such temperatures tolerable?
    Lord John Hope: That is a wide question which seems to me to impinge upon the inter-communication of the ordinary channels.

    St. Stephen's Hall (Statues)
    Mr. Thorpeasked the Minister of Works the total cost of restoring the statues in St. Stephen's Hall; and what expert advice was taken in this matter.
    Lord John Hope: Restoration cost £320 and was carried out under the direction of my architects, who are well qualified to deal with this type of work.
    Mr. Thorpe: Has the Minister closely inspected these allegedly restored statues? Is he aware, for example, that on the statue of John Selden fingers have been added but that so much cement has been left in the palm of this gentleman's hand that he looks as if he has a bad case of eczema, and that on the statue of William Pitt the younger a piece of marble has been affixed to the end of his nose which gives the impression of a permanent drip? Would it not be possible to ask the architects to look at them again and do their job properly?
    Lord John Hope: I will do my best. I will make a personal inspection of the anatomy of these distinguished gentlemen. I hope, however, that the hon. Member will at least agree that the removal of the coffee staining which was responsible for the former brown colour has at least been a great improvement.
    Mr. Thorpe: May I offer to accompany the right hon. Gentleman on his inspection?
    Mr. Dugdale: While not commenting on the condition of the statues of these eminent gentlemen, may I ask the Minister to have regard to the fact that the light in St. Stephen's Hall is both too high and too bright for the admirable proportions of that building? Will he take steps to alter it?
    Lord John Hope: That is another question, but I will take note of it.

  HOUSING

    Statistical and Research Staff
    Mr. Ginsburgasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the

    1177
    establishment and what are the qualifications of the staff of his Department employed on statistical duties in connection with general housing matters.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): Thirty of my staff are directly employed on such duties. The section is headed by a statistician who is supported by executive and clerical staff.
    Mr. Ginsburg: Is the Minister aware that concern has been expressed in many quarters about the adequacy of his Department's statistics compared with the statistics of other Ministries? Will the Minister look again at the Imperial Calendar, which suggests that the staff devoted to housing is very thin on the ground?
    Mr. Brooke: I find my staff adequate to perform the duties which I require of them. I am not aware of any of these criticisms. Of course, I have the benefit of the assistance of the Central Statistical Office, the Social Survey, the General Register Office, and other departments. If the hon. Member has in mind particular shortcomings which he suspects, perhaps he will let me know about them.
    Mr. Ginsburgasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the establishment and what are the qualifications of the staff of his Department employed on intelligence and research duties in connection with general housing matters.
    Mr. Brooke: This depends upon the meaning which the hon. Member attaches to "intelligence and research". As the words are used in my Department over 170 of my staff are so employed. Among them are qualified geographers, economists, sociologists, architects, engineers, chemists, planners, quantity surveyors, estate officers and valuers.
    Mr. Ginsburg: Is not the Minister aware that the figures which he has been quoting to me refer to the purely town planning side of his activities? Concerning housing, are not the considerations that I outlined in the previous Question correct? How is it possible without good research to have an adequate housing policy for the nation?
    Mr. Brooke: As I said in reply to the hon. Member's previous supplementary
    1178
    question, if he feels that there are matters on which it would be valuable for my Department to collect or publish further information, I shall be glad if he will let me know.

    Transferred Miners
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consultation he has had with the National Coal Board about provision of houses for transferred mine workers.
    Mr. Brooke: My Department has been in consultation from time to time with the Ministry of Power and the National Coal Board about the provision of houses for miners likely to be transferred to other areas. If the hon. Member has Knotting-ley urban district in mind, I can inform him that I have given approval in principle to the payment of special industrial subsidy in respect of houses to be built for this purpose.
    Mr. Roberts: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I also ask him whether, when these houses are provided, they will be kept under the control of the local authority?
    Mr. Brooke: If they are built by the urban district council they certainly will be.

    Decontrol
    Sir B. Bannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the anxiety about the continuing possibility of decontrol of dwelling houses in general, and those which are partly used for business purposes, what proposals Her Majesty's Government now have to remedy the position; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what use he proposes to make of his power to make orders under Section II (3) of the Rent Act. 1957.
    Mr. Brooke: As has been frequently stated, the Government will take no further action to decontrol rents during this Parliament. They do not intend to disturb the protection available to tenants of mixed residential and business

    1179
    premises under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, nor to interfere with the working of the decontrol provisions of the Rent Act, 1957.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that it is a very unsatisfactory situation he is talking about now? People thought when he made his statement recently that he was going to take some steps towards preventing the cancer of decontrol at present. What in faot he is saying at present is quite useless from the point of view of those who have the constant fear of being turned out of their shelter. Will he be good enough to say he will have second thoughts about this?
    Mr. Brooke: No. I have nothing to add to the statement I have made in answer to these Questions.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that he was reported in the Daily Telegraph, which is usually favourable to Ministers, as having said that he had advised the Prime Minister that the Government could not undertake further measures of rent decontrol in the present Session of Parliament—that is a very different thing from the lifetime of this Parliament—and as having further said, replying to a question at the same meeting:
    "Maybe further measures "—
    that is, measures of decontrol—
    "will be possible, but probably not during my period of office."
    Is he saying that that report from the Daily Telegraph is untrue, because it is very different from what has been said elsewhere about Government policy?
    Mr. Brooke: I have so much respect for the way the reporters do their work that I always hesitate to suggest that I have been misreported, but I really cannot think I made a slip of the tongue on such an important matter as this.
    Mr. Stewart: There are two slips of the tongue here, one in the main speech and one in the reply to a later question. What was happening to the Minister's tongue on this occasion? Was it being governed not by his head but by his real desires in this matter?
    Mr. Brooke: The Minister's tongue was speaking the truth as usual. The position is that the Government stand firmly
    1180
    by the pledge which was contained in the manifesto at the last election, that no further action to decontrol property will be taken in the life of this Parliament. What will happen after this Parliament I cannot forecast.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity presented by this Question to clear up another very important anxiety which hangs over many people at the present time? He and I and a few other Members have this morning just completed our sittings in Standing Committee on the Rating and Valuation Bill. It is widely believed throughout the country that once the new valuation lists appear in 1963, as rateable values go up, control will be lifted automatically and that even the houses with the limits of £30 in the provinces and £40 in London and which receive the higher rating under the new valuations—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—will fall out of control. Can the Minister make it quite clear that that is not his intention, because it is widely believed to be his intention?
    Mr. Brooke: I made quite clear in my speech on Second Reading of that Bill that the Bill had no effect whatever on control or decontrol. If the hon. Member did not clearly understand then, I am quite prepared to repeat it to him now.

    Improvement Grants
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what further consideration has been given to the making of a housing improvement grant where a business premise and dwelling-house are one self-contained building.
    Mr. Brooke: I am not sure what the hon. Member has in mind, but if she will let me have particulars of the problem I will readily look into it.
    Mrs. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already sent him particulars—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—including the plan of the premises to which I particularly refer, and does he not know that in a letter sent to the local authority of Stoke-on-Trent he said that if a shop and a dwellinghouse were adjoined no improvement grant can be made because of the possibility that they might be let as two separate dwellings? Therefore, are not small business people

    1181
    who are in a house adjoining a shop penalised by not benefiting from improvement grants which we are trying to popularise?
    Mr. Brooke: No, I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replied to a letter from the hon. Member and offered to give further help if more particulars could be provided——
    Mrs. Slater: I sent them.
    Mr. Brooke: —and if we can see more particulars we are very ready to help.
    Mrs. Slater: The Parliamentary Secretary has already got them.

    Peterlee
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is contemplating any changes in the appointment of members to the board of the Peterlee Corporation.
    Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. I am in process of consulting the local authorities about the filling of a vacancy, as the Act requires.
    Mr. Shinwell: While I have no desire to be consulted nor expect to be asked my opinion in a matter of this sort, may I ask, is it not common courtesy to advise the Member for the constituency when changes of this kind are made—and to make it applicable not to Peterlee only but to all the new towns?
    Mr. Brooke: I certainly desire no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think it has been the practice before on the part of Ministers of this or other Governments to consult the Members of Parliament but to abide by the requirement of the Act, which is that the local authority shall be consulted.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have not asked to be consulted. Would the right hon. Gentleman listen to what hon. Members ask him? What I ask is that when changes of this kind are made the Members concerned ought to be told about them instead of getting the information elsewhere.
    Mr. Brooke: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept my assurance that I intended no discourtesy to him whatever?
    Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman should buy his local newspaper.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses it is estimated will be built and completed in the new town of Peterlee in 1961.
    Mr. Brooke: About 350.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are we making sufficient practical progress in Peterlee? What has gone wrong with the corporation? What has gone wrong with the Minister?
    Mr. Brooke: There is nothing wrong with the Minister or with the corporation. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was something wrong about the contractors who were doing the principal building there. He also knows that I have done my very best to get that cleared up and to expedite the completion of these houses, and I think that it is happening now.
    Mr. M. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) also asked what has gone wrong with the Minister. In view of the length of the reply which would be required to that question, will the right hon. Gentleman include it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

    Houses Let and Average Rent
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses are now let by local authorities in England and Wales, respectively; and what is the average rent charged in England and in Wales.
    Mr. Brooke: Local authorities in England own about 3,200,000 houses for letting, and those in Wales and Monmouthshire about 185,000. The most recent information available about rents is that given in "Housing Statistics, 1959–60", published by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, which covers over nine-tenths of council houses in England and over three-quarters of those in Wales. According to this source the average rent in England in 1959-60 was about 20s. ld., and in Wales and Monmouthshire about 20s. 8d.. exclusive of rates in both cases.
    Mr. Gower: While no doubt there are cases of rather high rents, do not the figures indicate that the impact of rents in this country at present is often exaggerated?
    Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. I think that probably there has been some rise in council renfs since the date of the figures.

    Families, Essex (Temporary Accommodation)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs approximately how many men, women, and children are now in temporary accommodation in the administrative county of Essex and in Essex county boroughs because of eviction or inability to find permanent accommodation; and how many families who had been living in such temporary accommodation removed to permanent accommodation in 1960.
    Mr. Brooke: The answer to the first part of the Question is 71 families comprising 298 persons. The answer to the second part is 142 families.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister give any indication of how long on average these families have to dwell in this most unfortunate kind of accommodation?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I do not think that I could give an answer to that. I have answered the questions which the hon. Member put to me in his Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I asked how many families were removed to permanent accommodation in 1960? Could he answer that question?
    Mr. Brooke: I am sorry. The answer is 142 families.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Offices, Piccadilly (Sign)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs by what authority Pan American World Airways have been authorised to place the sign over their offices in Piccadilly; and what steps he is taking to prevent the further damage to amenity consequent upon a proliferation of such signs.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): The Westminster City Council has given express consent for the display of this sign. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Control of Advertisements Regulations provide sufficient powers to control the display of illuminated signs.
    Mr. Shepherd: If this sign is approximately as long as this Chamber and almost as deep as the depth under the Gallery, does the hon. Gentleman think that if signs of this type and size were proliferated along Piccadilly they would add to the amenity of the district?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is a hypothetical question. My hon. Friend is exaggerating. My right hon. Friend feels that the local authorities who control these matters are exercising their responsibilities properly.

    Building Sites (Goods Yards and Sidings)
    Mr. R. Allanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consultations he has had with the British Transport Commission on the question of building office and housing accommodation over its goods yards and sidings, particularly in London; and with what results.
    Sir K. Joseph: None, Sir. My right hon. Friend has, however, discussed this matter with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport who assures him that the British Transport Commission is giving close attention to the development of such sites.
    Mr. Allan: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many London boroughs there remains no land available for development except that which is owned by the Transport Commission, and that the only hope of reducing housing lists and tackling deteriorating properties is by the acquisition of this land quickly for housing development? Will my hon. Friend press on with it?
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend has already asked planning authorities by circular to do what they can to prevent the waste of land. Any proposal such as my hon. Friend suggests is a

    1185
    matter in the first place for the local planning authority.
    Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. I am puzzled to know how this Question can get on to the Order Paper, since we are frequently told when trying——
    Mr. Speaker: To save time now, may I say that I will consider the matter and will give the hon. Member a chance to raise it after Questions?

    Boundary Commission (Tees-side Report)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has yet received the report of the Local Government Boundary Commission dealing with the future of Tees-side.
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I understand that the Commission will be publishing its draft proposals for the North-East later this year. No report will be sent to me until local authorities and other bodies have had a chance to comment on the draft proposals and to discuss them with the Commission.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister be a little more specific by what he means by "later this year"? Is he aware that this inquiry has been going on for a considerable time and that there is considerable local public interest and, indeed, anxiety? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commission to get a move on and let us know its proposals as soon as possible?
    Mr. Brooke: No, I do not think that it would be right for me to ask the Commission to get a move on. As the whole House knows, it is engaged on important and sometimes delicate tasks. I am sure that the Commission will make public its draft proposals as soon as it is in a position to do so.

    Seaside Resorts (Loudspeaker Vans)
    Mr. Fellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the difficulties being experienced in seaside resorts owing to the banning of advertising by mobile loudspeaker vans, he will introduce legislation to amend the Noise Abatement Act.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.
    Mr. Fell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Great Yarmouth, and possibly in other seaside towns, the use of loudspeakers for advertising during the short summer season has become part and parcel of the life of the town)? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is true. During the summer season it has become part and parcel of the life of the town. The only complaint I have ever heard against noise in Yarmouth is against ice-cream vans, which make an astonishing cacophony of sound and which escape the provisions of the Act. When future Measures of this sort come along will the Ministry look at them from the point of view of seeing what damage they will do? Will my hon. Friend please look again at the Act to see whether something cannot be done to give local authorities more power to do what they want to do in their own areas?
    Sir K. Joseph: This Act only follows the lines of Sections in many Local Acts, and my right hon. Friend has very little evidence of difficulties. There are other ways of advertising than by loudspeaker, and most people appreciate any reduction in noise but do not write in about it.

    Barking Rent Tribunal
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister for Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) how many cases were dealt with in 1960 by the Barking Rent Tribunal: and why it is proposed shortly to close this tribunal.
    (2) if he is aware that serious inconvenience will be caused to rent appellants in Barking, Ilford, East and West Ham, and Plaistow by the proposed closing of the Barking Rent Tribunal and the merging of this tribunal with one at Islington; and if, in view of the distance that appellants would have to travel, the overcrowded state of the list of cases to be heard at Islington and the consequent delays, he will reconsider this decision.
    Mr. Brooke: During 1960 the Barking Rent Tribunal fixed the rent payable in 86 cases and extended the tenant's security of tenure in 46. For some time the area served by this tribunal has not produced enough work to justify the maintenance of a separate tribunal, as

    1187
    the figures show. Amalgamation with the Islington Tribunal will not cause inconvenience to rent appellants in either area, because under the new arrangements cases will continue to be heard locally as necessary, and the number of sittings will be increased.
    Mr. Driberg: Despite the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted to show that, in his view, it is not justifiable to keep this tribunal in existence, would he agree that they did substantially increase during the winter months—this winter? Would he explain a little more clearly what he means by saving that the tribunal will continue to sit locally? Does that mean in the same premises as the old tribunal?
    Mr. Brooke: I am quite satisfied, even on the latest figures, that there is no overload of work to justify the continuance of a separate tribunal. What I have in mind is that we should find new premises for the tribunal, which will not be the old Islington premises but will be more central to the whole area, and also that the tribunal, when necessary, will sit locally. I do assure the hon. Member that we are not seeking to give tenants long travelling tasks.
    Mr. Driberg: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether when he says "central to the whole area" he means to treat Islington, Barking and East Ham as one area, because if so there will still be quite a long journey for some? Does he realise that, if it is going to be more inconvenient or slower for tenants to get redress, that will only encourage bad landlords not to mend their ways?
    Mr. Brooke: No, I do assure the hon. Member that, first of all, we want to find new premises which will be nearer the centre of the new combined area than any premises at present in use are, and secondly, that the tribunal will be capable of sitting locally in different boroughs and not always in the one centre.
    Mr. Driberg: Good.

    Local Government Reform, London
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities have now informed him
    1188
    of their judgment on the proposed reform of local government in the London area: how many of these broadly agree with those proposals; and how many have made no report.
    Mr. Brooke: Out of the 111 local authorities whose districts were wholly or partially within the area reviewed by the Royal Commission, 108 have so far sent me their views. While nearly all accept a need for some changes, views on the Royal Commission's main recommendations range from complete acceptance to outright opposition, with many authorities expressing reservations of one kind or another. When I have had time to study the replies fully, I hope to make a statement.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister give the House some indication of the timetable and procedure on this very important matter, because the local authorities want to know exactly what they can expect in days to come and how many days there are?
    Mr. Brooke: I certainly agree with the hon. Member that it is most important. There should be no needless delay in making a statement, because it is obviously difficult for local authorities, especially those who have vacancies among their chief officers to fill, if they cannot be sure about their future. At the same time, I am sure that having been asked to send in their views local authorities would wish the Government to have time to study them, some of which have been received only in the last few days.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Have any local authorities expressed any positive enthusiasm for the Commission's proposals on education?
    Mr. Brooke: I could not say that without notice.

    UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (VOLUNTARY SERVICE)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Prime Minister if he will prepare a scheme, similar to that now being sponsored by the President of the United States of America, by which young people who are qualified in teaching, health services, farming and

    1189
    village development, are encouraged to volunteer to give service in the backward areas of the world, by living among the people, with allowances only to cover their basic needs.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
    I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 9th March to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question arises out of the scheme adopted by the President of the United States, who thought that this was the best way to maintain peace in the world? Is he also aware that in America there are private organisations doing this work, but the President thought that that was not sufficient and he adopted the scheme himself? Will the Prime Minister consider adopting a scheme similar to that adapted by the United States President?
    Mr. Butler: Since I last spoke of this matter, the Lord Privy Seal has pointed out that the American President's scheme is a pilot scheme in its formative stages, and so we shall certainly watch with great interest haw it develops. I have already consulted my right hon. Friends who are principally concerned, as I promised, and we are well decided that the best way is to base our scheme on voluntary organisations, who have since been in touch with us and have expressed their pleasure that that is to be the case. I think that it would be a mistake in this country if we under-estimated both the will and the importance of voluntary organisations.
    Mr. Gaitskell: We would all agree about the important work done by voluntary organisations in this field, but can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea when the Government expect to make a statement? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that there was contact with voluntary organisations. Are discussions taking place with them on what form Government assistance might take?
    Mr. Butler: I gave an indication on the last occasion of the extent of Government assistance to voluntary organisations and we are in touch with them. There is no definite date for a statement,
    1190
    but I have borne in mind the importance which the House and the right hon. Gentleman attach to this matter.
    Mr. Wade: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that there will be an increase in grants to these voluntary societies?
    Mr. Butler: I could not add to that today.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Does not every continent bear witness to the fact that we have been doing this very sort of thing for a long time?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

  MALTA

    Wireless and Television
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what control there will be over the use of rediffusion in Malta by political parties; and what control the Governor will have over both radio and television in an emergency.
    The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): A Bill to be enacted shortly proposes the establishment of an Authority responsible for broadcasting and television in Malta. The Authority must satisfy itself that due impartiality is preserved on political matters and that, save under agreed procedures, no matter designed to serve the interest of any political party is included in the programmes. Under the proposed constitution, amendments to the Bill will be reserved for signification of Her Majesty's pleasure. The Bill confers sufficient powers upon the Governor to deal with an emergency.
    Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that all the political parties will have a fair allocation of time over the wireless or television, both of which are of great importance in Malta?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. That is the special objective of this Authority.
    Sir L. Plummer: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that what the Governor is proposing will lead to a complete monopoly in both sound and television broadcasting for Malta Rediffusion? What possibility is there of independent expression of opinion when sound and television broadcasting is under the control of one company?
    Mr. Fraser: As I explained to the hon. Member on previous occasions, this is a question of a commercial contract which can be negotiated. As to the question of fairness, this Authority will see that strict fairness and impartiality are preserved.

  SCOTLAND

    Mackintosh Committee's Report (Consultations)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the nature of the consultations which have taken place between him and the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland, the Society of Writers to Her Majesty's Signet, the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland, the Scottish Land Owners Federation, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Crofters Commission concerning implementation of the proposals of the Mackintosh Committee.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): These consultations provided the Government with general observations on the recommendations of the Mackintosh Committee and also with comments on points of particular interest to the organisations consulted.
    Mr. Hughes: Which of these organisations has deterred the right hon. Gentleman from implementing the recommendations of the Mackintosh Committee, contrary to the express desires of the legal profession in Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman now release himself from that sinister influence and implement the Committee's recommendations?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. and learned Member will know from my previous answers on this point the reasons why so far I have been unable to introduce legislation to deal with this matter.
    Mr. Hughes: Which of these organisations is holding up this very desirable implementation of the law?
    Mr. Maclay: It should be quite clear that no organisation is holding it up. lit is a question of Parliamentary time.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I desire to raise
    1192
    this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity. I hope that I shall have co-operation in doing so.

    Beauty Spots
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider a survey of beauty spots in Scotland, with a view to legislation to prevent spoliation or destruction of natural assets which could not be re-created.
    Mr. Maclay: Local planning authorities already have comprehensive powers of control, but I am examining with the local authority associations what more can be done through specific safeguarding provisions in development plans and otherwise. I am also considering ways and means of encouraging voluntary effort for the maintenance of amenity generally.
    Mr. Woodburn: As we already have an organisation for preserving historical monuments, and as one of the arguments for investigating the hydro-electric scheme is that it has been accused of destroying beauty spots, would it not be wise to have some authority that could authorise the retention and preservation of beauty spots, which, once destroyed, can never be replaced?
    Mr. Maclay: I agree that it is desirable to explore with the local authorities, on the lines I have described in my answer, whether we can make more progress in defining areas of particular beauty and "interest, and whether there is need for any additional body to adjudicate in these matters, but I gravely doubt whether the moment for setting-up such a body is now. My mind is not closed on this matter, however.
    Mr. Woodburn: At the moment we make a list of historical monuments that should not be destroyed. Would it not be possible to begin by having an official list of beauty spots which must be preserved or about which the Secretary of State must be consulted before they are destroyed?
    Mr. Maclay: I feel that we should explore the possibility of doing this through the ordinary device of the development plan before we consider any further measures.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
At the end of Questions—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) was good enough not to hold up Question Time by deferring a point of order which he wished to raise with me. Does he wish to raise it now?
Mr. J. T. Price: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I referred to Question No. 26, because, in my opinion, it raises a matter affecting the day-to-day administration of the British Transport Commission.
We have frequently been advised, when trying to raise Questions relating to the Transport Commission, either on behalf of constituents or of bodies in our constituencies, that they could not be raised under the rules of our procedure because they concerned day-to-day administration.
In my submission, Question No. 26 is tabled in such a way as to refer to the use and development of land in the possession of the Commission. As everybody knows, access to development land is one of the most important factors sought after by speculators. I wish to know how far it is competent for Questions such as this, which obviously refer to day-to-day administration and the use of land by the Commission, can be regarded as being in order when they affect fundamental decisions of development, whereas other hon. Members are denied the opportunity of tabling Questions, which they think are equally important, on the ground that they affect the day-to-day running of the railways.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member and other hon. Members who want to put down Questions will refer them to me if they encounter opposition at the Table. I do not want to give a general Ruling "off the cuff" in this case, but the hon. Member will remember that usually our difficulty is that somebody asks the Minister of Transport about a day-to-day management matter of the Commission. Question No. 26 is addressed to a different matter, and I should like to consider whether what the hon. Member has put to me has any relevance in this context. I would rather not do so now, unless the House wishes me to do so.
Mr. Price: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for those more or less spontaneous references to the matter before you give your Ruling. May I submit that you should consider my submission that this is obviously a palpable device to get round the rules of order? We might compliment the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) on his ingenuity, but I still think that it is a breach of the rules of order.
Mr. Speaker: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and make no observation about it if I am to consider the matter further.

SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)
Mr. Marquand(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government, as a result of the Resolution of the United Nations Trusteeship Committee of 13th March, calling on those members of the United Nations having close and continuous relations with the Government of South Africa, as a matter of urgency, to bring all their moral influence to bear on the Government of South Africa regarding the implementing of her mandate in South-West Africa.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): We are studying the Resolution, which the Fourth Committee of the Assembly decided yesterday to recommend for adoption by the General Assembly.
Mr. Marquand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Resolution was carried by no less than 68 nations in the Trusteeship Committee, and that there were three abstentions and no votes against? Is it not vital to draw the attention of the Prime Ministers' Conference, while it is studying the problem of South Africa, to this very important Resolution? Would not failure to do this be a flagrant breach of Her Majesty's Government's obligations to this House, in view of the Resolution passed by this House on 15th December last?
Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite correct in the figure he gave of the number of nations

1195
abstaining. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ghana abstained, along with the United Kingdom.
I should explain that the vote was taken at very short notice, and the United Kingdom delegation, together with other delegations—including those from the Commonwealth which I have mentioned—explained that they had had no time to obtain instructions and could, therefore, take no position on the merits of the draft. As I have said, Her Majesty's Government are studying that draft in London now.
Mr. Marquand: That does not answer my question. A further addition to the long and disastrous record of abstentions by Her Majesty's Government is no excuse whatever for taking no notice of a Resolution passed by the House on 15th December last, and accepted by Lord Alport, who was then Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations.
Mr. Braine: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says for one moment. The Trusteeship Committee's Resolution must, of course, go to plenary session. As for his reference to what Lord Alport said when speaking in the debate of 15th December, it is true that this House passed a Resolution, but the Trusteeship Committee's Resolution which is now before the United Nations is a much lengthier affair and requires careful study, not only by us but by all the Commonwealth nations who took the same view as we did.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not a fact that the Trusteeship Committee has passed, with nobody voting against, a Resolution which invites the members of the Commonwealth, perhaps Her Majesty's Government in particular, to use their influence with the Government of the Union of South Africa in this matter? Is it not also a fact that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference is now taking place? Will the hon. Gentleman convey urgently to his right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations the desire of the House of Commons that this matter should be considered at the Prime Ministers' Conference?
Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in the first part of his supplementary question, and I will
1196
undertake to convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the sense of what he says. No doubt the Commonwealth Prime Ministers gathered together now have been kept aware of the Trusteeship Committee's Resolution, and of the proceedings at the United Nations, by their own delegations.
Mr. Paget: Would we not be relieved of the continual embarrassment of abstentions, resulting from the indecent behaviour of the South African Government, if South Africa ceased to be a member of the Commonwealth?
Mr. Braine: That is quite another question.
Sir G. Nicholson: Is it not a thousand pities, and very dangerous, that, at this particular moment—one of the most critical days, if not one of the most critical hours, in the history of the Commonwealth—a matter like this should be brought up by a Private Notice Question and by irresponsible supplementary questions in a situation which is of profound complexity?
Mr. Braine: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct in describing this as a most difficult and delicate question. It would be best if the matter were left as I suggested—that is, that the full text of the Resolution should be studied carefully in London.
Mr. Wade: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that, whatever the precise wording of the Resolution, it deals with the subject of the mandate? Can we have an assurance that in any discussions which are taking place the Prime Minister will make it clear that this matter cannot be regarded as part of the internal affairs of the Union of South Africa?
Mr. Braine: Due note will be taken of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Marquand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the Resolution passed by a United Nations Trusteeship Committee, regarding this as a matter of urgency, I would have regarded it as a breach of duty on my part if I had not brought it to the attention of the House this afternoon?
Mr. Braine: I must make the position absolutely plain. We are not alone in this matter. There are other Commonwealth countries which have acted in

1197
exactly the same way. The text of the Resolution was placed before us at such short notice that it was not possible for our delegation and other Commonwealth delegations to obtain instructions in time, and they could not, therefore, take any position on the merits of the draft itself.

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

SIR ROGER CASEMENT
3.41 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave to be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the transfer to Ireland of the remains of Sir Roger Casement.
I am prompted to take this step, Sir, by the decision of the House on 14th February that leave be given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to bring in a Bill to transfer the remains of Timothy John Evans from the prison precincts in which the body now lies.
These are two distinct cases. Timothy John Evans was a very humble person, and a considerable section of public opinion in this country now believes that he was unjustly executed.
Mr. Speaker: There must be some limit to discussing the case of Evans while explaining the terms of the hon. Member's Bill.
Mr. Hughes: That was all I was going to say.
Sir Roger Casement was executed not for murder, but for high treason. He was a very distinguished person with a long record in the Consular Service, but in 1916 he took the side of the Irish in the Irish War of Liberation. He was captured in Ireland and on 3rd August, 1916, he was executed for the crime of high treason. The words "high treason" roused passion, but the passion which raged so long around the name of Sir Roger Casement has largely died away with the passing of history.
There are many distinguished personalities in the world who, at one time or another, have opposed British rule. In
1198
London, there are now Mr. Nehru, who was in British prisons for seven years, and Dr. Nkrumah, who was in British prisons for a considerable time. We have allowed those facts to be forgotten and in time history places the records of these men in proper perspective.
I do not wish to arouse any passions or old animosities, but many great people, the leaders of countries with whom we are now associated, have been guilty at one time or another of high treason. For example, George Washington, the founder of the United States of America, was not executed for high treason simply because the forces of King George could not capture him; and we are very glad of that nowadays.
There is also a precedent for the transfer of a body of a leader of another nation which has opposed Britain in time of war. For example, Napoleon died on St. Helena, and for nearly a quarter of a century his body remained in St. Helena and then, at the request of the people of France, was transferred to French soil.
This is a similar demand from Ireland, from people who believe that Casement was wrongly executed and that he was an Irish patriot, and this demand continues. For example, every year a procession goes to Pentonville Prison to lay wreaths upon the grave of Sir Roger Casement. I recently visited Pentonville Prison and was told by the Governor that every year a procession of devoted Irishmen goes to the prison, taking a wreath which is laid upon Casement's grave. There is a Casement Committee in Dublin which is presided over by Dr. Mackie, who was a well-known surgeon and physician in Dublin, and that committee is very active in persisting in this demand and in this agitation.
It may be asked why we should not allow this matter to rest. Ought we not to take a rational view about it and say that it does not matter in what part of the world dust lies? That is not the view of the Irish people. The Irish are pious, sentimental and religious and, in a way, romantic. If there is any body of opinion—and I believe that there is—which wants to take the remains of Sir Roger Casement to be buried in Ireland, where there is already a grave and tombstone, forty or fifty years after the event, we should agree to the request.

1199
I do not believe that the granting of this request would start old feuds all over again. It would be regarded as a gesture of reconciliation with Ireland. Let us not forget that there are Irishmen not only in Ireland, but in America, and that an Irishman is President of the United States of America. There are Irish people all over the world who regard Casement as a great patriot. I feel justified in asking that this step should be taken and that leave be given to bring in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Emrys Hughes, Mr. David Logan, Mr. William Reid, Mrs. Alice Cullen, Mr. Hugh Delargy, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. Manuel, Mr. James Dempsey, Mr. John Timmons, Mr. Henderson, and Mr. Sydney Silverman.

SIR ROGER CASEMENT
Bill to provide for the transfer to Ireland of the remains of Sir Roger Casement, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

STATUTORY ORDER No. 95A (STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c. (PROCEDURE))
3.47 p.m.
Mr. G. Brown: On a point of order. This may be the moment to raise a point of which you have had a little notice, Mr. Speaker.
We are now to proceed to read the Orders of the Day. The second Order appears in the names of some of my hon. Friends and is:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Pay-Bed Accommodation in Hospitals, etc.) Regulations, 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 184), dated 1st February, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be annulled.
There is also on the Order Paper Item No. 32, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, myself and an hon. Friend of mine, which asks
"That the Proceedings on the Motion to annul the National Health Service (Pay-Bed Accommodation in Hospitals, etc.) Regulations, 1961, be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 95A."
1200
The point of order that I want to raise is a little complicated, and perhaps I may explain it as briefly as I can so that you, Sir, and the House are aware of the point I am raising.
The position seems to be this. Item No. 2 is not Government business. It is a Prayer, to table which any hon. Member in the House has the right conferred upon him by the parent Statute under which the relevant Regulation is made. In 1957, Standing Order No. 95A was agreed to, with the result that debates on Prayers became limited to a fixed period at the end of business. Recently, that fixed period has tended to be eaten into and has become, particularly on the last occasion, of which you, Sir, will be aware, notably less. On that occasion, the Minister had no effective time to reply, and hon. Members connected with the Prayer thought that they had no effective time to develop their arguments, because of an intervention from the other side, about which I make no complaint.
Standing Order No. 95A opens by saying that
"Except in such cases as the House may otherwise order:—
(1) No proceedings on a motion … shall be entered upon…"
There the House clearly implied that the House may otherwise order that the proceedings on such a Prayer may continue. Item No. 32 on the Order Paper invites the House otherwise so to order in respect of the Motion which is down for tonight, and, in parenthesis, I should like to say that, effectively, tonight is the last night on which that Motion can, in fact, be taken.
I am putting this to you, Sir, as the protector of the rights of minorities, all minorities, whether the organised official Opposition or just a group or an individual Member. The Government have claimed the right to organise the order in which the business—the Orders of the Day—is stated such a way that the Motion which is to be taken tonight has become separated from the Motion inviting the House otherwise to order that it might be exempted from the Standing Order.
It appears that it is Standing Order No. 14 which confers—so they claim—this right upon the Government. As this

1201
is quite important, I draw your attention, Sir, to the terms of Standing Order No. 14, which says:
"The orders of the day shall be disposed of in the order in which they stand upon the paper;"
and, but for interference and reorganisation, the time Motion would have followed the other. It goes on:
"the right being reserved to Her Majesty's Ministers "—
and these, I think, are the important words—
"of arranging government business, whether orders of the day or notices of motions, in such order as they may think fit."
I am not disputing that Her Majesty's Ministers have the right clearly conferred upon them under that Order to arrange Government business. What has, in fact, happened here is that Her Majesty's Ministers have claimed the right to arrange the business of the House, to arrange the business of the Opposition, to arrange the business specifically conferred upon us by Standing Order No. 95A and by the parent Statute of these Regulations. They have claimed the right so to rearrange our business that they have, in effect, made a farce of the whole proceedings. There is clearly no point in moving a Motion asking that the proceedings on a Motion to be moved today shall be exempt if consideration of that Motion cannot take place until weeks or months in time after the event. It has to take place today. Neither item is Government business. The Prayer is not Government business, and the invitation to the House to reconsider the question of time is not Government business. Standing Order No. 14 clearly permits them only to arrange Government business, and yet, in fact, the business of the House, the business of this side of the House and the business of individual Members, has been interfered with by putting in between the two Motions Orders of the Day which, I submit, cannot be taken today.
This may be the first occasion on which this point has been raised. Nevertheless, with respect, Sir, we regard it as a very important issue, and I should be very glad if, without going further into it at this stage, although there may be further points to make, you would give your Ruling on the issue of the Government's intervention relating to
1202
Standing Order No. 14 in what clearly is not Government business.
Mr. Speaker: I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the lucidity with which he has put this matter, and for giving me some warning about it. I confess that I feel great difficulty in helping him regarding two matters as binding upon me and the House.
One is the Sessional Order whereby, subject to exceptions in favour of private Members' time, and so forth, the Government have, in effect, taken possession of the time of the House, to put it baldly like that.
With regard to Standing Order No. 14, which has just been cited to me, as a matter of strict rule, under our Standing Orders, the Government were not obliged to find time for either of what we would call Prayers—Item No. 2 on today's Order Paper or Item No. 32—and are under no obligation, so far as order is concerned—I do not talk about other considerations—to find time for either, but they have found, apparently, as Governments always do, time or space for providing time for the Prayer on a day when they have the disposition of ail the time; probably because it would be making a farce of a Prayer if they did not find the time for it within the provision of
praying time under the Statute.
I cannot find, within the rules of order, an equivalent obligation for them to find time for what is, although in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members, a Private Member's Motion, an ordinary Motion put forward by an individual Member, as opposed to Government business, on the Order Paper. That is why I do not think that I have any power to help the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, in which I find no procedural impropriety in what has happened.
Mr. G. Brown: May I pursue that with you, Mr. Speaker? If, in effect, that is so, is it not a fact that we should then really have no rights at all, although our Standing Orders, our procedure and the Statutes which we have passed purport to confer those rights upon us? There are two points, and there is also one to which I say, with great respect, you have not given an answer.

1203
On the question of the Government not being bound by the rules of order to find time for this or any other Motion, it would mean that the Government could, in that way, simply block all Prayers for all the 40 days during which the right to pray against them has been conferred upon us by various Acts of Parliament which we have passed. This would make an absolute nonsense of our machinery. It may be that this has grown up over the centuries as a convention rather than as a matter of Standing Orders, but we must now surely accept that it is built into our procedure that when hon. Members wish to pray the Government arrange that the Prayer is taken on a convenient day.
That brings me to the point with which, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you dealt, namely, the question of Standing Order No. 95A. That Standing Order clearly states that it is "the House" which may otherwise order in relation to a restriction of time. It does not put any limitation on the matter. It does not refer to any invitation on the part of the Government. How does the House otherwise order unless it is open to somebody to move that it should do so? After such a Motion the House is free not to so order; it is free to decide to negative the Motion. But somebody must be free to move that the House otherwise orders, and to make any sense of it somebody must be free to move it in time for it to have some relevance to the Motion to which one wishes to attach it; otherwise it, is a nonsense. It therefore seems that the two Motions must be taken together.
I respectfully ask you to give your Ruling on the way we could otherwise order if, in fact, by merely monkeying with the Order Paper the Government can so detach a Motion from another Motion to which it refers as to make it quite irrelevant and out of time, and, therefore, ridiculous.
My last point concerns Standing Order No. 14, which deals only with Government business. There must be a meaning to our phrases when we adopt them. The Standing Order does not reserve to Her Majesty's Ministers the right to arrange all the business on the Order Paper, whether Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion. If it had meant that it would surely have said so. It very strictly and
1204
definitely says that it reserves to Her Majesty's Ministers simply the business of arranging Government Orders of the Day and Government Notices of Motion —and ours do not fall into those categories.
As for the Sessional Order, I submit that that must fall to be considered against the other rights—and I gathered by the way you inclined your head, Mr. Speaker, that you saw the point when I argued it. If we have the right to pray we must have the time to pray. It would be ridiculous to say that we had the right without the time. Therefore, I do not think that the point about the Sessional Order puts me out, and with the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker—and this is not my field—I do not think from what I have heard so far that either Standing Order No. 14, restricted as it is to Government business, or Standing Order No. 95A, conferring on the House the right otherwise to order, was covered in your Ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I should be happy if I could hope to carry right hon. and hon. Members with me all the time. I have to do the best I can. I do not think that I enabled the right hon. Gentleman to understand my view about the meaning of Standing Order No. 14 in this context. I suppose that there would be no reason, other than what the right hon. Gentleman called the convention which has grown up, to put a Prayer on the Order Paper at all, when one is looking at the terms of Government obligations. They do it obviously because the right to pray should exist.
But it is not a question of arranging somebody else's business or something other than Government business; it is a question of putting into a day when the Government have the right to allocate all the business something which is not Government business, namely, a Prayer. That is how it strikes me, and that is the answer that I was seeking to make to the right hon. Gentleman on that part of his submission.
As to the rest of his argument, it may be that under our Standing Orders there are things which can be done only by, or with the consent of, the Government of the day. It may be a misfortune that that should be so, but I would not feel justified in deducing, as a matter of construction from the fact that the opening words of Standing Order 95A refer

1205
to an opportunity for the House otherwise to order, any conferring of a power upon anyone other than the majority of the House otherwise to order. I would not think that that followed from the terms of our procedure.
If we had wished to have that altered in some way to make a different situation plain we should have worded the Standing Order in some other manner, because we pass on from that to the Sessional Order, dealing with the business of the House, which begins:
"save as provided in…this Order, Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting for the remainder of the Session."
The result of that is that the Government put in their business today, and the Prayer, which is not their business, and they do not include anything else. They do not include—and in my belief, as a matter of procedure, they do not have to include—the Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition seeking leave to remove the Prayer from the provisions of Standing Order No. 95A.
Mr. Mitchison: It would, therefore, follow that the Government were entitled to treat the Prayer itself in the same way and to put before it the 20 or 30 Measures which now appear on the Order Paper. If that is the position, the only thing that prevents them from so doing is the convention that Prayers should receive a hearing. If there is such a convention about Prayers I suggest that it has at any rate some bearing on the question of the time for Prayers. If we consider what was originally a Sessional Order and is now Standing Order No. 95A we have to bear in mind that the Standing Orders do not cover everything in the procedure of the House and that, in particular, practice has always allowed Prayers to be heard.
Therefore, when we consider what the phrase "except as otherwise ordered" means, we tend to reject what would be the practice on your Ruling, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, namely, that only a member of the Government can effectively obtain the extension of time, since if the Government are right in doing what they have sought to do in this case it will prevent anyone but a member of the Government—unless the Government so wish—from obtaining an
1206
extension. I suggest that when Standing Orders intend to give that result they say so. The commonest instance occurs in relation to Standing Order No. 1, where an extension of time has to be moved by a member of the Government. The reference is on page 4 of the printed Standing Orders, Standing Order No. In (2). It would have been quite easy to say so if that had been the intention.
The Government are relying on their powers under Standing Order No. 14. I respectfully submit that my right hon. Friend is right in saying that that doubtless gives them the power to put Government business where they choose, but it does not give them the power—unless it must be so implied, and I suggest that it need not be—to interfere with other public business. This is not private Members' business; this is public business, taken on a public day. If the annulment of Ministerial Orders is not public business, I do not know what is. In the nature of the case it usually comes from someone other than a member of the Government, but it is still public business.
What they have done in this case is to take two matters which were put on the Order Paper together and introduce a Government sandwich of about 20 or 30 pieces of legislation which they do not hope or intend to reach during the day. I suggest that that is a misuse of the rules of the House, even if I am wrong on the strict construction, and will have the effect of depriving the Opposition, or other private Members who wish to raise these matters, of the opportunity of extending the time which Standing Order 95A clearly contemplated. As regards the burden being on us to show that we are not covered by the provisions, it is really, on the sense of the matter and by comparison with other Orders and procedure in other matters, for whoever seeks to use Standing Order No. 14 in that way to show that he can do it. I suggest that the Government ought not to be allowed to do it.
Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the force of what the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying. I feel great difficulty about this. It may be that we shall have to consider whether we want to alter the terms of Standing Order 95A to show that it means something else, but I have to try to work it as it is.

1207
I think that it is quite clear that the Government of the day are entitled, on a day when they have control of time, to put down what they are prepared to have taken and to put it down, unfortunately, in any order they like. With respect, as a point of order I do not feel that I can assist the hon. and learned Gentleman about this.
The sanction for conduct of this kind, as it would be for failing to put in a Prayer during prayable time, is political and not a matter of order. That is what I feel about it. That is why I feel that I cannot assist.
Mr. Mitchison: If it is a question of how to do it, surely the right way to do it is at the time, before or after the Prayer is taken, and then to allow a vote on what is really a Motion entirely ancillary to the Prayer, that is to say, the Motion about the extension of time.
Mr. Speaker: That is most attractive, but Standing Order 95A does not indicate any such procedure or opportunity for such procedure. It may be that we shall have to amend it to get that right.
Mr. S. Silverman: This is obviously a very difficult point on the interpretation of the Standing Order. I submit, with respect, that if a Standing Order, or more than one, is capable reasonably of more than one interpretation, then that interpretation will be preferred which is consistent with the Statute rather than an interpretation which would defeat the Statute.
The right to pray against a Regulation made under a Statute is itself part of that Statute, and to put my right hon. Friend's point in its simplest form perhaps one could put it in its most extreme form. I am not saying that it is this case, but a Government who were sufficiently ill-willed or malicious could, on this interpretation of the Standing Order, defeat that part of the Statute which allows Prayers against Regulations by adopting this kind of procedure on every occasion. Therefore, it would amount to a possibility, by administrative action of that kind, of repealing a part of a Statute without legislation to repeal it. That would be the effect if this were the only possible interpretation of the Standing Orders and functions to which my right hon. Friend referred.
I agree entirely that if that is the only interpretation we must make the best of
1208
it and try to cure it in some other way, but I think what my right hon. Friend was submitting was that it was equally reasonable, or, at any rate, reasonable, to interpret it in the other way so as to be consistent with the Statute rather than hostile to it. If that were so, would it not be right to interpret the Standing Order in the way in which my right hon. Friend desired it to be interpreted?
Mr. Speaker: I can only say that one ought to bear in mind that the position about Prayers and praying is not altered by the introduction of Standing Order 95A. It has always been like that and always, in my belief, was dependent on what I say is virtually a convention that the Government of the day must allow opportunity for the Prayer.
Mr. Paget: The only point which I wanted to question was whether it was allowed only by convention. Surely the Government and the House, and, indeed, everybody within this realm other than the Sovereign herself, is subject to the law. The law in this case provides that an Order made under the Statute may be prayed against within 40 days. If that be frustrated, it is the law which is frustrated and in my submission, therefore, this is not granted by the Government as a matter of convention but because the law so requires.
If the position be that the law requires it, then one has to look at Standing Order 95A in a different light because that becomes the procedure for what the law requires. Therefore, since time is limited only if the House does not otherwise provide, by implication—and I say "implication"—the opportunity to consider whether it shall otherwise provide is a part of the procedure for what is not granted by the Government as a favour, but because the law requires it. That is my first point.
My second point is with regard to the words of Standing Order No. 14, because that Standing Order says that this is Government time. In my submission, that is a loose expression. It is time during which the Government have the right to claim priority for their business That is all that Government time means.
There are two kinds of business. There is ordinary business, and there is exempted business. The Government

1209
have claimed the time for ordinary business, arid when ordinary business is concluded then, in my submission, exempted business comes on. They have the power to arrange—this is the second power; the right being reserved to Her Majesty's Government—Government business, but the preceding words are:
"The Orders of the Day shall be disposed of in the order in which they stand…"
The order in which they stand is the order in which they were put down. The order in which they were put down was that the Motion for the suspension preceded the Prayer. In my submission, they come down in that order.
When one comes into the exempted category that is Government business for which they claim priority, they have no right to change the order of the exempted business if that happens not to be Government business. They have not claimed priority for any Government business which is exempted, and so the non-Government business, that is, the private Members' business, remains in that order and the first words of Standing Order No. 14 apply when one gets to the exempted part of the business.
Mr. Speaker: It is difficult in the working. The distinction between exempted and not exempted business may be misleading. Listening to the hon. and learned Member, I could not help remembering that the Government can render business which would not otherwise be exempted into exempted business if they chose, whether it be Government or other business, at any time.
Mr. Paget: Only by vote of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The difficulty here is that the Motion in the name of the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition, Item No. 32, the Business of the House Motion, is not exempted business. So, supposing these matters ought to arise after ten o'clock, as, in practice, they would, it would only be the Prayer which I can conceive could be taken then because the right hon. Gentleman's Motion could not be taken then, not being exempted business if opposed. It seems to get into great difficulty in that situation.
I hope that I am right about this. I do not think that the Government have
1210
been rearranging other people's business. I think that they have arranged their own business and included in a day in which they could dispose of all the time the Prayer which is exempted business. I am sorry that I have this difficulty. I wish that it were possible in some sensible way to get time to consider this matter, but I cannot because this is the last praying day for this Prayer.
Mr. Gaitskell: What you have just said seems, with respect, Sir, to make awful nonsense of parts of Standing Order No. 95A, because it seems that since a Motion which it is agreed by all that the Opposition are entitled to put down to suspend the rule under 95A is in order, nevertheless, it cannot be taken after ten o'clock. It could, therefore, only be taken before ten o'clock and exactly when it could come I do not know. That is the first point I put. Suppose that were so and all other difficulties were removed, what is the position?
The second point I should like to make is this. I think that the burden of your Ruling as I understand it is this. You concede our right to put down this Motion under No. 95A and you admit, I think, that so far as Standing Order No. 14 is concerned it relates to Government business only, but you say that under the Sessional Order the Government, in effect, have the right to detach the Motion we have put down which, of course, is related to the Prayer, and to sandwich between it and the Prayer a lot of other Government business which they have no intention of taking today, but which has been put down to prevent our Motion being considered.
The point I want to put to you is this, Mr. Speaker. You go on to say that so far as the rules of order are concerned you do not think that you can help us, but I think that you appreciate the difficulty in which we find ourselves. I suggest that there have been occasions in the past when Mr. Speaker has indicated to the Government what his views are on the appropriateness or otherwise of their action in connection with matters of this kind. When Mr. Speaker has indicated his views the Government have taken notice of them.
If I may refer to page 393 of Erskine May, there is an interesting paragraph

1211
there which I should like to read to you, because it gives a very good illustration of this particular point. It says:
"On 25 November 1952 the House was unexpectedly counted out towards the end of the first two days debate on the second reading of the Iron and Steel bill, a major government measure, which thus became a dropped order. After the rising of the House, notice of motion in the name of the leader of the House to revive the order for second reading was permitted be placed on the notice paper for the next sitting, while the dropped order was printed in italics as first order of the day. Next day, in reply to the leader of the Opposition, the Speaker said that this practice was not without precedent after an unexpected interruption of business, by a count or by adjournment for grave disorder or some other cause."
This is the special sentence to which I wish to refer.
"Mr. Speaker went on to indicate, however, that it might be thought inappropriate, in the case of contentious business, to proceed with such a motion. In view of the Speaker's guidance the Government did not move the motion and the House continued with other business on the order paper."
I submit that when the Opposition have officially put down a Motion—I believe that this is the first occasion when this has been done—effectively to suspend Standing Order No. 95A it is wrong for the Government to prevent the House from considering such a Motion and that they are misusing the Sessional Order when they deliberately separate a Motion of the kind I have mentioned from a Prayer.
I ask you whether you would not feel that in those circumstances, since this raises a very important matter of the rights of the Opposition and the minority in this House, you should indicate to the Government your view that it is not in accordance with the spirit of the House that there should be this business separating the Prayer from the suspension Motion which obviously goes with it. Of course, if the Government were prepared themselves to change the order of business no doubt that would be equally effective, but if you could reply to that we would all be very grateful.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I should have liked this to have arisen on an occasion when we could mutually contrive some more time for considering it, but I do not know now any way in which the Government could change the order of today's business so as to attain the result for which
1212
the Leader of the Opposition is at this moment asking. I have not got that in mind. I should hope that long before this point arises again we shall all have had an opportunity of considering it further, as I myself would wish to do, but, in view of the fact that this is the last praying day in respect of this Prayer, I think that a pronouncement from me before further consideration condemning or applauding anyone would be quite inappropriate, because I do not think that it would contain any practical result for the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I should like to endorse your Rulings, the correctness of which I think there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker. In so far as you have said that you would have preferred more time to consider this matter, I think we all agree, although I believe that you have been given notice of it.
Two considerations arise which are of great interest. One is the time for Prayers and the second the sundering or separation of the Opposition Motion from Item No. 2 of the Orders of the Day, which relates to the Prayer. On the first point, I think that I can give a categorical assurance that so little is it the desire of the Government to check the time for Prayers that we gave half a day on 13th February when these Prayers could have been taken much earlier. There might not have been time for all the Prayers on that occasion, but so keen are we to preserve the ordinary constitutional rights that we made that exceptional decision. This Prayer was accepted and taken later and now we have reached the last day. So obviously constitutional do we wish to be that we have put the item down so that it can be taken as a Prayer and governed by Standing Order No. 95A.
There is no intention or desire on the part of the Government to prevent the Opposition moving Prayers. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), constitutionally it would not be proper to do so. I think that that answers his point and the doubts which have been raised. If any doubts were raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) as to the Government's desire

1213
to hear Prayers moved they are absolutely removed.
We now come to the original suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition and Item No. 32, that Standing Order No. 95A should be suspended and that we should have extra time for this Prayer. I give a perfectly honest answer to this. The Government considered this and decided that Standing Order No. 95A was come to as an agreement after the Select Committee of 1954, some years ago, and by agreement between the two sides of the House. That is the way in which our Standing Orders are made. We say frankly that the unilateral attempt—if I may use such a controversial phrase—to alter the Standing Order by the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, it alters the whole sense of the Standing Order by suspending the time, and the whole object of the Order was to give limited time for consideration of Prayers.
We do not think that is a suitable way of doing it. If the Opposition wish to discuss these matters with us the whole question arises, which you have put from the Chair, Sir, whether the purport of Standing Order No. 95A has to be amended or not.
I claim that it should not be altered —and this is the considered view of the Government—by a Motion put on the Order Paper which seeks to extend the time for it, thereby removing the purpose of Standing Order No. 95A. We are not only governed by Standing Order No. 14, but I claim that we are also governed by Standing Order No. 4 on Government business.
I claim that we are observing the ordinary rules of the House by trying to preserve constitutional methods. If hon. Members want the Standing Orders to be altered, this is the ventilation of an argument which will give us an opportunity of considering this point, and if the Opposition want to pursue it further they may approach us and ask for further discussion.
Mr. G. Brown: This is a most remarkable argument to advance. The argument is now from the Government side and not the one that you, Mr. Speaker, raised or anticipated when answering our earlier points from this side of the House. The Government are
1214
now saying that they had sundered the two Motions. They had in fact deliberately rearranged the business of the House, not the business of the Government, and they did it because, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman, in their considered judgment they took a deliberate decision to show the Opposition that the Opposition could not do something they wanted to do.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, this is the whole origin of our point of order to you. We submit that it is not for the Government, under Standing Order No. 14, to take a considered deliberate decision to so rearrange the business that we are entitled to put down that we cannot achieve what the Standing Order clearly empowers us to achieve.
It is not, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, in accord with the Standing Order for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this side of the House is unilaterally seeking to alter the Order. What are we asking to be allowed to do? We are pleading with you, Sir, as the protector of our rights, to enable us to operate an order. The agreed Order clearly starts:
"Except in such cases as the House may otherwise order."
You, Sir, used an interesting phrase earlier in this discussion. You said that you must take that to mean, "unless otherwise stated", as the majority may order. How can we test what is the majority when we cannot put the Motion?
It does not follow that on every issue affecting the rights of the House and of hon. Members that the Home Secretary can simply announce a decision of the Government and be sure of carrying a majority with him. Of course, we take your point, Sir, that "as the House may otherwise order" clearly means as the House, by a majority, may otherwise order. If the House, by majority, may otherwise order the House must have the right to try for a majority.
The Home Secretary seems to be losing patience with us, but with great respect, Mr. Speaker, it is he who is trying the patience of this side of the House very far. We agreed between the two sides of the House in 1957 on this Standing Order. If we had meant to agree, and if the Government had meant to ask us to agree, that only the Government could invite

1215
the House to otherwise order, those are the words that would have appeared in that Motion, or—and the right hon. Gentleman has more knowledge of this than I have—maybe those words were suggested but not accepted and maybe that is why the Order appears in the form in which it does. Therefore, far from our unilaterally seeking to alter the Order, the Government are unilaterally preventing the Order in the form in which they agreed it with us.
I submit that the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman is quite impermissible. It really reinforces all that we said to you, Mr. Speaker—and I have to put it back in your lap, as you are our protector here—that what the right hon. Gentleman has contrived to do, not by accident, not by misunderstanding but, as he was bold enough to tell us, by deliberate, considered action is to take our rights away from us. The proceedings of the House as provided for in the Orders have been made nonsense.
Mr. R. A. Butler Mr. R. A. Butler indicated dissent.
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman indicates that that is not so. It is nonsense, because we cannot do what the House intended us to be able to do, that is, to take a Prayer when we wished to pray and to invite the House to exempt that Prayer from the limitations of time. The Government have deliberately abrogated our rights and we have to ask you, Sir, how we are to obtain those rights.
The difficulty is that this Prayer cannot be postponed until tomorrow or the day after, but the Government have put us in the jam. They have again shown that contempt for Parliament which they have been showing so very often.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker—and when you say that you would like to have had time to consider this, which is what one would expect—to consider deeply how we are to get back our rights if the Government, for some reason of their own, are unwilling to allow us, or enable us, or permit us to move Item No. 32 standing on the Order Paper. It seems to me, Sir, to be too important a situation to be left where it is and we ask for your help in this matter, particularly having regard to your own phrase that Standing Order No. 95A means unless the House, by majority, otherwise order
1216
it. All that we are seeking to do is to test the majority on this matter.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I try to tidy up the matter, because we must not waste too much time about this, although its importance is great. [HON. MEMBERS: "Waste time?"] I am sorry, I did not mean "waste"; I meant spend time. I do not wish to get involved in observations addressed from one side of the House to the other on this matter.
I hope that I have already made it plain that I should myself welcome time, if it were available, to consider this point further, but it is not in relation to this Prayer. I hope that we can take it before this point arises again. I do not know of any means within my power in the Chair by which I can help the right hon. Gentleman to obtain this day the decision of the House as to whether or not it wishes to exempt the Prayer from Standing Order No. 95A. I do not know of any means by which I can do it.
If the House will consider the position with me for a moment, it will see that I cannot exempt the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. I have no power to do it. All the time is already occupied, by Order indeed, up to the end of the time for opposed business. Even if I had some means whereby to alter the position of the Motion on the Order Paper, to interpose it at some other point, I could not then exempt it.
I do not see by what means in my power I can meet the request of the right hon. Gentleman. That is really why I have great difficulty in knowing what I can do to help at this stage. I have indicated that I should welcome an opportunity to consider what, if anything, should be done in relation to Standing Order No. 95A and providing machinery for it to be put into effect in circumstances like this.
Mr. Ede: I respect what you have just said to us, Mr. Speaker. Out of experience which I had in dealing with Prayers ten years ago, when the Opposition of those days were moved to an excess of piety which was embarrassing to everyone in the House, I wish to make a suggestion which would require the cooperation of the Leader of the House,

1217
on the assumption that he would like the Prayer to be taken.
We have already decided that business other than Business of Supply may be taken before ten o'clock. Therefore —this will involve some sacrifice on this side of the House, for a start—I suggest that there should be agreement that we end business of Supply some minutes at least before ten o'clock. Then, presumably, Item No. 2, the Prayer, will be called. It could then be moved that Iten No. 2, the Prayer, be taken after Item No. 32, the Motion to suspend Standing Order No. 95A. This sort of thing has been done.
Of course, in the ordinary way, when we reach the line which is ruled across the Order Paper at the end of what we expect to be the day's business, a junior Whip rises to his feet and makes his customary oration of the day to move, "That this House do now adjourn". He is not compelled to do it. Item No. 3, Ways and Means, Committee, would be called. The junior Whip concerned would say, "Tomorrow". So we could go through all the Orders of the Day, ultimately arriving at Item No. 32, the Motion that the Standing Order be suspended. This was well thought out by the Conservative Party when I was leading the House ten years ago.
Item No. 32 would be called. Assuming that the Leader of the House meant what he said when he spoke just now, he, having shown his power and proved what a giant's power it is, would then be able to show that he knew how to use it wisely. Item No. 32 could be moved formally by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition or whomsoever he cared to delegate for that high responsibility, and it could be put and disposed of before 10 o'clock. Then, in accordance with what had been said when Item No. 2, the Prayer, was called, we could go back to Item No. 2. Both sides of the House having learned their lesson, we might then have the conversations between the two sides of the House which have been suggested. We should have our Prayer discussed. The Government would have proved that we do it by their grace and favour—and for once we might even be grateful to them—and we could, I hope, have a proper discussion of the matter between the two sides of the House.
1218
In all the difficulties of 1951, there was never a Prayer missed which the Opposition wished to move. Even on the night when, with assistance previously given to me by the then Clerk of the House, I found a way of disposing of the Prayers put down for that occasion, I gave a pledge that they would all be discussed before the 40 days expired.
On the assumption that the Leader of the House does not wish to prevent the moving of the Prayer and that he does desire that it should be discussed adequately when we have the chance, I make that suggestion. There is no copyright in it but, on the assumption that the right hon. Gentleman does desire that the Prayer shall be discussed, although he has proved to us that he can prevent us from discussing a Prayer if he wishes to, I hope that he will agree that the two sides of the House can accept that this procedure may be adopted.
Mr. Blackburn: I do not follow entirely the idea advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I am more inclined to agree with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that today, at any rate, nothing can be done about this, although I think that it is such an important matter for the House that the discussion has been very valuable.
In my view, the Leader of the House has put forward an entirely new doctrine this afternoon in suggesting that a Standing Order cannot be suspended. We do it every week. Obviously, Standing Order No. 95A can, in certain circumstances, be suspended.
It is important not only that these Prayers should be discussed, but that there should be adequate time for discussing them. In view of what happened the other night, when we had only 55 minutes to discuss a very important Prayer, I looked up the Report of the Select Committee which recommended the alteration. The Select Committee advanced the idea that, while, in the main, for many Prayers one and a half hours would probably be long enough, Mr. Speaker could refuse to put the Question and even refuse on a second occasion. It was in the mind of the Select Committee that there could be not one and a half hours for discussing an important Prayer but, possibly, four and

1219
a half hours. On this occasion, this being the last day, that suggestion cannot operate.
I think that the Government have made a great mistake. Far less time would have been wasted—if it has been wasted—if they had allowed Item No. 32, the Motion for suspension, to go on the Order Paper in the right place so that it could have been taken. I hope that something positive can be done, because, in my view, Standing Orders should make it possible for the rights of the minority to be preserved. Of course, the Government would have been worried if the Motion had been put and they did not want the Prayer to be discussed for more than one and a half hours, but the rights of the minority in the House must be protected, and you Mr. Speaker, have to think about protecting the rights of the minority.
I hope that you yourself, Sir, quite apart from any discussions which may take place through the usual channel—they are not always very successful—will consider the matter further. My interpretation of Standing Order No. 95A is not that discussion of a Prayer must every time be limited to one and a half hours. There is discretion in Mr. Speaker. I disagree entirely with the Leader of the House when he suggests that it is not possible to suspend the Standing Order.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I agree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), whose knowledge of procedure is very well known, that it is, of course, possible to suspend the Standing Order. Equally, I think that I was perfectly right in saying that this Standing Order was reached after the Select Committee had reported and after there had been agreement as to its constitution. The novelty of this discussion is that the Opposition interpret the opening words
"Except in such cases as the House may otherwise order"
as a justification for the Motion which they have put down. This is something which, I think, needs further investigation and study. We have not read that as being entirely justified, at first reading.
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman then explain how he understands those words?
Mr. Butler: I understand that by putting this Motion on the Order Paper the Opposition apply the interpretation that it is a legitimate and regular reading of the Standing Order that a Motion of this sort may be put down and that they may expect, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14, that time should be given for it at an early stage of our deliberations. That was not the Government's reading of the Standing Order. As that is the position, the suggestion that I made earlier that we could discuss what is the reading of the Standing Order——
Mr. G. Brown: What my right hon. Friend put to the Leader of the House was the question, to which he did not get an answer, how does the right hon. Gentleman read the words which say:
"Except in such cases as the House may otherwise order."
The right hon. Gentleman says he does not read them to mean that Motion may be put down. How does he read them?
Mr. Butler: In the words of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, there is the opportunity to suspend or alter the Standing Order by the agreement of the House and by Motion. That, I think, is preserved by the opening words, and that is how I read them. I do not read them as a specific opportunity for the Government to give time to the Opposition on this occasion to move a Motion to suspend the whole purpose of Standing Order No. 95A and to give more time to the Prayer tonight. That is how I read them.
Mr. Brown: There may be a possible difference of opinion about the words:
"Except in such cases as the House may otherwise order no proceedings on a Motion to which this order applies shall be entered upon at or after half-past eleven o'clock. If such a Motion is under consideration at half-past eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question thereupon to the House…".
The right hon. Gentleman says that his reading of those words was that they were a general reservation that at sometime we could change the Standing Order. Is that a possible reading if we take the first word with the numbers (1) and (2) that follow? Is it not obviously clear that what the Order is saying is that what is set out in numbers (1), (2) and (3) shall apply except in such cases and being on such individual occasions as the House by a Motion and a majority

1221
shall otherwise order? I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to muddy the waters. Is that not the only possible reading to be put on those words?
Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear with the aid of the legal help of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in quoting the words "in such cases". It is so possible to read the Standing Order, but that is not the reading of it by the Government. Therefore, there has been a difference of opinion in the matter of the Motion on the Order Paper under Standing Order No. 14 as we have arranged it.
In the circumstances, as you have found difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and as we cannot pursue the matter today, I would answer the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) by saying there is no question of a desire on our part to limit the discussion on the Prayer. We have gone so far as to move on the Motion by the Prime Minister that this business could come on before ten o'clock if the business of Supply finished. That is a further indication that we do not wish to limit the discussion of the Prayer. The Prayer will be discussed for the normal time under Standing Order No. 95A and the provisions of that Standing Order will operate including the whole discretion of the Speaker in regard to the time.
In the circumstances, I do not think that we can alter the situation today. The matter has been aired in a perfectly good spirit. I have given the reason for the Government's decision, in an equally good spirit I hope, and I think that we can only now consider the Standing Order as a whole. If hon. Members opposite wish to discuss it, will they come and see us?
The suggestion made by the right hon. Member for South Shields is a very ingenious one, but that on this occasion we could not adopt it. We are perfectly ready to pay attention to the arguments raised in relation to the Standing Order as a whole, but should not be able to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in spite of all his experience. We consider that the time tonight should be taken up in getting the business of Supply which is of the first importance, and which we are entitled to put first under Standing Order No. 14 and Stand-
1222
ing Order No. 4. We consider that then the time should be devoted to discussion of the Prayer and then that the discussion and operations of Standing Order No. 95A should operate as laid down in the Standing Order.
Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the full consequences of what he has said? He invites the House to curtail its discussion on the Estimates involving the expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds.
Mr. Butler: I have not asked the House to do that. I said that we had moved this Motion in case the business of Supply came to an end, thereby giving more time for the Prayer. I think that the best way to encourage the business of Supply to be discussed would be to proceed to it now.
Mr. Wigg: Because I have a nice mind I will not dissent from what the right hon. Gentleman says, but the effect, of course, is the same. He has told the House that if it wishes it can discuss the Prayer standing in the name of my hon. Friends on the one condition that it curtails discussion on the matter of the spending of hundreds of millions of pounds. With respect——
Mr. Speaker: I must consider my duty in general. It is quite clear that we cannot have a general discussion on business about this.
Mr. Wigg: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I should have put my remarks in the form of a question to you.
May I put it to you, Sir, that the Government by their action, which has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Standing Orders at all, have by a political decision imposed a sanction on the Opposition and have thus taken a most serious step? They have abrogated the rights of even the humblest Member of the House to redress a grievance on Supply.
Therefore, I invite the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider, even though I have every sympathy for him in his point of view, that in doing what he has done today he has struck a blow at the rights of private Members who are seeking, in Committee of Supply, to exercise their age-old right, and he has not solved the problem. Indeed, he has

1223
created a much bigger problem by trying to settle his differences with the Opposition Front Bench in the way he has done.
Mr. Speaker: I should be glad to hear other hon. Members if they wish to make representations to me on this point, namely, on the view I formed that I am powerless to help the Opposition today in these circumstances. Otherwise, I think that the House might think it wise to get on with other business.
Mr. S. Silverman: If I did not think that there was a possible way in which the House could be assisted in dealing with the matter today I would not persist with the point, Sir. But I understood the Leader of the House to say that my right hon. Friend's suggestion, complicated though it seemed to me when I heard it explained, was not impracticable. The right hon. Gentleman said that it could be done, but that he did not wish to do it. If it is practical, then I suggest with great respect that the case which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted has been made out beyond further controversy by the Leader of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has said two things that bring his position well within the four corners of the instance cited by my right hon. Friend. First, he said, "I know that the Standing Order does enable an exception to be made by Order of the House except in such cases where the House otherwise orders. I therefore rearranged the whole business on the Order Paper, whether it is Government business or the business of the House, in such a way as to prevent the majority opinion of the House of Commons from being ascertained at all." That, he said quite deliberately, was his reason for doing it.
If the Standing Order means that the House can otherwise order in a particular case and if that must mean, as it must, by a majority, then when the right hon. Gentleman said, "I saw to it that that decision would never be taken" he was deliberately doing something which, I submit with great respect to everybody, was wholly inappropriate.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said one other thing which was not, perhaps, quite consistent with what he said before. He said, "We interpret the Standing Order differently from the way in which
1224
the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends have interpreted it. We have therefore done this in order to give effect to our interpretation of the Order as against the other interpretation of the Order." That is not the business of the Leader of the House. If the disputed Order requires to be interpreted, then, surely, Mr. Speaker, it ought to be interpreted by you.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. Friend puts to you the true interpretation of the Standing Order, namely, that the House could on any occasion when it saw fit to do so exempt a particular question from the general operation of the Standing Order. The Standing Order can mean only that. I ask you to rule whether that interpretation is the right one or whether the interpretation given by the Leader of the House is correct. If you, Mr. Speaker, were to interpret the Standing Order as is contended for on this side and if the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is practicable, as the Leader of the House admitted that it is, it would be perfectly possible for you to say that you think that that would be an appropriate thing to do in the unusual circumstances as they have been developed in the course of this discussion.
Mr. Speaker: We are in a difficulty. I have already explained to the House why I think I cannot, in the existing state of our rules and orders, help the Opposition to get this decision to exempt from Standing Order No. 95A now. Nothing that I have heard since—I have listened with great care—has caused me to change my mind.
I do not propose to say anything about the interpretation of Standing Order No. 95A now, for this reason. It is clearly desirable that we should all think about this in one form or another when there is more time. If no practicable answer can be found in that consideration now unless the Government are willing to adopt some suggestion on the pattern suggested by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—and they have said that they are not prepared to do that —I am still left in the position when I cannot from the Chair help about this matter further today.
Mr. G. Brown: Before we pass from this subject, Mr. Speaker, may I put this

1225
to you, so that we may pass from it in an orderly way, because we began it in an orderly way and have gone through it in the same spirit? We are most disappointed that you, Mr. Speaker, were unable to follow up the suggestion my right hon. Friend made when reading the passage from page 393 of Erskine May. He suggested to the Government that they should help us out of the situation. You were unable to follow up the suggestion, although some of the words you have just used went a little way in that direction.
We feel that the Government's behaviour in this respect is quite deplorable. We are left in a situation which is bad from the point of view of the House and every hon. Member of it. It has been brought about only because of the desire of the Government to try somehow to put sanctions on us for other things they do not like.
I am bound to say this to you, Mr. Speaker. You have said several times that we need to be able to consider this with more time. We always have the very greatest sympathy with that point of view. Is it your intention, Sir, to think about this and make a statement to the House of your views about Standing Order No. 95A? Further, if you come to the conclusion, as my right hon. Friend invited you to, that our reading of the Standing Order is the only possible one, is it your intention to put before the House your views as to the way in which the House can do what it wants to do? If you are able to say that you will make a further statement to us on that subject, it will go some way at any rate to ease our alarms. If, on the
1226
other hand, Mr. Speaker, you feel that there is nothing further you can do, will you consider advising us what we can do? Must we proceed by way of a Motion to deal with the Standing Order, which we are quite willing to do if it is the only way to do it?
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider these matters and come back to us with a considered view on them and help the House in that way. I am sorry to land it on your lap, Mr. Speaker; but, in the situation in which the Government think that the right way to conduct public business is to act in the smart way that they thought they were acting today, I have no alternative but to present it to you.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I accept all these burdens. I did so on the day when the House did me the honour of putting me here. I should be assisted on what we are to do about Standing Order No. 95A if conversations were to take place between the two sides of the House. I should then have the advantage of getting skilled draftsmanship on both sides to express what they wanted. If I am not to receive that help, I will undertake to tell the House what conclusions I have reached about it all and invite further help.
The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. In the Orders of the Day——
Mr. Speaker: I cannot take that point of order now, because under the Standing Order I have to leave the Chair.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1961–62; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1961-62, AND ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61; AIR ESTIMATES, 1961–62, AND AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61; ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1961–62; WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1961–62

NAVY ESTIMATES

  Vote 1. Pay etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £67,872,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: On a point of order. It would be for the convenience of hon. Members, Sir Gordon, if you would be good enough to indicate how much time is to be allotted to each of the Estimates which we are asked to consider. In due course, between now and ten o'clock, the Committee is expected to deal with five Estimates. That means an average of one hour for each Estimate, involving many hundreds of millions of pounds.
  The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I cannot regulate the time.
  Mr. Lipton: Sir Gordon, what right is left to hon. Members to discuss these Estimates? It is true that, through no fault of yours, the time available for the discussion of the Navy Estimates and succeeding ones will be truncated and the debate will have to finish within about five hours. If the Committee discusses the Navy Estimates for the next five hours, no time will be left for the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates, the Royal
  1228
  Ordnance Factories Estimate and the War Office Purchasing (Repayment) Services Estimate.
  I am asking you, Sir Gordon, to indicate whether the time available to us for the discussion of these Estimates is to be allocated, or is it to be left entirely to chance as to how much time, if any, will be allowed for the Estimates following the Navy Estimates?
  The Chairman: That is a matter for the Committee and not for myself.
  Brigadier Terence Clarke: Further to that point of order. The other night I wanted to speak on the Navy Estimates. Twelve o'clock came before I could. In the old days we used to be able to sit up all night.
  The Chairman: Order. This does not seem to be a point of order.
  Brigadier Clarke: I am sorry if I have not made it clear. My point of order is this. We cannot now speak on Vote 8. The only occasion when we could have done so was in the debate on the Navy Estimates the other day. That debate was curtailed, as it never used to be in the past, and we cannot even talk about that subject during the Committee stage. That applies to many other Votes. Twenty-five thousand of my constituents expect me to raise various grievances they may have under Vote 8. I can do nothing about it. I should like your guidance, Sir Gordon, as to how I can do it.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member can speak only on the Votes before the Committee.
  5.9 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Before we leave Vote 1, I should like to raise a fairly short point.
  The Chairman: Is this a point of order.
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: It is not a point of order. My point concerns the career structure for officers. The number of officers has decreased a little this year, as was to be expected. Consequently, the Vote has diminished by £176,000. We were all very sorry to hear that Admiral Lamb had unfortunately died. He did splendid work. About four years ago when he was Second Sea Lord

  1229
  he improved the career prospects and structure for naval officers. How has that been affected by the changes there have been since 1957?
  One notes in paragraph 48 of the Statement on the Army Estimates that the Army has a very late retiring age for different types of officers, and has what I would call a very satisfactory career structure. I wonder whether it has been possible for the Navy to do much the same thing? I know that the difficulties of providing a late retiring age are much greater in the Royal Navy, but career structure is a very important factor, and I should be glad to hear my hon. Friend's views on the career structure as he sees it at present.
  Mr. George Wigg: Further to what has been said, Sir Gordon, about the way in which these debates are to take place, I remember that in previous years, whilst the Chair has taken no part in it, of course, there has been an agreement between the two Front Benches about the period of time to be allocated, and it would be useful to know——
  Mr. G. W. Reynolds: My hon. Friend has denounced such a thing in previous years.
  Mr. Wigg: Of course I have, but I am now inquiring whether there is to be a timetable. If there is to be one—well and good; if there is not to be one—well and good. But one wants to know whether or not there is a timetable.
  The Chairman: That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Wigg: I did not raise it as a point of order, Sir Gordon. I merely wondered whether the Government would give their view on the form that these debates should take.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I want to refer to the pay of chief petty officers, because the Admiralty has now turned down proposals for a master rate. When we compare the pay of chief petty officers with the pay of Army warrant officers, Class I and Class II, and warrant officers in the Royal Air Force, we find that the chief petty officers come out rather badly.
  1230
  The ordinary chief petty officer, Scale B, draws 42s. per day, compared with 42s. for a warrant officer II in the Army and 44s. for a warrant officer I, and he draws 3s. per day less than the warrant officer in the Royal Air Force. That means that after fourteen years' service the chief petty officer receives a guinea a week less than the R.A.F. warrant officer. After eighteen years' service he draws the same amount as the Army warrant officer II, 2s. less than the Army warrant officer I, and the same as the warrant officer in the Royal Air Force. After twenty-two years, and after twenty-seven years—that is, for the remainder of his service as a chief petty officer—his daily pay remains at 45s. 6d., the pay of the warrant officer II in the Army remains at 45s. 6d. and that of the warrant officer I remains at 47s. 6d., but the pay of the warrant officer, skilled trades, in the Royal Air Force goes up to 48s. 6d.
  The Civil Lord will appreciate that artificers are rather difficult to recruit, and that electrical artificers are proving rather reluctant to re-engage. The demand for electrical artificers is bound to increase with the developments that are now taking place, and pay comparisons are therefore important. A first-class artificer gets 50s. a day; after twenty-two years' service his pay remains at 50s., and after twenty-seven years it is still 50s. a day. The warrant officer II in the Army gets 51s. and the warrant officer I gets 53s. The warrant officer in the R.A.F. also gets 53s. There is thus a considerable disparity between the highest pay that men on the lower deck can get and the pay of warrant officers in the Army and in the Royal Air Force.
  The chief petty officer's pay gives us the real comparison. The chief petty officer gets 53s. 6d. a day, and that includes all his various allowances—charge pay, trade pay and the rest. He gets that after eighteen years' service. He gets 53s. 6d. a day after twenty-two years' service, and 53s. 6d. a day after twenty-seven years' service. In the Army, the warrant officer I gets 53s., which is 6d. less, but in the Royal Air Force the warrant officer, skilled tradesman—a rank comparable with the chief artificer. who is also a skilled tradesman—gets 55s. a day.

  1231
  In all these cases we find that chief petty officers, no matter in what branch of the Royal Navy they serve, get less than the highest non-commissioned rank in the Army and in the Royal Air Force. We also have to bear in mind that the chief petty officer gets a marriage allowance that is smaller than that of warrant officers I and II in the Army, or warrant officers in the Royal Air Force, and smaller than that received by the R.S.M. and the C.Q.S.M. in the Royal Marines. In addition, his pension is considerably less, and his terminal grant is about £100 less. It will thus be seen that the highest ranks on the lower deck are at a very definite disadvantage compared with the highest non-commissioned ranks in the other two Services. That is quite unfair.
  I had hoped that if the Admiralty had seen its way to accepting a master rate or something equivalent, it would have made up this difference, and we should have had for the highest lower-deck rank scales comparable with those prevailing in the highest non-commissioned ranks in the Army and the Royal Air Force. The proposal for a master rate has been turned down and it is most unfair that these men should be at this disadvantage.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least tell the Board of the Admiralty, of which he is a distinguished member, that there is some concern about this and that, in view of the Admiralty's decision not to introduce any other ranks, it is time that something is done for these men.
  A chief artificer—and this applies in all the artificer branches—may be appointed before he finishes his twelve years' service and, as a result, will carry on for another twelve or more years without any increase in pay at all. There is something wrong there. There is a gap that should be filled if we are to have a satisfactory pay structure on the lower deck.
  I hope that, in the light of its decision, the Admiralty will consider the position with a view to offering some inducement to men to continue for twenty-two or twenty-seven years, and that it will try to bring about equality as between the Services, which has been the declared aim of Governments since the end of the war.
  5.19 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I intervene in this debate for two reasons. The first reason arises from the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), which I think he has made on previous occasions—and quite rightly—when we have debated this stage of Vote 1. I always understood that the reason the Navy never went in for a master rate—and if I am wrong I hope I may be told—but accepted this apparent disadvantage, is that the prospects of the boy who enlists in the Navy becoming commissioned into the Special Duties Branch are considerably higher than the comparable prospects in the other two Services.
  Mr. Willis: One in five.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If that is so, it should be on the record, because it is of some recruiting importance.
  My second reason for intervening is that I notice that Subhead G—"Local Overseas Allowance"—has once again gone up. I have referred to this on a number of previous occasions. I can never understand why, as the total numbers in the three Services fall and as the pay rates rise, local overseas allowance—which is intended to compensate officers, ratings and other ranks for the extra cost of living abroad—should continue to rise. I am not asking my hon. Friend to reply to this point today, because I do not suppose that the information is readily at hand, but I appeal to him to look closely at this in the interests of economy.
  Most of us, even those who used to serve in the Services and certainly most civilians, are critical as it is of the high standards to which British military personnel have become accustomed when they live ashore overseas. It has for long been a matter of criticism within the Navy from seafarers who when they visit ports see the conditions under which those enjoying what they regard as fairly cushy jobs ashore are living.
  What wants looking into is whether this rise has come about because for some reason, notwithstanding the fall in Vote A, the numbers of persons employed overseas have gone up or whether it has arisen because there has been an alarming increase in the cost of

  1233
  living at stations where naval personnel are based which has outrun the increases in pay in the last few years. I find it hard to believe that that can be so.
  There have been dramatic increases even percentagewise in the pay of both officers and men in the last three or four years and I find it difficult to believe that the cost of living at Malta, Singapore, Aden and other places has risen even faster. We should have had a revolution in those places had it done so. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Civil Lord whether this rise could be looked at with a close and a critical eye.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayshire): We should examine with a keen, careful and critical mind not only certain items of Vote 1, but the sum total of nearly £70 million. I have no intention of claiming any knowledge of the technical operation of the Navy. I am here at the consumer's end. When I am presented with a bill, as we are in Vote 1, for £70 million for the pay of officers and men, I want to know what we are getting for the money.
  I have listened carefully to all the speeches on the Navy Estimates and I am completely bewildered whether there is any real directive thought on either side. I simply cannot agree to support the expenditure of £70 million when we see such large sums as this all lumped together and no attempt made at detailed examination.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) put a sensible point of view in the earlier Estimates debate, when he argued that the only way to give careful consideration to these items was to have a standing committee dealing with the Admiralty Estimates before they came before the House. Instead of doing this work now and rushing it through in a few hours, as we are asked to do today, it should have been done back in the early months of the year. We should have had all the pooled experience of hon. Members, who have spoken with such a wealth of technical knowledge, brought to bear upon these Estimates before they were produced.
  Before I came to the House of Commons, I used to consider budget items of
  1234
  a county council and a town council. We examined with meticulous care all the different items before they were presented in the annual budget. Here, however, laymen like myself are having these huge items thrown at us with only the vaguest explanations of what they mean.
  We are told, for example, that the pay of the Navy is needed because the Navy is necessary to protect the people of these islands. What is the position? I read with great care the speech from the Opposition Front Bench in the debate on the Navy Estimates on 2nd March, and I have been trying ever since to find out what we are providing the money for. We are told that in the event of a hot war,
  "This island—and I think that this has been accepted for a very long time—could not survive an atomic bombardment and emerge as of Power"——
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): Order. This is going outside the scope of the debate. I think that the hon. Member is starting to talk about foreign policy. In this debate, we must deal with the facts and figures which are before us in the Estimates.
  Mr. Hughes: I quite understand your difficulty, Mr. Williams——
  The Temporary Chairman: It is not my difficulty. It is the hon. Member's difficulty.
  Mr. Hughes: I am only asking for consideration of my difficulty. I am not intending to discuss broad questions of policy. When, however, I am presented with a bill for £70 million, I want a clear idea of what it is for. The people of the country are under the impression that this vast sum of money protects them. What will we get for the £70 million in the event of a sudden emergency in a hot war? I am told by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who leads from this side of the House of Commons, that
  "there would be only one task for the Navy, and that would be to `get the hell out of it '." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 1784–5.]
  I am not prepared to provide £70 million for a Service——
  The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry that I must again ask the hon. Member to apply his mind to these categories in the Estimates. If he does that, I feel

  1235
  sure that he will please hon. Members and the Chair.
  Mr. Hughes: All these categories are evidently "getting the hell out of it" and leaving us alone. In those circumstances, I flatly refuse to vote for this £70 million. I do not know what it is for and I do not know how I can justify it when I go to my constituents.
  I want to ask certain detailed questions, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East about artificers. I want to know exactly the duties of the liaison officers who are provided for in these Estimates. I refer to the liaison officers now operating on the Clyde. I presume that they come under the heading of pay of officers or of men. In the Scottish Press, we see frequent references to the liaison officers who are operating as a result of the bringing of the Polaris naval vessel to the Clyde. I am not talking about the American officers—I know that it would be out of order to refer to them—but I want to know whether these liaison officers who are attached to the American Navy are being paid for by the Admiralty.
  What is the function of a liaison officer? Can we be told how much in Vote 1 is for liaison officers? What are the duties of these liaison officers? We are told that their duty is to explain certain things to the American Navy and some things to the civil population. Liaison goes both ways. One of the duties of the liaison officers has been to explain to the American Navy about the recent rises in prices in the neighbourhood of Dunoon. They have to explain why whisky, Coco-Cola and cinema seats have gone up in price and why the whole range of prices in the Clyde area has gone up as the result of the Americans coming here. Therefore, I think that we should have some experienced officers and that they should be paid not by the Admiralty but by the American Navy. This is a new kind of duty which we have not had before——
  The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I do not quite see how we can get as far as that on the pay of officers and men. I think the hon. Member is stretching the procedure a little bit too far, and I remind him again of the Vote with which we are dealing.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, it is not men, it is pay, and I am asked to agree to a bill of £70 million, which is an enormous bill, and I fail to see what remedy I have, except to ask for details about this pay. I find some difficulty in the whole method of voting public money.
  After all, the amount of money which was voted for Ship Money at the time of the Civil War was much less than this, and I cannot see how I can defend the passing of a sum of approximately £70 million, or justify it to my constituents, on the evidence which is before us at present. Yesterday, for example, we marched through the Lobbies fifteen times to protest against certain items of Government expenditure; fifteen times we marched through the Lobbies because of a sum approximating £50 million. Today we are asked not to march through the Lobbies at all for a sum of £1,600 million, and all I can do on this very slight evidence——
  Mr. Wigg: Would my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt him on a point of order? The previous occupant of the Chair rebuked my hon. Friend for being out of order when he made reference to the fact that liaison officers should be paid by a foreign navy, but, with respect, it is surely in order, because there is a specific reference in this Vote for repayments to be made by foreign Governments under Subhead "Appropriations in Aid".
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Ronald Russell): Discussion of appropriations in aid is not in order under this Vote.
  Mr. Hughes: I quite understand that, Mr. Russell, and I should look upon items of appropriations in aid with the greatest suspicion and I will have nothing to do with them, but the burden of my complaint is against the whole method of rushing through Estimates of which there has been no adequate explanation given to the Committee.
  I join with the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) in his protest about the way public money is being spent without the people of Portsmouth having any say in the matter at all. I have a great affection for Portsmouth. The hon. and gallant Member even asked to take Polaris to Portsmouth, and when he raised the

  1237
  question of how it was brought in here he was ruled out of order and closured down. I do not want to see the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West closured down.
  Brigadier Clarke: May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Member?
  Mr. Hughes: I have been grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for the last eleven years.
  I hope that it is not only laymen like myself who will ask questions, and I shall listen very patiently indeed to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West who, I am glad to see, has just returned safely from a Communist country and appears to be none the worse for it.
  5.34 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I rather enjoyed my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) claiming to speak on behalf of the consumer in an Estimates debate. I thought that he classed himself as an anti-consumer in this category.
  There are two matters which I wanted to raise. The first is the curious feature that Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval nurses seem to have got cheaper. This is such an unusual thing to happen. How has it arisen? The Vote is down £6,000 although the numbers seem to have gone up. I wondered what had happened there. The other item is Subhead J. The National Insurance contributions have gone up by over £500,000 for 2,000 fewer men. I think that this is a little illustrative of what government costs the Government on occasions.
  5.35 p.m.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I should like to deal with some of the points which have been made. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) who preceded me in my office as a very distinguished Civil Lord asked me about the new career structure. I think that there has been a little bit of uncertainty about this, so perhaps I may deal with it rather fully.
  My hon. Friend will remember that all three Services announced through my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence that they were going to have a new
  1238
  career structure. This announcement was made on 10th February last year. Further details of the careers for naval officers were given in my noble Friend's Explanatory Statement last year. But let me briefly put the position in this manner. The Royal Navy offers General List officers joining after May, 1957, a career up to the age of 50 for lieutenant-commanders and to 53 for commanders and 55 for captains. Alternatively, voluntary retirement will normally be allowed to lieutenant-commanders if they are not selected for promotion in their late thirties. Post List officers will necessarily be commanders and above, and they will be promoted at an earlier age and will retire somewhat earlier than General List officers.
  We have also now been able to extend somewhat similar arrangements to Royal Marine officers entering after May, 1957. Captains and majors will retire at the age of 50 which gives them a minimum career similar to General List officers. Lieutenant-colonels of the Royal Marines and colonels are expected to retire at about the age of 51.
  We cannot in fact produce an exactly similar career structure as the Army or Air Force but we have worked quite well in that direction. In the Navy, particularly a small ship Navy and a robust Navy, we want young, active men. If we were to guarantee a longer career we should in fact be stultifying the Navy as a whole and reducing the chances of promotion and the chances of sea-time and commands to the young men, and the very men we most want to command our ships.
  The second point was raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). This is a hardy annual.
  Mr. Willis: A very good one.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes. When I first got to my present post and started my visits to the fleet I was bombarded with questions about the master rate. We have been round this buoy many, many times. We have looked at it most carefully at the Board of Admiralty and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's complimentary remarks about the manner in which we presented the facts for himself, and also more generally for the fleet. We tried to present them in two ways, what we called an official document, and

  1239
  a popular document which could put the problem as plainly as possible.
  The facts are that there are a limited number of complement positions which would really justify the equivalent of a warrant officer class 1 or a master rate. We could find few positions in the Navy which would justify the extra pay. This means that very large numbers of people would not have the opportunity of rising to this rate, and whereas we could give extra incentives and the extra rewards to a few, we should, I am afraid, have to downgrade the great majority of the chief petty officers to the level where they would be paid the same as a staff sergeant or a flight sergeant. So, whereas some would benefit, I am afraid the majority would not.
  We summarised this in a profit and loss account, and the profit is that a small number of the most senior ratings would become equivalent in all respects, such as allowances, pensions and terminal grants, to the highest other ranks in the Army and Royal Air Force. The loss is that chief petty officers would lose their present advantage in pay over staff sergeants and suffer some loss of status.
  Mr. Willis: That is a very interesting argument, but how is it that it can be done in the Air Force but it cannot be done with these artificers who are doing exactly the same job?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: It can be done in the Air Force because on the whole that Service has bigger establishments than we have. We have a small-ship Navy, except possibly for cruisers and aircraft carriers, and there would be not all that number of billets suitable for master ratings. That must be taken into consideration.
  I would also endorse the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallet). It was brought out in an independent report that in fact the Navy offers better facilities for promotion on Ito the Special Duties list as officers than any other Service. I am not sure of the exact figures, but I can say that we offer unique facilities and therefore we must consider this as a balancing factor against the decision that we took to turn this suggestion down.
  Mr. Willis: I was accepting the fact that the Admiralty had turned down this idea. I was not arguing about that, but I was asking whether, in view of the fact that it had rejected the idea, the Admiralty now intended to do something to equate the higher rank of the lower deck with the higher rank of noncommissioned officers in the other Services.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: We have looked at this, but I am afraid that we have not been able to find an equitable solution. Even with the best will in the world one cannot exactly pair conditions and rewards in all three Services. I do not want to suggest that the Navy comes off second best. I have always maintained that the Navy should travel first-class and that we should reward our officers and men accordingly, but one cannot make sure all through each person's career that he marches pari passu with his opposite number in the other Services.
  The reason overseas allowances have gone up is that with the strengthening of the fleet in the Far East we have more men and officers serving there and therefore more people now qualifying for overseas allowance. It is the Singapore station in particular which has caused this rise. I will certainly look at the point of view expressed, but the cost of living overseas is often materially higher than in this country and it is only right that the person serving there should be compensated for his increased cost of living. The biggest factor is housing accommodation, because of increases in rents. The causes of this rise therefore are increased prices and increased rents in Singapore and the greater numbers serving there.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I have written to my hon. Friend about a case in connection with this matter. How is it that if a man serving in the Navy happens to be married to a Wren and they are both overseas in the same station they are not allowed to have the same local overseas allowance as they would get if a man were married to a civilian?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question now, but no doubt it has been dealt with by my Department and I will make a point of

  1241
  answering by letter. It seems to be an anomaly on the face of it.
  The pacifist views of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) are well known, and if we ever forget them we are always refreshed in our memory when we debate defence or Service Estimates.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. If the Civil Lord is discussing general policy I am prepared to discuss it with him at the appropriate moment, but I was told by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Russell, that we must confine ourselves to what is in the Estimate, and my pacifist views are not in Vote I.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I apologise if I touched the hon. Member and was out of order. The House gave approval earlier to the numbers and the hon. Member did not vote against them. We are now asking the Committee to approve pay and rewards for the numbers already voted.
  Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. I am entitled to as much consideration as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I asked a definite, specific question of the Civil Lord about the pay of liaison officers on the Clyde and, when I ask a question on a Vote, I am entitled to have some attempt made to answer it.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member should give the Civil Lord an opportunity to answer.
  Mr. Hughes: The Civil Lord is dodging it.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: The liaison officer is paid as a captain and if the hon. Member looks up the Votes he will find out what is a captain's pay. He will know that the liaison officer's pay is no different. The hon. Member has asked me question after question about this issue and I should be pulled up as being out of order if I tried to answer his questions about numbers.
  Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. I am asking quite a legitimate question about liaison activities on the Clyde and I submit that I am entitled to have some attempt made to answer that question.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member should give the Minister a chance to answer, but it is out of order to discuss the numbers.
  Mr. Hughes: There is some misapprehension here. I am discussing the amount of money allocated to liaison officers on the Clyde, that is, the total amount, and not the numbers at all.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should be delighted to look up exactly how much pay and allowances a particular captain is drawing and pass the information on to the hon. Member in a letter, but I am not in a position to give facts like that off the cuff at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member has already asked me about the cost of the liaison committee and I have given him information in a Parliamentary Answer. I know, therefore, that he has the overall cost even if he does not know the cost of each individual officer.
  The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asked me what re-organisation was taking place in the Q.A.R.N.N.S. The numbers have gone up and the total Vote has gone down and I think that the reason is that we slightly over-estimated the Vote last time. This year's is a more realistic approach and one has to remember that young people joining the Service would be paid slightly less than people who are on the point of retiring and there is therefore probably some small adjustment on that account. As for the nursing auxiliaries, it will be remembered that we announced a re-organisation in which we have done away with the V.A.D.; now we are recruiting extra nursing auxiliaries to support the nursing service. The numbers have risen from 36 to 47 and we aim at having 300 before very long.
  The hon. and learned Member for Northampton also asked me about Subhead J—"National Insurance Contributions"—and he drew attention to the increase. He is quite right. There has been a rise in the Health portion of the National Insurance contribution and therefore we have to pay for that. It will start in June of the present year, I think. We have also to pay more on the pension contribution. In answer to a Parliamentary Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East, I said some days ago that we have to pay on pensions both for those who opt out and those who do not.
  Therefore this is an adjustment because of the new pension scheme for the nation as it concerns officers and men

  1243
  and also an adjustment of the National Insurance contribution because of the new rates which operate in April and June.
  Mr. Paget: I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman. It is dreadful how the Government put up prices.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £67,872,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962.

  Vote 2. Victualling and clothing for the Navy
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £14,505,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962.
  5.54 p.m.
  Commander J. S. Kerans: I want to raise in general terms the question of victualling and clothing depots for the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom. Is there any possibility of a reduction or amalgamation in the not far distant future? These depots, broadly speaking, occupy fairly large areas close to our home ports. Has the Admiralty ever given thought to the possibility of amalgamating, to a limited extent, the victualling and clothing supplies for all three Services, certainly the food supply? Food and victualling at least might be common to all three Services.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like an explanation of the paragraph in Vote 2, which reads:
  "Men entitled to the spirit ration receive an allowance in lieu (grog money) if they do not wish to receive the ration in kind."
  How many men do not accept the spirit ration, and how much money does that involve? To what extent do sailors in the Royal Navy decline to have grog money and get the ration in kind?
  Brigadier Clarke: I hope that I shall be in order in talking about the wages of industrials, which are referred to Vote 2. I have tried to make many small speeches to this Committee, but
  1244
  so far I have never been called. But before I waste your time, Mr. Russell, by being out of order, may I ask you whether I would be in order in talking about the wages of industrial workers? I notice that these wages are also referred to in Vote 8. Perhaps if I talk about them on this Vote you may tell me that I must wait until we reach Vote 8, and then I may find that Vote 8 is not being discussed. That is one way of getting round the discussion.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in order in discussing this matter on Vote 2.
  Brigadier Clarke: I have been in constant correspondence with my hon. Friend the Civil Lord about the wages and the structure of wages in Portsmouth Dockyard. I visited him with a small delegation of Portsmouth Members of Parliament, and he was most helpful. He carried out a survey of wages and earnings and I think that, as a result, we can claim that there has been a reasonable increase in the emoluments of these workers. Nevertheless, I still think that £8 15s. 4d. a week for the lowest paid worker is very poor. It does not compare with the wage of an agricultural worker, living in the country, where things are a great deal cheaper than they are in a city like Portsmouth.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke Sir H. Legge-Bourke indicated dissent.
  Brigadier Clarke: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) shakes his head. He was in the Chair and stopped me from speaking last week on the Navy Estimates.
  The wages of these workers are extremely low, and I hope that something can be done to see that they get adequate overtime to compensate them. The national average wage is over £13 a week and £8 15s. 4d. a week seems a very small amount for a man and wife living in a town.
  Not only does such a wage affect the man himself, but it affects the whole city, because the majority of those working in the dockyard get this low wage. In my hon. Friend's survey he found that quite a number of them also got very much more than I understood them to get, and I was glad to hear that. Nevertheless, £8 15s. 4d. is only about twice as

  1245
  much as an old-age pensioner gets. When one is in one's prime, one is entitled to expect a better wage than that.
  The Admiralty gets a lot of its labour very cheaply, as these people are employed as unskilled labourers, whereas some of them often do skilled and semiskilled work. During the past ten years I have clone my best to get new industries into the town so that dockyard wages would have to go up in competition with civilian industry. There have been considerable efforts to see that these industries did not come in, but they are now coming in in fairly large numbers, and I think that the Admiralty will find itself in competition with them. I hope that as a result the wages paid in the dockyard will have to go up.
  There is also the question of storehouse men, which I have raised with my hon. Friend the Civil Lord on many occasions. A storehouse man is classified as an industrial by the Admiralty, whereas in the other two Services he is classified as a non-industrial. In the Army I had a lot of storehouse men under my charge at one time or another, and they were all non-industrial.
  If these people can be classified as non-industrial it raises their status all round, together with many benefits to which they are entitled, and it also raises the tone of their livelihood. These men and their union are very anxious that they should be classified as non-industrial. It is extraordinary that the Admiralty manages to persist in the view that these people are industrial when the other Services have long ago considered them as non-industrial.
  I am very grateful to you, Mr. Russell, for having heard that much. I am sure that if you had not had much compassion for me you would have said that many of the things I have said were out of order. I felt that most of them were, but I am grateful to you for having permitted me to say them.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: I am shocked by the way the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) has referred to his constituents as "these people". The people of Portsmouth are an honourable people and, although the hon. and gallant Member may think of
  1246
  his constituents that way between elections, he ought not to speak of them in the House of Commons in that slighting manner.
  Brigadier Clarke: On a point of order. How does this come into Vote 2?
  Mr. Wigg: I am replying to the hon. and gallant Member as I am deeply moved, and have always been deeply moved, by the standard of living of people who live in garrison towns. It is no accident that most of these areas are represented by Conservative Members of Parliament. This is a matter of cause and effect. The low rates of wages in Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham and elsewhere arise from two direct causes. One is that those places have Conservative Members of Parliament and the second is that their major industries are based on the Admiralty which has a notoriously reactionary attitude. I am sure that the expression "these people" used by the hon. and gallant Member is one which he has heard from his hon. Friend on the Front Bench. I protest against the slighting way in which the hon. and gallant Member spoke of his constituents, but I join with him not only in pleading with the Government, but in taking action to get a major diversification of industry in and around Portsmouth.
  Brigadier Clarke: Is the hon. Member trying to say that my constituents who are very badly paid should not be better paid?
  Mr. Wigg: On the contrary. I was saying that they should be much better paid and that the reason why they are not better paid is that the hon. and gallant Member has been their Member for so long.
  The hon. and gallant Member comes to the House once a year—perhaps twice a year—and makes a speech pleading for "these people". What is needed in Portsmouth and Chatham and all the other garrison towns, especially in view of the Government's defence policy, is a fighting policy and not an appearance in the House of Commons two or three times a year. The hon. and gallant Member should press the Government in season and out of season, because if a major disarmament policy is adopted by the Government or forced on them by world events, this will become a

  1247
  national problem and Portsmouth may well rot.
  I offer my services to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I started my soldiering in Portsmouth and I have a great affection for the place. I was there long before the hon. and gallant Gentleman went to Portsmouth, although I was in a very humble capacity. I want him to press the Government not two or three times a year but every day, and I want him to be constantly in his place where I will join with him in seeing that the Government face their obligation.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said that the low wage rates paid in garrison towns were due to inaction on the part of Conservative Members, but how does he explain the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), having been narrowly rejected by the electorate at Devonport in 1955, was overwhelmingly rejected by that electorate in 1959?
  Mr. Wigg: There is a perfectly simple answer.
  The Temporary Chairman: I do not see where that arises on this Vote.
  Mr. Wigg: If I give way to an hon. Member and he puts a question which is in order, surely I am in order to reply.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member was out of order in asking the question.
  Mr. Wigg: But I should have thought that it was possible within the rules of order, the question having been asked, for me to be given an opportunity to reply.
  The Temporary Chairman: No.
  Mr. Wigg: Needless to say, as always, I bow to the Ruling of the Chair. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) is quite capable of looking after himself and, as Ebbw Vale has done him the honour of returning him, I hope that he will raise his voice on behalf of his constituents of yesterday, because it is quite obvious that hon. Members opposite will do nothing more than provide political excuses.
  What I am saying to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West is that this is not a matter which can be
  1248
  lightly dismissed and that if there is a sharp curtailment of the Defence Estimates in the coming years, this will become a major problem. If we wait until the problem is with us, by that action alone we shall guarantee that there will be no solution of it. This should be the subject of a major pronouncement of policy by the Government. Clearly, the Navy has no future for these towns.
  I conclude by repeating my pledge to act in association with the hon. and gallant Member, as an act of justice to the citizens of those places which have rendered great service to the country in times of great difficulty and which should not be left to rot merely because it is expedient and politically convenient for the Government to allow them to do so.
  6.8 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: The matter which I wish to raise arises under subheads K and L and relates to mess traps and miscellaneous stores.
  It is the present practice in the Royal Navy where members of the Women's Royal Naval Service are employed alongside men for the two sexes to mess separately. That sort of practice is somewhat out of date and somewhat nineteenth century. On Monday, in the Shipping Supplement of The Times, there were photographs of men and women employed in the Merchant Navy being messed together in ships afloat. If that can be done in the Merchant Navy and in industry ashore, it is high time that the Royal Navy followed suit when the two sexes are working side by side. I hope that the Civil Lord will urge the Board of Admiralty to do something in that direction and to do it quickly.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to raise a matter which is causing the trade union movement increasing concern. For many years a joint industrial council has functioned in the employment of civilian personnel employed by the Navy—as with other Government Departments—and for many years a number of highly skilled craft unions——
  The Temporary Chairman: Can the hon. Member say where this arises under this Vote?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: It comes under miscellaneous——
  The Temporary Chairman: I would draw attention to the fact that we are on Vote 2.
  Mr. Wigg: Surely this arises on Vote 2B, of which the Explanatory Note says:
  "The rates of wages of locally entered personnel abroad are assessed in relation to local standards."
  Those standards may have to be resolved by trade union negotiation, so that I would have thought that my hon. Friend was in order.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I thought that was understood.
  The Civil Lord is aware that there are a number of craft unions with no representation at all on these councils, and that for many years they have been pressing for representation. In addition to that, many years ago it was thought by the trade union movement that the time had arrived when the Admiralty should be setting a higher standard than is done in the ordinary shipyards. In places like Portsmouth, Devonport and several others, through the functioning of these joint councils, they have always followed the lead of private industry, but private industry is engaged in world competition and is subject to that kind of thing. The trade union movement believes that, while we cannot carry this too far, it should be the duty of Government Departments and, in the case of which I am speaking, of the Admiralty to set a higher standard than obtains in private industry.
  One of the matters that has given great concern has been the inability of the Admiralty to encourage output and production. I am not saying for a moment that the output at Portsmouth, Devon-port, Chatham and other places is not as good as it should be. I know that the management and the men there give of their best, and I understand that at Portsmouth some of the changes that have been carried through have been carried out more cheaply than would have been the case in a number of shipbuilding yards. What I am saying is that the men do not get the encouragement to increase production that they ought to get.
  The Civil Lord will be aware that we have in being what is known as the
  1250
  merit scheme. I have always been against merit schemes, as a result of my experience, because they lead to favouritism. This is not a satisfactory way of dealing with things. My own view is that the best policy is to put a man on his mettle, to do as is done in private industry and fix rates by mutual negotiation, and, having established confidence in this joint machinery which exists for the purpose of fixing rates or hours by mutual agreement, to leave it to the individual to increase his earnings in accordance with this arrangement.
  I am making a plea, but I do not expect a satisfactory answer being given now because I have not given the Civil Lord notice. I have been asked by a number of unions to take the opportunity of a Vote like this to raise this issue. Therefore, let me make it clear to the Minister that I do not expect a satisfactory answer tonight, although I hope he will undertake to give consideration to the point I am raising and, having given the matter consideration, will come back to the House or the Committee with constructive proposals for dealing with it.
  The Civil Lord will also know that the "Ark Royal", for example, has undergone many changes at Portsmouth. If I remember rightly, speaking from memory, it was built at Cammell Laird's at Birkenhead and afterwards went to Portsmouth, where a number of modifications were carried out. What I am asking for is that when these modifications are carried out, this joint council machinery should so function as to obtain the best results, and, at the same time, put the men on their mettle and increase their earnings. I am asking the Civil Lord to give consideration to this point and to consider whether the time has not arrived when the whole of the unions involved should have representation. If they cannot have representation on the councils, some other method should be introduced by which they can be given more satisfaction than they feel at the present time.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: I am rather tempted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), but I am not quite sure for whom he is speaking or what researches he has made

  1251
  into the matter. I think that the general consultative machinery in the bulk of Admiralty establishments is very good, and certainly a long way ahead of that in comparative industry in a number of ways. As I understand this Vote, it would be strictly in order to discuss victualling yards, which are comparatively small, but not to discuss the machinery in the dockyards. Anyone who has seen these committees, and has addressed them, as I did during my time at the Admiralty, will know that they function extremely well.
  My purpose in rising is to discuss Subhead M. It will be obvious to the Committee at once that there is a very steep rise here of £513,000 for clothing. I do not know what is the explanation for this very steep rise at a time when the numbers are falling, though I imagine It represents the new rig for seamen, and I hope that the Civil Lord will tell us something about it when he replies. In the Memorandum on the Army Estimates information was given of the new Service uniform, and there are two excellent pictures of a sergeant and a member of the W.R.A.C. in the new uniforms, which look extremely nice. I am sure that the Committee would agree that the uniform is an important matter, but this is a very steep rise, and I for one, and, I think, the Committee, also, would welcome some explanation of it.
  Mr. Willis: Before the Civil Lord answers some of these questions, may I say that I had intended to ask him about clothing? I should also like to know why there is a very steep rise in the cost of mess traps, which is about a 40 per cent. increase.
  I also want to suggest, in connection with some of these big rises, that maybe a note about them could be included in the Explanatory Notes to show why some of these changes take place. It is quite obvious when we look at some of these Votes, that the variations are great, particularly in the cases of clothing and mess traps, and I should have thought that it would have been very helpful to all hon. Members if space—and there is usually quite a lot of space at the bottom of these Explanatory notes—could be utilised for the purpose of telling the Committee about the big changes in the Votes.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Perhaps I may now deal with the various points that have been made on Vote 2.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) asked me whether we ought not to close down some of our victualling depots and streamline the organisation. I can assure him that we have done that. During the last five years, we have cut the number of victualling depots from 21 to 14. The general policy is that there should be a large victualling depot providing storage behind our main ports, and that there should be a forward store for the immediate provision of ships when they visit those ports. That is our general policy. Under it we have, in fact, cut our storage space from 3 million sq. ft. to F4 million sq. ft. This is a sign of the earnestness with which we have pursued the idea of not having too long a tail and trying to put more in the way of teeth into the Navy.
  My hon. and gallant Friend also asked me whether we were adopting a general policy of coordinating victualling between the three Services. This was a point made by the Select Committee on Estimates in 1956, which did not advocate integration, but did say that the three Services ought to be more closely drawn together and that the biggest user should have the responsibility for victualling in various parts of the world. We have done exactly that. As a result of that Select Committee's Report, a good deal has been achieved. In the United Kingdom, we have made a considerable saving in transport, and in the closing of a number of supply depots, by making arrangements for units of all the Services to be supplied from the nearest Army or Navy bulk stocks. Abroad, the major user in Gibraltar is the Royal Navy, as is the War Office in Hong Kong, in Aden it is the Royal Air Force and in Malta the Royal Navy, and these now hold stocks and supply all three Services.
  We are pursuing this general philosophy, and we hope there is scope for further rationalisation. We have an inter-service committee working on this aspect of the matter, and we shall keep it under the most active review.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked about grog money. The latest figures show that

  1253
  25 per cent. of naval ratings prefer to take their 3d. a day rather than the grog.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) succeeded in keeping in order rather better than I would be able to do if I tried to answer his points. I would not go all the way with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I have not found that "the people" is an insulting term. We have such phrases as "Trust the People" and "Set the People Free". I have never found that they have been resented.
  Mr. Wigg: The expression to which I objected was not merely "the people", but "these people".
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not follow why the adjective "these" should be insulting when placed before "people". No doubt the hon. Member has his own views about that. He and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) raised the question of rewards and negotiating machinery. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West mentioned the figure of £8 15s. 4d. as the basic wage of an unskilled labourer. As I let him know in a letter, the average wage in the dockyards is nearly £14, and that throws a rather different light on the matter. I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's views about storehousemen. This is, again, a matter for joint machinery, and the trade unions take a strong view here.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Did the hon. Member say that the average wage in the dockyards was £14?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes. I am sorry if I said "wage"; I should have said "earnings". The average earnings of Admiralty employees is £14. I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to correct what I said.
  As I was saying, the question of store-housemen is one for trade union negotiation. As my hon. and gallant Friend will know, we have raised the rewards of these men, so that although they count as industrials their pay is very little different from that of non-industrials. If the main consideration is one of pay rather than status we have moved a long way in the right direction. This matter has been under negotiation
  1254
  by the joint machinery, and I cannot go much further tonight.
  Brigadier Clarke: The question of the average wage is a little complicated. The lowest-paid people—I am sorry, perhaps in deference to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) I should say "the lowest-paid workers"—receive about £8 15s., but the highly skilled workers at the top of the scale, who are very few in number, may have a high wage, and if they are included with the people earning low wages and the total of wages is divided by the total of workers, although it may work out to £14 a week it must be remembered that thousands of "people", as I prefer to call them, earn between £8 15s. and £9 a week. It is really not fair to quote the average in that way.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree that averages can be deceptive, but I broke down the figures concerned in a letter to my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not have the figures by me now, but he knows them as well as I do. I know that the average does not reflect the exact position, but it puts the matter into rather better perspective.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lt.-Commander Maydon) asked whether it was necessary to separate the feeding of the W.R.N.S. from that of the Navy. He said that this was not done in civil life or in the mercantile marine. My memory of the Air Force, when I served as Under-Secretary of State, was that it always found communal feeding from a single galley quite acceptable. I cannot believe that sailors are any less well behaved than men in the Royal Air Force, but I will consider the point raised, because we are anxious to cut down overheads and at the same time to meet the high standards of feeding for both men and women in the Royal Navy.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked about the increase in the Vote relative to mess traps. The reason for that is that we have been living on our fat for some time—if I may use that term in connection with mess traps—and have now run down our stocks to a level where we must start buying again. I went through this question in detail. I remember that glassware was one of the main factors involved. It is easily broken. We are always trying to find unbreakable

  1255
  glass, but have not yet found the perfect solution. Nevertheless, we are managing to obtain replacements for our glassware very cheaply.
  The hon. Member also asked whether we could find a little more room for Explanatory Notes. That might be possible. I will consider it.
  Mr. Willis: It is not so much for the notes themselves as for explanations in them of appreciable increases or decreases.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: We have tried to help there. The hon. Member will notice that from time to time, on different pages, we have tried to explain large variations. We have also shown the main variations in the explanatory statement, in summarised form, although I agree that we might go a little further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) asked about the increased Vote in respect of clothing. I agree that it is very marked, but it is not because of the new rig. About £260,000 of that increase is due to the run-down of our old stocks and the need to buy new stocks. Price increases account for £100,000 of that increase, and increases in repayment supplies account for £76,000. It must be remembered that we supply other Government Departments. For example, we supply Customs officials with raincoats. We receive credit for that in the Appropriations in Aid, but it would be out of order for me to discuss them.
  I think that I have dealt with all the points raised in connection with Vote 2, and I hope that hon. Members will agree to it.
  6.29 p.m.
  Mr. Wigg: I cannot understand that reply, unless the Government's policy towards redundancy in establishments, brought about by the changing pattern of industry, is non-existent. The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the views expressed by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), that the changing pattern of Government defence expenditure, month by month and year by year, is bound to create great hardship in Sheppey and Chatham because of the closing of the dockyards. It has created hardships in Portsmouth, and Rosyth, and in ordnance depôts, and yet, when the point is put to the Government from
  1256
  hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, the Minister completely ignores it. He picks up the points which are convenient to him and then wants to call it a day.
  I would have thought that this was a matter of importance which affected all the Services. We might have expected a statement about it from the Minister of Defence in the debate on the Defence Estimates, but we did not get it, and we do not get a real chance to put the point during our debates on the Service Estimates. This is our last chance this year to hear something about the Government's overall policy in the matter. Will the Board of Trade act as agents in trying to encourage new industries to go to Portsmouth? The Civil Lord has always been an exponent of laissez faire, so long as it runs his way. Portsmouth and Sheppey can go to the devil, just as the aircraft industry could also go to the devil when there were no more orders for it.
  If this is the Government's policy the hon. Gentleman should say so, and not seek to evade the issue by silence. Anyone who represents an industrial constituency knows the vast importance of armaments orders. When it suited the Government of the day appeals were made to the patriotism of armament factories to give priority to Government orders. By and large both employers and employees in industry responded. Now the pattern has changed, and, like other problems with which the Government cannot deal, it is swept under the carpet. Before we leave the Vote we ought to hear more from the Government about what they propose to do.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I shall not reiterate what I said earlier because I am satisfied with having got what I said in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I want to pursue the matter in another way to try to get more satisfaction.
  On page 25 of the Estimates it is stated that
  "The procedure for fixing the rates of wages of industrial employees… is explained under Vote 8, Section 1…"
  If one refers to Vote 8, Section 1, page 107, it says:
  "The rates of wages payable to all civilian industrial employees in Admiralty Service… are determined by negotiation between the Official and Trade Union sides of the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council…"

  1257
  Will the Civil Lord give an undertaking that if be receives representations from the trades unions concerned he will consider them? Also, provided that they give an undertaking to state a reasoned case based on the observations that I have made, will he be prepared to receive them so that more satisfaction can be gained?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry. I to have a little more information from the Government about their policy for industrial workers. After all, round our coasts there are large communities which in the past have been entirely dependent on the Navy. Portsmouth and Chatham have been referred to, and there is Rosyth, in Scotland. When the Government decide on a policy which is detrimental to these places, we are entitled to say that it is not good enough to shut down the shipyards and allow these communities to become derelict. We are entitled to know what is to happen in future.
  There is a complete failure on the part of the Admiralty to look forward to the future of the industrial communities which have been created by the process of history. Not long ago the Prime Minister was asked whether, if there were disarmament, the Government had plans for absorbing the workers who would become redundant. The Prime Minister glibly answered that all that had been thought of, but as regards the Navy in this Vote we get——
  The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am not sure that this comes under Vote 2. I think that the question of dockyards and the personnel of dockyards comes under Vote 8.
  Mr. Hughes: I am sorry. I understood that it came under the question of wages of industrial workers, on page 25 of the Estimates.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am Chairman of the Admiralty Industrial Council, and within my terms of reference I will consider any representations I receive, but the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) will understand that I have to work within those terms of reference. I will endeavour to answer the points he made in his
  1258
  speech by letter when I have given them proper consideration.
  I hope that the words of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will not be read 'outside the Committee, or by those who sit for dockyard towns, as meaning that in any way these great dockyards are being run down. We are investing a great deal of money in them, and we would not be doing that if there were not an assured future for them. It would be out of order for me to go any further on that point.
  When we closed Sheerness—and the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) knows this—we made many special arrangements such as trying to find alternative employment in the Chatham Dockyard. When we have shut down industrial establishments like that, we have made special provisions to try to find alternative employment in nearby towns. It would be wrong for the Committee to give the impression to dockyard towns that those towns have not an assured future. In fact, Portsmouth is busier than ever. It will have the "Albion" conversion in hand, but if I said any more I would be out of order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £14,505,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962.

  Vote 6. Scientific Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £21,098,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydro-graphic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: I wish to raise two short points on these Votes. First, under Subheads A and B, the Royal Greenwich Observatory. I wonder if we could be told a little about the move from Greenwich to Herstmonceux, whether it has been completed and how successful it has been. It is known that there have been some delays, but

  1259
  I also believe that observation at Herstmonceux is very good and that this is regarded as a satisfactory move. However, I have seen very little in the newspapers on this subject.
  Secondly, I wish to ask about the National Institute of Oceanography which, I believe, does very important work. When we remember that 70 per cent. of the earth's surface is covered by sea we realise that our knowledge of what goes on in the oceans is very limited and that this Institute serves a useful purpose. I am glad that the Admiralty has been able to get permission from the Treasury to rebuild "Discovery II". While that ship has done excellent work, it is not one of the most modern vessels. It is excellent that money is to be found to replace her. We are given a little information about this, but I hope the Civil Lord will tell us more about it. I hope he will be able to tell us that when the replacement is made it will be a really up-to-date vessel and not skimped.
  I should also like an assurance that there will be money to operate the vessel. I think I am right in saying that in the case of "Discovery II" the Institute has had difficulty in commissioning her for more than a comparatively few months at sea. If it is to carry on this very important research work into the oceans, which it is equipped to do, it needs to commission the vessel for very much more than has been the case in the past. The Institute, to a certain extent, has had to look for contributions from the Commonwealth as well as from the Treasury. I do not think anyone would dispute that the resources have been somewhat limited. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend can tell the Committee something about this.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: I wish to ask the Civil Lord a few questions about the administration of the observatory at the Cape of Good Hope.
  A little time ago, following the shameful episode when British sailors were put ashore from H.M.S. Victorious "on the grounds that the colour of their skins might offend Dr. Verwoerd, I asked the Minister of Defence some questions about the system of records kept in the Service Departments which
  1260
  enables ratings and other personnel to be identified according to the colour of their skin or their supposed racial admixture. That raised a rather important, indeed a profoundly important, question of records, because this was something which it had never been thought proper or desirable to do in any other Ministry. Neither, I think, have any of the Service Departments had trouble of this sort before.
  The Minister replied that such records were kept as was necessary to help the commander of the establishment to reach certain decisions. In other words, it was implied that this was a matter for the commander of the vessel to decide. We were allowed to presume that he merely said tactfully that certain faces would not fit. That may be the policy as handed down, but it does not quite answer the question about records at headquarters. It would seem, if we are asked to vote this money for the maintenance of the observatory, that there must be some headquarter's record of the personnel there. Therefore, I wish to put again to the Civil Lord my question as to what is the basis of this classification. No one would admit that any racial classification is possible since there could not possibly be any question of inquiry—at least I hope not—into people's ancestry. How is it possible to keep records at headquarters which enable such establishments to be maintained without offending Dr. Verwoerd or any Government in any other part of the world who might have prejudices about certain facial characteristics?
  I suppose that in this case the records and the administration must cover Service personnel and civilian personnel. I wonder if the Admiralty lays down any conditions in the appointment of scientists, observers, meteorologists, astronomers and so on at this observatory. I wonder whether there creeps into advertisements the phrase, "Sorry, no colour", or something of that kind, or how it is managed to avoid offending Dr. Verwoerd? Could the answer be—and this would be the most cheerful news we have had—that this has gone on happily without it being found necessary to eject people because they did not look as the hon. Gentleman himself looks when he comes back from a skiing holiday and no such problem has arisen?

  1261
  I am sure the Navy has the same sort of experience in these matters as the other Services. I am sure that hon. and gallant Members on either side of the Committee who have served in the Min, would not like this matter treated flippantly, as if it were only a political matter. From our recollections of Service life we know that this sort of thing does not arise when we are members of a team working in danger. I remember the case of a young engineer whom I taught at school and who came from the West Indies. He had a face about the colour of the Dispatch Box, or a little darker. He became the captain of a bomber and his team went through a couple of tours.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but something to do with personnel in a bomber has nothing whatever to do with this Vote.
  Mr. Parkin: I am sorry about that, Sir William. I had hoped it had because I hoped that the feeling that not only had we no colour bar but simply did not notice these differences would have been so well established in the Services that it would demand a major effort of office organisation to comply with the conditions necessary to make the sort of classification which would enable people to be ejected from Her Majesty's ships or Her Majesty's observatory at the Cape of Good Hope. I am asking the Civil Lord to give all the details he can about the administration of the observatory and necessary assurances about it.
  6.47 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I hope the Civil Lord will not waste one penny in keeping additional records such as have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin).
  On this Vote I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) in congratulating the Civil Lord on the extra grant to the National Institute for Oceanography. I agree with my hon. Friend that the case for spending more money on research into what goes on in the deep seas is well worth while. If this country were to spend a fraction of the money on this kind of research which the Americans and the Russians put into space research
  1262
  we should very likely find that we had more useful dividends with good results.
  I am, however, a little disturbed about this Vote having risen by over £1,700,000. I know that it is always considered almost irreverent to criticise anything described as research and development, but with some experience of these matters I know that a great deal of what passes for research and development frequently has very little connection with research and development in actual fact. The big fee in this Vote is to be found on page 64 under Subheads N and 0 and the heading "Scientific Research and Experiment". I see that the salaries and wages of those working on this task have gone up by nearly £660,000 and that the amount spent on equipment has gone up over £1 million. These two items account almost entirely for the increase in the Vote.
  During our earlier debates on naval affairs, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said more than once that one of the reasons for the high cost of the Navy as a whole and the aggregate of these Votes was that the Navy was made up of a little of everything. I think it would be more accurate to say that the Navy since the war has developed into what, in effect, is an experimental Navy. The fleet is largely made up of prototypes, and it is that fact which has tended ever since the war to go on swelling the research and development Vote. I feel that the time has come when we must pass out of the experimental phase and make up our minds what sort of Navy we want. We must be prepared to put, perhaps, not more money but as much money into the teeth—the end product—and to economise in the ancillaries of which this research and development is probably one.
  As I have said, it is extremely unpopular to criticise research and development. I know that these Estimates must have been drawn up some months ago when, perhaps, the difficult financial position of the country today was not fully realised. I am sure that every hon. Member on this side of the Committee, as well as a good many hon. Members opposite, will agree that the paramount need at the moment is to try to reduce Government expenditure. The appeal which I make to the Civil

  1263
  Lord is to underspend this Vote. It is quite impossible to criticise it in detail because those responsible for drawing it up take every precaution to see that one does not know exactly where the money is going. I can only say to the Civil Lord that if he comes back in a year's time, not with a Supplementary Estimate but with a report that this Vote has been substantially underspent, he will have earned and deserved the gratitude of both sides of the Committee.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. John Dugdale: I support what has just been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) because it seems to me that there is every likelihood that there could be a saving, particularly if there were proper co-operation with our allies. It may be that there is and it may be that there is not, but I always have the fear that the people doing this research are doing it too much in the spirit of competition—of the Englishmen saying, "I am going to do something better than the Americans",—so that both spend an enormous amount of money and discover exactly the same thing. I hope that can be avoided, but I do not know how it can be. I wish that the Civil Lord would look into this, in a way which we cannot do in this Committee because we have not the information, to see what can be done.
  6.54 p.m.
  Commander Kerans: I consider that this work is certainly worth while. The hydrographic work in our surveying ships, which goes on throughout the world year after year, gets very little publicity. The hydrographic survey fleet is a very silent service. It goes on year after year with very little publicity, but it is an excellent training ground for young officers and ratings who care to go into that branch of the Service. I hope that the Civil Lord will ensure that the recruiting officers know how youngsters can get into the surveying service.
  As regards the chart depôts referred to on page 76, can the Civil Lord tell us if he has now decided to reduce the number of our chart depôts in the United Kingdom in order to save on the Vote and why we should not have a depôt
  1264
  centrally situated in the United Kingdom to supply all our services and thereby reduce the staff?
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: The Civil Lord must understand that there is a considerable amount of anxiety on both sides of the Committee about this Vote.
  This is one of the most alarming Votes that we have to consider. Alarm is created by the rather substantial increases in almost every instance. There are only three instances in which there there is— a decrease—£700, £10,200 and £3,540. When we look at Vote 6, page 62, we see that for the Royal Greenwich Observatory alone there is an increased estimate of about £30,000.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: To which page is the hon. Gentleman referring?
  Mr. Wilkins: I am referring to page 62—Royal Greenwich Observatory: Salaries, wages and allowances; astronomical equipment and contingencies. I hope that the Civil Lord will be able to tell us what is involved in the term, "and contingencies." It is stated immediately below that at the Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope there is to be an increase in salaries, wages and allowances, and equipment of about £15,000—£30,000 increase on Greenwich Observatory and £15,000 on the Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope.
  Then we have the hydrographic department, where we see the only reduction. On page 64, we see an increase in salaries, wages and allowances alone for scientific research and experiment of £659,000. Under Subhead 0 there is an increase of £1,027,000, and the total increases are £l¾ million. The interesting thing is that it is almost the identical sum which the Minister of Health is trying to save by increased charges on dentures and spectacles. Yet no one raises any objection in this Committee. It could have gone by the board without comment unless hon. Members on this side had drawn attention to it. But let me say that the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) also, scrutinises these accounts with very great care and often suggests ways and means for economies.
  I do not think that the Committee should allow this Estimate to go through

  1265
  unless justifiable evidence is given to us of the need for the amazing increase. I hope that the Civil Lord is fully prepared to tell us what is responsible for the £1,027.000 increase under Subhead O, on page 64—equipment, materials, etc. for research establishments, contract work on research and miscellaneous research expenses. It is a terrific increase at a time when the Government are cheeseparing and mean in the way in which they are dealing with the human problems con- fronting the country. How this vast sum of money can appear in an Estimate with no one hardly batting an eyelid about it, passes my comprehension, but I hope that there is a good explanation for it.
  6.59 p.m.
  Sir John Maitland: We should not leave this Vote without paying tribute to the work of the Hydrographic Department which has done enormous service to the rest of the world by providing charts and sailing instructions and all the other amenities for safe navigation. It is a matter often forgotten. It is one of the great services which the Royal Navy has performed for the benefit of the world in general over the past years. It is, of course, also true that by being the greatest chart producers in the world we have a very large business. The Board of Admiralty is to that extent in the position of a board of directors. I cannot help feeling that more could be done to save the country money by the sale of charts and sailing instructions and other information.
  I know that I must not talk about appropriations in aid, and I should never dream of doing so, Sir William. This is a slightly different matter, because they are really profits of a business. There is a table on page 85 which shows the rather small profits which have been made recently. They have varied but little. I should like my hon. Friend to assure us that the most is being made of this great international business which is doing so much good for the world. The figures seem to be fairly constant. Have the prices been put up? What have we done to make the very most of this great national asset?
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Paget: First, under Subhead E, Vote 6, the Hydrographic Department,
  1266
  are the gentlemen there listed shore-based? I understand that they are. Are they the crews of the survey ships? I understand they are not.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: That is right.
  Mr. Paget: In that event, why have they to be serving sailors? I should have thought that this was really a business in which the experience of sailors is of tremendous value, and, as has been said already, it is extremely important to provide careers. This is surely the sort of department in which jobs might be available for retired officers of great experience. Why, in this branch, do we not civilianise?
  The other branch where the same thing seems to apply is that dealt with under Subhead L, on page 78, the Weapons Department. Why do we want a captain, a commander, and five naval assistants to produce compasses? Here again, this seems to be a civilian occupation.
  Finally, coming to the very last point made by the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Sir J. Maitland), it has always struck me—I say this against my interests as a consumer—that the charts, considering what they provide, are very cheap. I should have thought that this was one case where the market would stand a good deal more. I know that it is not strictly in order, but I make the
  suggestion.
  7.3 p.m.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: By far the biggest subhead of this Vote is Subhead O, Equipment, Materials &c. for Research Establishments, Contract Work on Research and Miscellaneous Research Expenses. The total figure is £14,816,000, which is an increase on last year of £1,027,000. If hon. Members will refer to the last paragraph on page 63, the Explanatory Notes, they will see that
  "Provision is made under this Vote for stores to be obtained from the Ministry of Aviation and the War Office to the extent of £5,000 and £1,000 respectively"
  and then we are referred to the note on page 99.
  On page 99, we see that the Admiralty is purchasing from the Ministry of Aviation no less than £61,400,000 worth of goods, of which £5,000 occur under this Vote. I will try my best to confine myself to that rather than to the rest of the £61 million.

  1267
  I wonder what this is for. We are running into the danger—this was raised at Question Time today, and I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) raised the same point—of having so many different people indulging in various types of research that there is duplication and, as a result, the taxpayer is beginning to suffer unduly. I should be the first, if I possibly could be—if other people had not said it already—to assert that we must keep up to date with our research and development, but we have here a field which is becoming more and more complicated.
  Moreover, every time we see the Estimates we find that there is a process called the bulk agreement adopted—I have referred to this on other Estimates, notably the Air Estimates—and there is a tendency for Government Departments more and more to bury the procedure by which the money is obtained and still more to bury what it is spent on.
  I appreciate that in defence matters we have to have regard for security and that, obviously, secret projects must be kept secret for as long as possible. Indeed, I have always understood that secrecy should include not only the details, but the existence of the details. I do not ask my hon. Friend to tell us anything which would fall into that category. Nevertheless, we have in mind, on the one hand, the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough and the cost of that, and then, on the other, we are referred to the Ministry of Aviation here and we are being asked to consider this before the Estimates of the Ministry of Aviation have been published. I take strong exception to this. In my view, we are entitled, for that reason, to probe these matters a little more deeply than we have so far done.
  When dealing with the Service Estimates now on these matters, all we can go on, as regards the Ministry of Aviation, is its last year's Estimates plus any Supplementary Estimates it may have published since then. We have no more, so we cannot see what bite it is making or what saving is being given to the Ministry of Aviation in relation to its total Vote this year. I wish simply to take this occasion to protest at the pro-
  1268
  cedure which is being followed. The more Governments spend, the more careful they ought to be in telling us how they are spending the money and why. In fact, precisely the opposite is happening. I deeply regret that so much time was wasted earlier this afternoon on points of order so that we have not time to go into these matters in far greater detail.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not proceed further to discuss what happened on points of order. That subject is quite outside this Vote.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Having regard to the short time we now have, I do not wish unduly to probe these matters. I should like to have said a great deal more on the subject, had there been time, but I do not want to hold up the Army or Air Estimates, and that is why I sit down now.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The remarks made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke) go to the heart of the problem. We are discussing in this Committee specialised Estimates which ought to be carefully examined by hon. Members with specialist experience long before they come here in this form. There is an item of £21,098,000 for scientific services. There are 22 pages of highly specialised technical and scientific detail beyond the comprehension of anyone who does not devote special study to the matter. I submit that we are being involved in enormous public expenditures on vague projects described as scientific research.
  I am all in favour of research, provided that it is in the national interest, but we must avoid duplication in our research activities. Not long ago, the Minister of Science was appointed. To what extent is he co-ordinating expenditure on the various services, especially the services in the Defence Estimates? Considering the length and extent of these Estimates, I think that the Committee is entitled to devote to them more of the probing and examination for which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) used to call in the days of the Labour Government.
  How much educated manpower is absorbed in the £21,098,000? Scientific education in Scotland is being starved.

  1269
  We cannot find scientific teachers for the lowest levels in our secondary schools. We face enormous difficulties in providing adequate scientific training at the levels where it should be.
  I agree entirely with the idea of research, whether in the sea or in the sky. We should not co-operate only with our allies; we should co-operate with other nations, also. Why is it necessary for America, Russia and other countries to be developing their own specialised research services at enormous expense to their citizens? I should like a very careful probe into this to see whether the Minister for Science can co-ordinate the various research departments under the heads of various Ministries. How many civil Departments have this enormous sum of £21 million to play with for research? Compared with research into housing problems and hospital building, this is a gigantic sum.
  We have heard much about inter-Service rivalry in the United States. We have heard how the Army fights the Air Force and how the Air Force fights the Navy. I suspect that something similar is going on in this country. We should set up a committee of hon. Gentlemen who are qualified to examine these matters to see if there is unnecessary duplication.
  I am surprised that the Astronomer Royal receives such a small salary as £4,013. I do not contend that his salary should be substantially increased, but the Astronomer Royal is a very important scientific personality, with great knowledge. In this age he is very important to the national interest. How does his salary of £4,013 compare with the salaries of the chairman of the National Coal Board, the chairman of the British Transport Commission, the chairman of Guinness, or the chairman of I.C.I.? How does it compare with the salary of a big executive?
  The Explanatory Notes to Vote 6 list a whole range of scientific activities, which seem to open out endless vistas of expenditure if the House of Commons does not exercise its right to scrutinise. For example, how does the Royal Greenwich Observatory co-ordinate its activities with, say, Jodrell Bank? Are there half-a-dozen different astronomical telescopes in the country all watching or trying to watch the latest Russian
  1270
  sputniks or the rockets going to Venus or the Moon? Is there unnecessary duplication? I suspect that there is. I am not sure that we should spend so much money on studying the stars when there is so much to be studied on earth.
  Is there any co-ordination with the Minister of Aviation? The first paragraph of the Explanatory Notes, on page 67, uses these words:
  "other observations of an astronomical character are stellar photography, measurement of the distances of stars …"
  Does it matter very much if we do not know the distance between Mars and Venus if we have not the money to solve the housing problem and if money is needed to such an extent that prescription charges are being increased? I do not care what the Americans or the Russians are doing.
  The Estimates mention space research. I am more interested in the space which is required in my constituency for people who are living six or seven in a room. We seem to be involved in purely academic intellectual research which is largely irrelevant to the social problems of our times. When I think of the £21,098,000, this huge sum which is being invested in scientific research, I wonder whether it is not taking away the brains and equipment which are necessary for research in industry.
  The country's future does not depend merely on having a strong Navy. Nobody has an idea what it will do in the next war. Our capacity to live as a nation depends upon our industry being adapted to modern needs. This immense sum is absolutely irrelevant to the problems facing the country today. I shall vote against this Vote also, as a protest against this big increase and this unexplained expenditure at a time when the Government are cutting down the social services, cutting down their expenditure on housing, and cutting their expenditure on the things which we know are practical needs today and spending it in a way for which there is no real explanation. No attempt has been made to justify these astronomical estimates.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I will start by considering the Vote as a whole and then deal with the various points which have been raised. The Vote as a whole has

  1271
  risen by £1.7 million. As the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) said, the great majority of this is on Subheads "N" and "O". This may seem a large sum, but one must remember that it is only just over £21 million out of a total Navy Vote of £400 million. We are devoting 5 per cent. of the Navy Vote to research and development.
  Considering it in that light, do hon. Members really think that we are overspending on research and development? The well-being of the Navy for the future, certainly for ten years' hence and possibly for even twenty years' hence, may depend on the amount of effort which we put into this Vote, and the weapons and the ships and everything else which come out of it must surely be of tremendous importance to the safety of this country and our vital interests overseas.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My
  hon. Friend said that the expenditure on research and development is 5 per cent. of the total Vote. Quite substantial sums in the other Votes are related to this Vote, although we cannot discuss them. The true figure spent on research and development must be a great deal more than £21 million.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is correct. The true figure is more than £21 million, because there is the Ministry of Aviation side which it is not in order to discuss. Besides the Vote we are discussing the Ministry of Aviation undertakes its own research and development. It develops and buys its own aircraft stores and aircraft and hands them over to us under a different Vote. I still think that we are right to spend a considerable effort on our research and development, and I should like to highlight those aspects of our programme which are drawing extra money in the coming year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) asked about the progress being made in the reconstruction of Herstmonceux. The new 98-inch Isaac Newton telescope, now being erected, will not only be used by the Royal Greenwich Observatory but will also be available for general use by other astronomers in the United
  1272
  Kingdom. This is the largest telescope project which we have initiated in this country for many a long day. We recognise that it is expensive. In the long run, it will cost us £23,¾ million, of which half will come from Navy Votes and half from the Treasury.
  It has been said quite correctly that Herstmonceux has proved a very good site for observation. Last year was one of the worst climatic years in memory, but we had useful observation on 207 nights. In the previous year there was useful observation on 260 nights.
  Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the hydrographic side and, in particular, to oceanography and the importance of the new vessel to replace the "Discovery II". Here, again, we felt that it was essential for our undersea warfare research and development that we should at the same time undertake increased oceanographic research. This vessel will cost in all some £570,000 this year. Of this sum, £285,000 will come out of this Vote, and another £285,000 from the Development Fund which pays on behalf of others who will also gain from the ship's work.
  The vessel's maximum range will be 15,000 miles, and it will have a cruising speed of between 9 and 10 knots. Its principal dimensions will be 260 feet, and it will have a loaded draught of 18 feet. Its construction will be right up to Lloyd's standards, and its layout will meet our latest scientific needs. It is planned to have a scientific plotting room at boat deck level; electronic, hydrographic, biological, chemical and general laboratories; a long-temperature laboratory, and an underwater instrument room with a trunk leading through the bottom of the ship.
  These facts will show the Committee that we are modernising our methods of oceanographic research, and I am glad to have the Committee's endorsement of its importance. As chairman of the National Oceanographic Council I take special interest in its work. I have recently visited its headquarters and I endeavour to make sure that the work is proceeding as economically, efficiently and quickly as possible.
  The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) asked about a number of aspects of the Vote, and it would be very difficult for me to keep in order if I attempted to answer all of them.

  1273
  On the general policy point, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said. The Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope is entirely manned by civilians, so there is no question of any colour bar or colour discrimination in respect of Service men. There are no uniformed staff there.
  Two hon. Members asked about Subheads N and 0, so perhaps I might just deal with those. I recognise that there is a considerable increase in salaries, wages and allowances, but it will be noticed that our numbers have not gone up very materially. The increase in salaries is the result of keeping our scientific staff in step with scientific salaries outside, thus truly reflecting the demand for scientists occurring in all parts of industry and in the Government service as well. At the same time, on the wages side, we have had to make a slightly increased allowance as a result of the introduction on the industrial side of the 42-hour week, which adds to overtime payments and payments of that nature.
  The emphasis in these subheads has been on undersea warfare, for example, at the Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment at Portland, and only to a lesser extent to surface warfare at, for instance, Surface Weapons Establishment at Portsdown. We have emphasised, and this fits in with the oceanographic side, the vital importance in a nuclear submarine era of underwater research, and this is reflected in an increase in staff and salaries.
  I now turn to the increase shown under Subhead O. The biggest increase there was a sum in excess of £1 million on research and development contracts. This is not in the nuclear field—we are to spend about the same amount as last year on research and development of nuclear propulsion—but in the conventional field and, again, mainly on underwater warfare.
  The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) ——
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I tried to draw the attention of my hon. Friend and of the Committee to the point in page 99 where we see a sum of £5,000 paid to the Ministry of Aviation. It appears to come under the bulk agreement arrangements. Does it mean a big delivery from the Ministry of Aviation in the last year—£5,000 worth of more
  1274
  aircraft or something, than the Department had before?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was coming to that point, but perhaps I might answer in; hon. Friend at once. The £5,000 is for the Ministry of Aviation. We do some work for the Ministry of Aviation on the compass side and call on that Ministry for certain stocks to enable us to do the work. The £5.000 is accounted for in that way.
  The right hon. Member for West Bromwich asked about allied cooperation in research and development. This has been a little disappointing in the past—interdependence has not been quite so "inter" as had been hoped—but there are some very encouraging developments with our N.A.T.O. allies. We are pursuing that, because I think we would all agree that this is a way in which to save our scientific manpower and an amount of research and development effort directed into the various channels.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) asked about the chart depots, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland). It is true that we maintain six depots—at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Rosyth, Gibraltar, Singapore and Malta. There was another at Sheerness, but that was closed down about two years ago. Her Majesty's ships carry as many charts as can reasonably be maintained aboard, and when they move from one station to another it is generally necessary to exchange the sets of charts they carry for others. It is necessary to have three depots at home, near ships' bases, so that we can provide the best service for the fleet. At one time, we had a central chart depot, but that system broke down during the Munich crisis, because we could not deliver an entire set of charts as quickly as was necessary. That is why we have the added depots.
  There is the question of whether we are charging the right price for our charts. We always have this matter under review. We feel that the Admiralty's reputation as chart makers to the world has not boo lightly earned. but we have to recognise that American competition in chart production is becoming intense, and we have to charge what the traffic will hear. If we charge

  1275
  very much more we may lose business to the American chart makers——
  Mr. Dugdale: Are not American wages much higher than ours, and would it not therefore be easy for us to undersell them?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: They may be able to spread their overheads and thus gain business. However, we are endeavouring to achieve a return for the investment we have put into this field. In 1959 we produced 1·9 million charts, of which 1·2 million were sold to the general public. We are not slow to consider new types of chart. After consulting the yachting authorities we are at present trying to produce a miniature chart in colour that might be of use to small boat owners and users. I hope that that will be a popular line and will expand our sales. As has been said, our revenue from this source is at present £345,000.
  The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asked about Subhead E, which deals with the number of naval assistants. I would answer that nineteen naval assistants are engaged in the maintenance of sailing directions, light lists, notices to mariners, and tide publications, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that this work needs a background of some practical sea experience.
  Of these 19 naval assistants, only 10 are on active service and 9 are retired on civil rates of pay. We are considering whether we can employ more retired officers or civilians in the place of active service officers. I announced that we were trying to increase the number of retired officers in this service, among others, during the debate on Admiralty Headquarters. We will certainly examine this aspect very carefully, and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his suggestion. The hon. and learned Member asked why the price of the Compass Division of the Weapons Department had gone up. I forget his exact point.
  Mr. Paget: I asked whether this, too, was not a case for civilianisation.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I now recall the point. The reason was that we consider it necessary that these largely retired officers should be responsible overall for the in-
  1276
  stallation and testing of the compasses in ships. They should, therefore, have fairly up-to-date sea experience. They should be able to speak from practical experience. That is why the director is a retired captain. We must have people with practical and fairly recent sea experience if they are to have the confidence of the fleet in the testing and installation of these latest compasses and navigational instruments. I hope that my answer covers the points which have been raised.
  Mr. Parkin: I asked a number of questions about the recruiting of personnel to the observatory at the Cape of Good Hope. I know that the subject is distasteful to the Civil Lord and I did not expect a full answer. What I had not expected, however, was that the hon. Gentleman would attempt to shelter behind the rules of order. He did not ask for a Ruling from the Chair, but he implied that he would be out of order if he replied to my questions about the advertisements and the method of enrolling.
  It is true that the procedure for fixing the numbers and scales of salaries and allowances of civilian non-industrial staff is explained under Vote 12, Subhead A, and it is true that we are not able to discuss Vote 12. On the other hand, the Vote for the observatory is set out on page 68 of the Estimates and the Explanatory Note on page 69 contains the somewhat sinister sentence that
  "The rates for locally entered personnel are assessed in relation to local standards."
  I ask you to rule, Mr. Williams, that the Civil Lord would not have been out of Order had he chosen to answer my questions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £21,098,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962.

  Vote 10. Works, Buildings, Machinery and Repairs at Home and Abroad
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £20,316,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, machinery and repairs at

  1277
  home arid abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: There are two sinister lines in the Explanatory Note for Vote 10, which state:
  "Large new works, so far as is economical, are carried out by contract, the tenders being either for a lump sum or on a schedule of prices"
  In Vote 10, I should like to know to what extent the principle of contracting as against the principle of direct labour is applied. I have my suspicions that this substantial sum of £20 million on contracts and new works could be considerably reduced if the Admiralty had its own direct labour department.
  As a member of a local authority, I am always suspicious when I see vague remarks of that kind about
  "Large new works, so far as is economical",
  being carried out by contract. Who decides this? I should like to know something more about the big contractors who contract for the work in Vote 10. We all know that contracting has become a huge vested interest. There are firms like Wimpeys, big, organised, private vested interests, which make profits out of cement and from every kind of material used in the building trade. I should like to see this broken down. No local authority would present a bill for £20 million for works without the greatest possible scrutiny. The county council of which I used to be a member would probe closely even a fraction of that sum. What profit is being made by contractors out of this big Estimate of £21,760,000?
  I should like to know what are the relations between the people who give out the contracts and those who get them. It is not that I am suspicious minded, but I have had a great deal of experience of watching contracts. Is there not a possibility that this huge sum could be reduced if the Admiralty applied the principle of direct labour on a large scale? We know that local authorities use it and that it is possible to reduce the figures by using direct labour as against private contracting.
  How much material is being used? Again I suspect, as I said earlier, that
  1278
  a big sum is being made by the cement and building material combines out of all the Service Estimates. I am not satisfied that we are probing these matters. We are letting these sums go through in a way which results in very large expenditures and contributes to the astronomical increase, as well as being inflationary. In a few weeks' time we shall be discussing the Budget and we shall have to pay these large sums that we are now passing through so quickly.
  I suggest that the whole of these Estimates should be examined early in the year by a Committee which has the opportunity of examining meticulously all the contracts and of seeing whether sums could not be saved in innumerable ways in the building trade activity which is being carried out by the Admiralty. I for one shall again vote against this expenditure because there is no adequate explanation that the principle of direct labour is being applied in the Admiralty on this Vote.
  7.40 p.m.
  Sir J. Maitland: There are two questions I want to ask on this Vote. I am never very happy about the lands branch because I have always felt that it ought to be worked between the three Services. We investigated the whole question of the lands branches of the Services in Committee last year and the general impression then was—and I retain it completely unshaken—that there would be considerable savings if the same work for all the Services were done by one organisation. I would ask the Civil Lord in how many cases in the Navy is lands branch work, land agents work, being done by one of the Services for the others. I know it is done in certain cases and I should be grateful if he could give me some more information about that. I cannot see why, if it is done in some places, it cannot be done in others as well.
  The second point is this. There is an item for purchases of lands and buildings of £300,000. It seems a sort of standard figure, and I do not like standard figures in Estimates. I always feel very suspicious when I see the same figure given year in and year out. It does not make a great deal of sense to me. When I tried to follow this up I

  1279
  found that there is no indication whatever on what that money is to be spent. In a Navy which is getting smaller it is not easy to understand why, when we need all the money we can find for the teeth, we should be spending such a large proportion of it on the tail. Upon this Vote particularly I hope that the Civil Lord will be able to underspend this year.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I should like to offer a word or two in support of the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and, indeed, the case made also by the hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) opposite. It seems to me a quite appalling thing that detailed Estimates such as we are considering should go through with so very little examination or check or criticism or information. I do not profess to be any kind of an expert on defence expenditure. I certainly am not, but I do look to these Estimates to provide me with the minimum of information in order to form some kind of a view about whether we are getting value for money or not or whether money could be saved or not.
  Hon. Members opposite, and, indeed, on this side, too, are most anxious about wasteful expenditure when our expenses are going up so very much, and one can contrast the interest 'of the Government —in the Health Service for instance—in controlling and reducing expenditure and securing higher contributions with the extreme, lackadaisical complacency with which these Estimates are rushed through with little examination, little criticism and virtually no information which is really informative. If they were to apply to these Estimates the principle which the Minister of Health is applying to the National Health Service and say that these things should not be paid for out of general taxation levied according to means to pay but should be paid for by those who consume them, there would be much more meticulous examination of them than there is. I am not sure, if we have that kind of principle at all, that this kind of expenditure——
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): These are all paid for by
  1280
  taxation, so we are considering them under those conditions, are we not?
  Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged, Mr. Williams. I hope I am not offending against the rules of order in any way. I am going in a moment, when I have completed the sentence I was in the middle of, to look at one or two items in this Vote 10 from that point of view for the sake of getting information of this kind.
  I was going to say that if there were any such principle—which I do not believe in and do not approve of—it would be much better to apply it in the case of these Estimates and if those who believe in them should pay for them and those who do not should not, than to apply it to the Health Service.
  However, coming closely to Vote 10 I look at Part I. It makes a sort of show of analysing the expenditure into different parts. Part I B is
  "New works, additions and alterations amounting to £10,000 each and upwards."
  The amount covered by that this year is £7,313,000, which is a trifle less than it was last year but not so much less as to make any significant difference. From the point of view of my hon. Friend's suggestion of examining whether any potential saving could be made if we did not do it by a contract system but by applying some other system, there is little information here which would help.
  I suggest that it would help the Committee a great deal if, instead of being told that this amount was being spent on projects of this nature each of which cost £10,000 or more, we were told, exactly how many projects were covered by the £7,313,000, or if we were told what was the average expenditure per project. Of course, if this was only £10,000 each it would mean 713,000 different projects, but £10,000 is the minimum. There is no maximum indicated in the Vote, and nothing to show what we are to get in the way of new works, additions and alterations, and therefore no way in which the attention of Members of the Committee can be directed to particular projects so that they might be analysed to see whether there was any waste of expenditure involved.
  What is the good of telling us that £7,313,000 has been spent on projects in respect of which there is a minimum expenditure of £10,000 if we are not told

  1281
  what is the maximum expenditure in any particular case and when we are not told what is the average expenditure per project? Why should we not be told this? It is not suggested, surely, that it would not be useful to know? Obviously it would be useful to know, and given in this way, although there is a show on the printed page of giving the information, there is really no information at all which is of value to us of any kind in judging whether this Estimate is excessive or not or whether it could be pruned without any less for the money.
  Let us come on to Part II. Here we get the rest of the subdivision. These also are new works, additions and alterations, but they are described as "minor" ones. Why are they minor ones? Because they cost under £10,000 each. But what the average is in this case we do not know either, so that we do not know what is the basis on which a project is a new work, on the one hand, or a minor new work on the other. It could be £9,950 in the one case, and that is a minor one, or £10,500 on the other hand, in which case it is not a minor work but another. What is the good of a subdivision of that kind, giving no information at all as to the relevant size of the projects? If we knew, we could pick out one here or there or somewhere else and then see what the price of the project was and how it was arrived at.
  It is not always a lump sum: sometimes the tenders are on a schedule of prices. But what schedule of prices? What was the schedule of prices? One must know that before knowing whether a saving could be made, as we might if we had a public works department looking after it. On principle, surely, it is better to have a public works department. I do not know why we should do this work by private enterprise when one remembers the absolute scandal of the cost-plus system during the war. Those who were in the House of Commons at the time made a concerted attack on the Government because of their complete lack of control of that system.
  This encourages one to think that if a little more information were given we might make some useful contribution to the control of expenditure in the House of Commons, but not while the
  1282
  Committee examines the Estimates in the spirit in which we are now examining them. There are, I think, exactly six back benchers on the Government side of the Committee and not very many more on this side, though after all the Government have a bigger number than we have and therefore our proportion at least is better.
  While this happens, the Government are not to be blamed for thinking that it is unnecessary to give us the information to enable us to have a useful discussion, but I hope that they will not think it unnecessary in the future. I hope that they will not think that the kind of comment that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and I have been making is not a useful, profitable comment to make. I hope that next year we shall have information that tells us something instead of this empty verbiage.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: It is very late and we were late starting the debate and therefore I do not want to detain the Committee, but I should like to direct the Committee's attention to Vote 10, Part III, E. I do that particularly in order to ask my hon. Friend to pay attention to one fact when he is placing new repair and maintenance contracts. This plea covers not only repair and maintenance but other matters in the Estimates which I believe it would be out of order to mention tonight. I would ask the Civil Lord to pay attention to the shipyards in this country.
  We in Northern Ireland are most grateful to the Civil Lord who recently visited our yards. We are grateful for the work that has been done there in the past. Many fine ships have been built and repaired in the yards of Belfast and only recently the flagship of the Indian Navy was completely refitted there. But we are facing serious redundancy and over 7,000 men will be thrown out of work in the next few months. It is against that background that I wish to intervene. In placing work under this Vote, I would ask the Civil Lord to note how much would be lost to the shipping industry if——
  Mr. Willis: Does not Vote 10, Part III, E refer to repairs and maintenance attaching to naval dockyards and buildings?
  The Temporary Chairman: Yes, that refers to naval dockyards, but I think that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) is dealing with other dockyards.
  Mr. McMaster: The Explanatory Note on page 145 of the Estimates states under "E—Repairs and Maintenance":
  "Provision is included for the upkeep of buildings, docks, fuelling depots, airfields, etc., in all establishments at home and abroad and, with the exception of H.M. Dockyards"——
  The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. Member has now raised doubts in his own mind. He has certainly raised doubts in mine. He should come off that very quickly now and get on to Vote 10.
  Mr. McMaster: If I may finish the quotation:
  "and also other special services, of the electrical and mechanical installations therein; repairs of the machinery and equipment purchased under Subhead F are also borne by this Subhead."
  This covers repairs and work carried out in the shipyards of Belfast, the Clyde and the Tyne, and I would ask my hon. Friend, therefore, to consider the fearful waste to the country in allowing men employed on this valuable work to become redundant and paying them un- employment pay when they might be employed more usefully on repair and maintenance work for the good of the country as a whole and unemployment payment might be saved.
  I would, therefore, ask my hon. Friend to consider the Admiralty's re- sponsibility to yards such as our own which have a tremendous tradition in the shipbuilding industry. I do not expect an answer tonight, but I ask him to take social factors into consideration in placing some part of the maintenance and repair work which falls under this and other Subheads in the Estimates.
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on his ingenuity in always managing to bring the Belfast shipyards into whatever Vote is under discussion. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) about the importance and desirability of endeavouring to do such work as the Government require through a direct labour department.
  1284
  There are two or three questions which I should like to ask the Civil Lord. First, to what extent is this Vote accounted for by work services for N.A.T.O., which I notice are mentioned, and are these work services carried out under the infrastructure arrangements? I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would say something about that. Secondly, there is a point which I am sure he would expect me to raise concerning the "Caledonia". When might we expect some beginning to be made on it?
  My third point concerns the establishment at Lossiemouth. I understand that the Royal Navy Air Station has 148 houses in Lossiemouth and 222 in Elgin and it has now obtained permission to build a further 142 houses at Lossiemouth. After it had obtained that permission, I understand that the station took over 51 houses from the Pinefield Army Camp near Elgin. Is it proposed to reduce the number of houses now to be built at Lossiemouth in view of the number taken over at the Pinefield camp? I know about the development that is going on at Lossiemouth and the importance that it has assumed recently. Is it proposed to carry out a bigger programme than I have already mentioned in the district of Lossiemouth?
  7.59 p.m.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I want to follow in my remarks what was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), particularly in connection with Subhead B—"New Works, Additions and Alterations amounting to £10,000 each and Upwards"—which affects work overseas to which reference is made in the Explanatory Notes on pages 142 and 143 of the Estimates.
  I notice that harbour works and dredging this year will cost £47,000 overseas, as compared with £18,000 last year. Has this anything to do with Cyprus?
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I can answer that straight away. It is because of the carrier berths at Gibraltar.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am interested in that reply. Why is it costing rather more this year? Could my hon. Friend also say where we are proposing to build these airfields which are to cost £45,000? New works on airfields to be started in the coming year will cost £45,000, and the amount to be voted this year in

  1285 respect of works started in previous years is to be £13,000. Where are these airfields to be? Is there to be one in Cyprus? I am very anxious to know that.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I can assure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Ernrys Hughes) that we do a great deal of work, particularly repair work, with direct labour. Altogether, 13,600 people are employed in the Navy Works Department, and that is a direct labour force.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Horn-castle (Sir J. Maitland) asked me about the correlation of the lands branches of the Services. My right hon Friend the Minister of Defence announced early this week that he was thinking of appointing a committee to advise on this matter. Until that committee has been set up and has reported, I do not think that it would be in order for me to comment.
  I was asked if we undertake new works services for the other two Services and if they do the same for us. The answer is, "Yes". The ideal example is at Malta, where we have been constructing an enormous underground fuel depot which is to serve not only the Malta Government but also N.A.T.O. and the Royal Air Force. The Royal Air Force is undertaking work for us at Aden and at Hal Far airfield at Malta, as it has a great deal of experience in airfield construction.
  My hon. Friend was suspicious of the sum of £300,000 for purchases of lands and buildings. He said that it was the same as the figure for last year. Three items, excluding dockyard extensions, are already in hand. There must come a time to expand certain establishments, and we have set aside £100,000 for this. The dockyard extension at Devonport is likely to cost another £100,000, and in various land projects there is another £110,000.
  Sir J. Maitland: I do not understand why at this moment we should be expanding.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: As we cut down there are other places where we are working up. We have done away with a number of depots, but we are modernising dockyards and this entails a lot of money and, sometimes, extensions.
  1286
  The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) asked for more detail. I am not sure that, if we published a list of all the Service works undertakings we wanted to start in the coming year, we should get as competitive tenders as we are hoping for. There is no question of fixed price contracts or cost plus. We are introducing competitive tenders for some of our ships, and apply that policy to the works services for which we invite tenders.
  The hon. Member asked for more information about minor new works, additions and alterations under £10,000 each. There is provision for £300.000 for minor extensions and works services. That is because we are decentralising and are allowing commanders-in-chief to undertake more of their works services. Each of them knows what is right for the fleet and for the people under his command. They are probably the right people to decide priorities, and that is probably a better way of doing it than at the centre. This is a tendency which we are expanding in the block grant this year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) was more skilful than I can be in keeping within order. I have noted his remarks. I must add that I enjoyed my visit to his constituency.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked me how much of this money was for N.A.T.O. Under N.A.T.O.'s own infrastructure programme we have six items of a total value of £15,400,000. Three items, worth £3,500,000 are starting in the coming year. We are planning to spend £3 million, although we are starting projects worth a good deal more in the coming year.
  The hon. Member also asked me about "Caledonia" and Lossiemouth. It is true that, because of our acquisition of 40 quarters at Pinefield Camp. we have been able to cut back on the number we shall be building for our own purposes We have built 56 officers' and 324 ratings' quarters in Lossiemouth. There is a considerable backlog and we are planning to build 265 more ratings' quarters. We have substracted the 40 available from Pinefield Camp, but that still leaves us a considerable Programme. The Government's policy is to transfer

  1287
  Government property to other Government Departments when it becomes redundant.
  The hon. Member always presses me hard about "Caledonia". We hope to start building in 1962. It will consist of two two-storey blocks, containing dormitories each for six or seven apprentices, with ablutions, to the latest standards. The first part of the project will house some 300, and we shall make a start on the second half of the project as soon as funds are available.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. S. Silverman: The Civil Lord replies to the points raised with such charming courtesy as to be almost disarming. I am not sure whether it is a compliment to a Service Minister to call him disarming. He has not quite appreciated the point I was making, no doubt very clumsily. I was trying to point out that there is not nearly sufficient information given about projects themselves.
  I realise that there is a good deal more information than is actually given in the summarised figures under the heading of minor new works. More information is given later in the Vote, when one can find figures to illustrate my point.
  Under Part I (B) there are 10 items, amounting to £6,336,000, needed for new projects and new buildings. Over the last two or three years we have been incurring a capital expenditure on new buildings of £7 million greater each year. This sum is not for maintenance, but for new buildings and projects. They are all grouped under the heading:
  "New works, additions and alterations amounting to £10,000 each and upwards:"
  There is one item for £18,000, another for £21,000, another for £36,500—all of which are reasonably comparable with each other—but then come three items. each totalling more than £1 million. One is for £1,729,000, yet all we are told about that is that it is for accommodation for personnel. There is another item of £1,388,000 for airfields, and the third large item is for £1,306,000 for new works to be started on dockyards.
  I do not know whether that expenditure is necessary or not. I apprehend that in the Government's view these Votes are necessary, but there is not a scrap of information to enable me to form any kind of opinion, expert or inexpert, as
  1288
  to whether they are necessary or not necessary. They are merely lumped together in sums of this kind and are not even subdivided so that they can be analysed in groups of comparable expenditure.
  It is absurd when trying to convey information to put into the same category new works which cost £18,000 and those costing £1,729,000. They obviously belong to different categories and ought to be separately classified with a great deal more information, unless we are to regard these yearly examinations of the Estimates as being purely perfunctory.
  Whatever view we take of defence expenditure, whether we think it is necessary at all, too much or too little, wisely or unwisely spent, it is obvious that the Committee regards this as an occasion not merely for going through the form, but for exercising critical judgment. On the basis of this kind of information, critical intelligence cannot be brought to bear about whether the Estimates are too large or too small, or whether we are acting rightly or wrongly in saying yes or no to them.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Off-Ewing: I recognise that the Committee requires a lot of information, but in the five years in which I have opened debates on the Estimates —first at the Air Ministry and then at the Admiralty—this is the first time that I have had the criticism which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) levelled. Each year we have tried to provide a little more information, but I will consider what the hon. Member has said.
  I announced in the House that the airfield extension under Subhead B (s) was at Brawdy and that £1·3 million would be spent on lengthening the runway. The expenditure on dockyards under Subhead G is part of the programme of modernisation of the dockyards—which I have mentioned several times but which, perhaps, I should have highlighted—and is for modernising storehouses, which in many cases are more than a hundred years old and which, for the installation of modern machinery, have to be high enough and strong enough to stand the added strain.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) for having forgotten to answer

  1289
  his question when I first replied. The expenditure of £47,000 is for carrier berths at Gibraltar and £13,000 is to complete payment for the overshoot at Hal Far airfield in Malta where the expenditure was £68,000 last year with a sharp drop to £13,000 this year.
  One starts combing through these Estimates in the autumn and one becomes so conversant with them and knows them so well that one may over-simplify them and I apologise to the Committee if I have done that. I hope that the Committee will now accept the details I have given.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £20,316,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, machinery and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1962.

  Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £11,890,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1962.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Dugdale: This is a comparatively small Vote as Votes go and provides for only £11 million. There are 18 items in it, but the remarkable thing is that the Vote has increased by 25 per cent. over the last year, a very steep rise.
  Some of the items are very curious. Subhead A deals with naval sea and air conveyance. The expenditure there has gone up by more than 30 per cent. Who is travelling where and what is he doing when he gets there? Why are there 30 per cent. more people travelling? This curious state of affairs needs explanation, for there appears to be a sudden enormous increase of people travelling everywhere and I want to know what they are doing and whether their journeys are necessary.
  Subhead MM—Instruction of Naval Personnel at Outside Establishments—shows a rise of £729,000, again about
  1290
  30 per cent. Why is there that rise? It may be that the charge was too low before, or that training is now better or that there is more training. What check is kept? I know that the Civil Lord goes into these matters very carefully, as I used to do, but what can he tell us about it?
  We then come to the most extraordinary case of the cost of postage. For some obscure reason, which I fail to understand, the cost of postage has risen from £40,000 to £330,000. It has increased by no less than eight times. The cost of sending letters and, maybe, parcels all round the world has gone up by eight times. That needs explanation. We are told that charges for the posting of official mail at home and abroad have increased by that amount. Who writes to whom and what do they write about? Are they, for instance, writing about Holy Loch, or about the admirals? Are they sending love letters to each other, and, if so, has the Civil Lord received any of these letters? What are they all about? I should like to know something about it. It seems to me to be a most extraordinary state of affairs.
  The only thing that I can imagine is that there is a state of confusion in the Navy, with orders, counter-orders, the countermanding of orders and everybody rushing round in circles and sending letters to each other. This is the picture we get of the Navy from the Estimates, and we certainly ought to be enlightened by the Civil Lord, because that is the picture presented to us of the Navy under his administration at the moment.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: I should like to raise a question on Vote 11, Subhead G "Compensation for losses, damage, etc." —the details of which are given on page 152 of the Estimates. It appears that damage by Her Majesty's ships has increased by £35,000 last year, £135,000 this year. No doubt, there is an explanation for it, but it seems to me to he a rather large increase. This year, losses by shipwreck or other casualty of the Service" amounted to £15,000, which is the same as last year, but the particular item with which I am concerned is that of miscellaneous compensation—£100,000 in each year.

  1291
  My particular concern is about a naval exercise in Mounts Bay, in June of last year. I have been asked to raise the issue by the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee. This batch of correspondence between the clerk to the Cornwall County Council, the clerk to the Fisheries Committee and the Admiralty has been passed on to me. Briefly, the particulars are that five fishermen—I know that it is a small number—who work the shell fisheries from Porthleven submitted claims for loss of earnings from 8th to 17th June, and also claims for the time occupied in taking up their crab pots before the exercise, moving them to another area and afterwards bringing them back again. Claims were also made for damage to gear outside the exercise area, and these claims were met by the Admiralty, while the claims for loss of earnings were refused.
  I understand, from a Question which I put to the Minister of Agriculture, that there is no precedent for paying compensation for loss of earnings. That seems to me to be an extraordinary state of affairs. In any case, if there is no precedent, I do not see why the Admiralty could not create a precedent this year, the Estimates for which we are now considering.
  It seems to me that the only criterion that should apply is whether the claim of the fishermen in such circumstances is just or unjust, and I hope that the Civil Lord will say that the claim is just. If he says otherwise, then I should like to know what his justification is, because it seems to me that this precedent may well go back to the days of the press gangs, when men were press ganged into the Navy. Here, however, we are only dealing with ordinary fishermen, and I thing that it is time that the Admiralty had a new look at this matter. I am sure that the Civil Lord is sufficiently humane to give this question very sympathetic consideration.
  After all, in these Estimates the Civil Lord is asking for £400 million. Surely, therefore, the compensation of the fishermen in circumstances like these would not amount to a very great sum. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will also bear in mind that there are no subsidies to shell fishermen. When it comes to war, the Navy depends on the fishermen of England for help, and they
  1292
  have never yet failed to help. I therefore hope that the Minister will be very sympathetic to the claims of these men, and that on re-examination, or on his personal examination, of the claims, he will make an award and set a precedent for which all fishermen will be grateful.
  .8.24 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am very glad indeed to be able to endorse the appeal made by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) for the fishermen. Fishermen are vitally interested in the Navy, because most of them have been in the Navy. In my constituency, there is a great deal of interest by the fishermen in a good deal of the extravagant expenditure on the part of the Admiralty. On the Clyde, for example, the fishermen are very critical of certain expenditure, and I am quite sure that if Vote 11 for miscellaneous effective services were shown to the fishermen and explained in detail—. not lost in obscurity in this volume—they would realise that a very close scrutiny indeed should be kept upon these Estimates.
  I speak as president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, and I know how difficult it is to get money out of the Government for harbours and piers for fishermen, who now regard the Admiralty as wasting money in a good many ways.
  The Temporary Chairman: We should be quite interested to hear the views of the fishermen and of the hon. Gentleman himself on Vote 11.
  Mr. Hughes: I am sorry, Mr. Williams, if I have been misled by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne. I think that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) should take some consolation from the fact that there is one decrease in these Estimates, and it is a curious one. It is in the allowances to ministers of religion, which have gone down from £8,500 by £1,000. The Admiralty has suddenly been able to effect a small economy at the expense of the allowances to ministers of religion, and also in other various small, petty items, of which I should like an explanation.
  For example, while all these other items are going up, we find that contributions to charitable institutions

  1293
  have actually gone down. The contributions to the Royal Humane Society and some other small contributions have gone down. Is the Admiralty cheeseparing with these small but worthy organisations in order to make some show of economy?
  I, too, am very interested in the item relating to travelling, subsistence and passage allowances, which shows an increase of £887,000, which is really an enormous sum. We recently had a debate on the travelling activities of the Admiralty between London and Bath. Are they included in these figures? We were told by the Minister that 12,000 Admiralty personnel were living in Bath. What proportion of this travelling, subsistence and passage expenditure is included in this item? The increase in this item is £187,000. I hope that we shall also be given some explanation of the increase in the estimate with regard to telegrams, telephones and postage, which amounts to £347,000.
  I turn next to recruiting and publicity services, where the expenditure is expected to rise by £33,800, to a figure of £105,000. We have had various debates on manpower and recruiting, in which we have been told that the Navy was not short of recruits. Is it essential for the Navy to spend so much on recruiting and publicity services when we have always assumed that the people of Portsmouth, Chatham and other traditional Navy ports join the Navy just as the sons of coal miners go down the mines? How much is spent on recruiting, and how much on publicity? An enormous amount of publicity is carried out by the Navy. Whenever it carries out manoeuvres in the Clyde or elsewhere publicity officers supply pictures and stories to the newspapers in order to convince us that the Navy is really doing something, and that the Admiralty is worth the money we are spending on it.
  I do not see why we should spend so much on these services. We can depend upon the enterprise of newspaper correspondents to swoop upon any naval activity which has news value. Let us consider the kind of public services that are carried out, as in the case of what happened in Holy Loch last week. The Admiralty conducted a wonderful publicity campaign, when about 186 newspaper correspondents were brought to
  1294
  Scotland. They came to Largs, where they were met by a naval vessel and taken to Holy Loch.
  I am told that this was done under the auspices of the Admiralty. Once the correspondents boarded the "Proteus", however, they were entertained by the Americans. This is a curious kind of publicity. Why did the Admiralty invite the Czechoslovaks? I do not believe that the Russians went there. I understand that a vast number of foreign correspondents did go to Holy Loch, however, and I should like to know whether that kind of publicity is covered by this item, and how much more there is likely to be. if the daily newspapers see anything of news value they will take advantage of it without getting any handouts from the Admiralty, and I suggest that expenditure on this item should be pruned. We are doing a service by meticulously examining these matters. I hope that some of these mysteries will be cleared up.
  Another item relates to the instruction of naval personnel at outside establishments. The estimate for that has increased by £728,900. It may be said that that is not very much, in terms of total Admiralty expenditure, but these items of £700,000 here, and £500,000 there add up to the swollen estimates that we are considering. What does the term "outside establishments" mean? It is very vague. Are they outside the country, or outside the Navy?
  The total net increase in these miscellaneous effective services—the petty cash account of the Navy—is £2,478,000, and we should have some explanation of that rise. The effectiveness of a business depends upon its petty cash being wisely administered. As a result of taking more care with the Navy Estimates than we have done for a long time we discover that this petty cash account has risen by £2,478,000. This is how inflation comes about. Expenditure is added to expenditure, and in a few weeks' time we will find the benches opposite full of hon. Members demanding a reduction of national expenditure, with special reference to the social services.
  These items ought to be explained. I hope that we will get more detailed information than we have had so far.
  I know that we have been rather hard

  1295
  on the Minister today, but I have sat here as long as he has. It is my business to carry out the instructions given to us by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) that we must probe, cleanse, and analyse in great detail Admiralty expenditure, because it was necessary in the interests of the country to do so. If anyone knew anything about the Admiralty, it was surely the right hon. Member for Woodford. Wherever he is, be it in Monte Carlo or on the Caribbean Sea, I am sure that his heart is with us tonight while we are examining the Estimates.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Paget: I wish to raise one point. It is a point on which I have had some correspondence with the Civil Lord. It is the issue of ensign warrants. It is not a very expensive item, but as it concerns not only the most beautiful flag in the world but the most famous flag that has ever been flown at sea, it is a matter of some importance.
  For a long time it has been issued through a franchise granted to the Royal Yacht Squadron. I doubt whether this is the proper way to issue flag warrants. I doubt whether the Admiralty, in a matter which so intimately concerns us as the naval flag, should part with the discretion as to who should carry that flag by issuing warrants through a third party.
  One of the rather curious results of this is that while there are about fifty flag officers of the Navy, either serving or retired, in the Lloyds Register of Yacht Owners, not one of them is entitled to fly the ensign of his Service on his yacht, yet one sees a number of young guardsmen, who, frankly, are not fit to be in charge of bumboats, doing the most peculiar things with this great flag on their boats. I do not believe that that is right, or that it is a proper exercise of the Admiralty's discretion.
  In considering how this franchise is exercised, one has to realise that although the cost to the Admiralty is not very high, the cost to the user is made very high indeed. The Squadron has a life subscription of 1,000 guineas and an entry fee of 100 guineas. Considering the very limited facilities it has to offer, it would be very odd if it could command that figure unless it had a
  1296
  flag to sell. This is a flag which ought not to be sold. It is in the gift and discretion of the Admiralty.
  Again, there is an electoral system which, to say the least, is odd. For instance, one of our most distinguished citizen was blackballed on the grounds that his grandfather was a German, to the not inconsiderable indignation of his proposer, the Prince of Wales, whose grandfather was also a German. Good stories are told of how this works. A distinguished officer of the Royal Air Force was put up for election and an inquiry was made as to who he was. The reply came that he had a distinguished service in the Air Force and the answer to that was, "What do they expect us to take, dirt track riders?" This, in my submission, is not the way in which this privilege granted by the Admiralty of a naval flag should be worked.
  I suppose the original idea was that the Squadron should operate as the Jockey Club operates for racing or the National Sporting Club operates for boxing, but it has not done so. The bodies which regulate and control yachting are the Yacht Racing Association, the Royal Ocean Racing Club and the Royal Cruising Association. Those are the bodies which do the job. Services rendered to yachting by the Squadron are, in fact, nil. It organises some regattas on the rather peculiar basis that one can draw a programme if one has entered at a lodge at the gates. These rather archaic bad manners are quite amusing although a little embarrassing when we see foreigners, who give us such hospitality in their clubs, treated in that way. It is the more regrettable when that sort of conduct, of which I do not think any one of us very much approves in this age, appears to have the insignia of official approval by the fact that it wears this great ensign of the Navy.
  I therefore suggest—of course. I cannot expect an answer now that the Admiralty
  should exercise this franchise. People who have served the Navy in flag rank should have the right to wear this ensign on their yachts and other people who have distinguished themselves in yachting—they are very few, although some, of course, are members of the Squadron, but a great number are not

  1297
  should he granted this as a mark of distinction, which indeed is what it ought to be. The advice, if the Admiralty wants it, should be taken from the regulating authorities of yachting and those are the Yacht Racing Association, the Royal Ocean Racing Club and the Royal Cruising Association. They could form a panel to advise the Admiralty, although, in fact, commands are now quite sufficiently involved in yachting to be able to advise internally on those yachtsmen who ought to be granted this great distinction.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: As a tremendous number of people who are successful at yachting today have had nothing to do with the Royal Navy but have come from the Royal Air Force and, on occasion, fly the White Ensign, would the hon. and learned Member say that they should be allowed to fly a Royal Air Force flag?
  Mr. Paget: I do not think that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) came in when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) would have been able to tell him the attitude taken to members of the Royal Air Force.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Awbery: I should like the Civil Lord to tell us something about the position in Malta. It is two years since that we decided to withdraw from Malta and hand over the dockyards to Messrs. Bailey and Company. My information from the island now is that the position of the employees is very precarious.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Ronald Russell): Would the hon. Gentleman tell me to which subhead he is referring?
  Mr. Awbery: I presume that we are dealing with the Admiralty in Malta.
  The Temporary Chairman: We are not.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: May I thank hon. Members for their courtesy in giving me advance notice of the points which they would raise. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked about travelling and subsistence. I know that it looks rather odd that it should rise. There are three reasons.
  1298
  First, the increased fares by land, sea and air. I think that it will be conceded that these three have gone up. Secondly, the increased removal expenses and subsistence due to the closure of establishments which involves us in rather more removals than normally. We compensate people being posted as they are able to claim removal expenses. Thirdly, the large number of personnel stationed east of Suez owing to the building up of the fleet and the stationing of the Commando carrier east of Suez. This involves longer and often more expensive journeys.
  This factor also applies to families going overseas. Nowadays, school children are allowed one trip a year paid out of these Votes to parents serving overseas. This accounts, in all, for the large increase of £870,000 on a Subhead of £7 million.
  Mr. Dugdale: Will the item in respect of school children be only for one year?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: It will be always there. We have far more people serving in the Far East than previously and therefore more children going there than previously. That has been only recently introduced.
  Subhead D—"Telegrams, telephones and postage "—is a new procedure, because the Post Office is now a self-accounting and almost a commercial organisation. We have had to provide in this Vote £290,000 for such services, which were previously carried out free of charge by the Post Office as an allied service.
  The only other significant increase is £35,000 under Subhead D, to cover the increased cost of the carriage of mails by the General Post Office due to the increase of sea conveyance costs which it now debits to us under the new procedure I mentioned.
  Subhead G deals with compensation for losses which it is very difficult to forecast. We always hope that Her Majesty's ships will not have a collision and, therefore, that there will be no claims for compensation. We have had to take note of the incidence of accidents over the last year and to make an increase in the coming year. I cannot go into the question of why it should be. I hope that there will be no claims at all, but I think that we must make an average of what to expect.
  The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) made a moving

  1299
  appeal on behalf of the fishermen. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) has been to see the First Lord and me on this issue. He will know that warning was given and that the area of this exercise was fixed after consultation with the fishing advisory authority locally.
  On the question of loss of earnings, the policy we carry out applies over the whole Government field. It is very difficult, and we should open the taxpayers to very large claims, if, in the undertaking of any exercise, farmers or anyone else claimed that there had been interference. We looked at the claims for 50 per cent. loss of earnings very carefully and came to the conclusion that some of the claims could not rightly be attributed. They were attributed to storm damage rather than to the action of Her Majesty's ships. We tried to take a sympathetic view when there was any doubt. I will re-examine this matter again on both counts, but I have looked at it fairly closely and I do not think that there is much room for further adjustment.
  Mr. Hayman: I am sorry that the hon. Member has said that, because I feel that fishermen, who are, in the main, a kind of reserve for the Royal Navy itself, ought to receive special consideration, and I cannot imagine that their claims should be treated in the same way as claims by farmers and others.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is an appealing case and one would like to do something for people who contribute to the reserve power of the Navy, but we must administer the taxpayer's money with great care.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am glad to have some support from the other side.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked me about charities. The reason why there has been a out-down is that we had increased for a time our contribution to one charitable organisation which looked after the employment of officers being retired early because of the run-down scheme, but, since we have now completed our run-down, we have reverted to a more normal contribution.
  1300
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire referred at one point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). I remember well that my right hon. Friend on one occasion said that the House was a very jealous place. The hon. Member said that he had been trying very hard this evening. I readily acknowledge that the House of Commons always must take absolute priority, and the fact that we are trying, in the Board of Admiralty, to give a dinner to our retiring Permanent Secretary after fifty years with the Navy on this very evening is one of the accidents of parliamentary life. I do not in any way resent all the very good questions which have been put to me from both sides.
  The right hon. Member for West Bromwich asked about Subhead MM and the reason for the increase of £728,900. This is mainly paid to the Air Ministry for flying training of naval pilots, and the abrupt increase arises from the specialised training necessary because we have now gone over to Jet Provosts in the initial stages, and this is very much more expensive. We have had increased costs on that account, and also there is the increased entry of helicopter specialists required now to man the second Commando carrier, among other things.
  I come now to Subhead N, "Miscellaneous Payments". Here again, the main reason for the increase is the provision in the current year to include £75,000 for services hitherto carried out by the G.P.O. free of charge. Thus, two aspects of this Vote are affected by the decision that the Post Office should charge Government Departments for services.
  The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—I am obliged to him for giving me advance notice—asked me about the Royal Yacht Squadron. Incidentally, my grandfather was a member of it, so I have some feeling for it. From the researches I have been able to make, it does not seem that the Royal Yacht Squadron was ever granted the privilege of flying the White Ensign because it was the governing body of the sport in the same way as the M.C.C. or the National Sporting Club can be said to be governing bodies.
  I do not think that that ever happened. I am quite willing to look at the matter,

  1301
  although, as I think the hon. and learned Member will agree, though one may feel proud of the White Ensign and the privilege of flying it, it is not actually very relevant to the maritime defence of the country.
  It is a very old privilege dating back, I think, in the first case, to 1829. I believe that it was originally given to the Squadron in 1842, when its yachts used to join manoeuvres, particularly when the Sovereign also was taking part. I think that it has now become a privilege somewhat hallowed by tradition, and one feels a little reluctant to abolish such old practices. However, I will look at the point.
  If we took the privilege away from the Royal Yacht Squadron, I think that we should prefer to restrict the use of the White Ensign exclusively to the Royal Navy rather than grant the privilege of flying it to other clubs and individuals. There would, I think, be a good deal of acrimonious debate if a Government Department, albeit the Admiralty, tried to become the arbiter of who was or was not a good sailor, or who was or was not a worthy citizen. I think that the pressure, lobbying and other influences to which we might be subject if we adopted that proposal would make us extremely vulnerable. However, I will look at it. The hon. and learned Member will, I am sure, bear in mind that it is a very old tradition which one would not lightly forsake.
  Mr. Wigg: I am very interested in the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I ask the Government to bear in mind what I am going to say, for consideration in future years. I do not know how the recent discussion has been in order, but it obviously has been in order, otherwise the Chair would not have permitted it. It is odd that we can have an erudite and sophisticated discussion on the Royal Yacht Squadron, but cannot have any discussion on Naval Intelligence and the expenditure of money on it. Naval Intelligence is very important. We can spend ten minutes or a quarter of an hour discussing the flag flown by the Royal Yacht Squadron, but cannot devote a moment of time to discuss an important subject affecting the security of the country.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £11,890,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1962.

  Vote 14. Additional Married Quarters
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1962.
  8.58 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Russell. I returned to the House of Commons tonight anticipating that we would debate the Air Estimates at about this time. It seems that naval affairs have occupied the Committee, quite rightly, until this time. We are now to discuss the Army Estimates. Because the Opposition, earlier today, raised points of order concerning tonight's Prayer for over an hour and a half, it seems that we shall not be able to debate, on the Air Estimates, Votes covering many millions of pounds. I ask you, Mr. Russell, what help I can have from the Chair in seeing that these large sums of money for the Royal Air Force are discussed?
  The Temporary Chairman(Mr. Ronald Russell): I am sorry, but I can give no help over that.
  Mr. Dudley WilliamsFurther to that point of order. It is a well-known fact that the party opposite does not wish to discuss the Air Estimates because of the conflict in its ranks abrupt——
  The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: Further to that point of order.
  The Temporary Chairman: It is not a point of order.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Perhaps I may say, speaking from the Opposition side, that we most heartily agree with what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has said. This

  1303
  time is most inadequate, and if the Government would grant us additional time to discuss these matters—which certainly should be discussed—it would be welcome. I do not think that anyone would suggest that naval questions have been discussed too fully, or that the speeches have been long. For the three Services, the time allotted for debate is utterly inadequate.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: The Air Force is receiving many more million's of pounds than either the Army or the Navy, and it seems to me that if there is only one hour left Air Force matters should have half an hour. I must protest that this is the most unfair way of conducting our business. As I see it, the Air Force will have about two minutes in which to debate these many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.
  Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. I agree that we should have time for the Air Force, because I think that the speech of the Secretary of State for Air during the defence debate was one of the most disgraceful that I have ever heard——
  The Temporary Chairman: It is not in order, on these Estimates, to discuss a speech of the Secretary of State for Air.
  Mr. Wigg: I made that comment only in passing, Mr. Russell. As always, I want to help the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey).
  There is a very simple way out. The Consolidated Fund Bill will come forward. Its origin is in the Committee of Ways and Means, and it is, therefore, exempted business. I have every intention of speaking, if necessary, in the early hours of the morning on that Measure, and I will join with the hon. Member.
  Incidentally, he says that he has just come here, but I have been here all the time, and so have many other hon. Members, and I think that it is a gross slander when hon. Members who have just strolled into the House have the brazen-faced audacity to suggest that we on this side are trying to prevent discussion of the Air Estimates. That is what I have been waiting for. The time spent this afternoon on points of order and the like was the fault of the Government in jockeying with the Business of the House. The
  1304
  hon. Gentleman need have no complaint. I hope that he will come next week; we will come, too, and make quite ure that we do have a discussion on the Air Estimates.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I hope, Mr. Russell, that you will let me put the full point that I was trying to put earlier. I take the point that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has made about hon. Gentlemen now coming in who have not been here all day. I may say that I have been in the precincts of the Palace and watching the annunciator to see whether the Air Estimates were called. I think that it is quite wrong of the hon. Gentleman to say that we have not been attending to our duty, but, surely, it is monstrous, with respect, that because of some dispute on the other side we should be prevented from discussing these very important Estimates.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Paget: If the hon. Member had been in the Committee instead of elsewhere he would have seen that throughout the debate hon. Members opposite have occupied just as much time—or, I think, more time—as those on this side.
  Mr. Wigg: If I have been unfair to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), and he has been in the Committee, I very gladly withdraw what I said.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are the points of order finished, Mr. Russell?
  The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Emrys Hughes.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to speak on the Vote, because it is one of which I thoroughly approve. I certainly have no objection to the provision of £50,000 for married quarters All I want to say is that we have fulfilled our duties, as representatives of those who have sent us here, in very carefully scrutinising very large and, as we believe, very extravagant Estimates.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962.

ARMY ESTIMATES

  Vote 1. Pay, &c., of the Army
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £133,170,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: I wish at this stage to raise three points, of which I have given notice to the Under-Secretary of State. The first point concerns the revaluation of the German Deutschmark. Hon. Members may wonder whether this is in order. Let me relieve them of any anxiety on that point, because I am raising it in connection with Vote 1, Subhead K. The troops—officers, warrant officers, N. C. O. s and men—who serve in the British Army of the Rhine and in Berlin are regarded as being on home service. This meets the administrative and political convenience of the Government, because, by virtue of its being regarded as a home service station, these men do not get as much leave and do not get the privileges that they would get if they were' serving in a foreign station.
  Whatever right hon. and hon. Members may think about the rest of what I have to say, one thing which is certain is that the Rhine Army, which includes also the other Services stationed in Germany, has suffered a cut in its standard of life by no less than 5 per cent. by the revaluing of the German Deutschmark. One may hold views whether the Government should have foreseen this, but it is the fact that 5 per cent. of the pay of all ranks has gone just like that. I am told by those serving in Germany that this has created a certain amount of indignation. People are wondering how they will make both ends meet, because there is a tendency for German prices to rise. It may well be that before many months the cut in the standard of life will be not 5 per cent. but 10 per cent.
  I therefore put it to the Government, not necessarily that there is a considerable case for reconsidering the position of the Rhine Army as a home station but that it is within their power if they so wish, to grant a local overseas allowance to meet the increased cost of living
  1306
  arising from the revaluation of the German Deutschmark.
  My second point arises from something I had to say in the Estimates debate. Among the most important functions performed by the Army are the relations of the officers, warrant officers and N. C. O. s who are selected to serve with colonial forces. This contact is among the most valuable that exists. It is my view—I have said so many times over a period of years that the selection of these officers, warrant officers and N. C. O. s should be done most carefully. We should send our best. Therefore, if we are asking our best to go, often at what may seem to be the cost of an agreeable job, possibilities of promotion within their regiments and the like, they should go under conditions which enable them to be free from financial anxiety. That is not so at the present time.
  Perhaps I am pushing at an open door in the case of the War Office. The decision does not rest there, or even with the Colonial Office. It rests with the ancient enemy of all members of the Armed Forces—the Treasury. I should like to think that on this point at least I carry right hon. and hon. Members on both sides with me in saying to the Under-Secretary, who is the spokesman tonight of the War Office, that it is the wish of the House of Commons that, in the interest of the Army and of the Commonwealth as a whole, the conditions under which these officers, warrant officers and N. C. O. s are asked to serve in the colonial forces should be looked at and that they should be treated with the greatest possible generosity not only in terms because generosity is desirable but because only by so doing will the Government get the very best at a time when only the very best will meet the case.
  I come now to my third point. Hon. Members will have seen in The Times yesterday morning an able article which said something that wanted saying for a long time. It was always difficult, and it still is difficult, for hon. Members on either side of the Committee to talk about the quality of current recruits because if a wrong word is said in this connection it can have the most unfortunate consequences—and, of course, again, the Army wants its share of the best. The Times can say this because the public may or may not accept the

  1307
  objectivity and lack of partisanship of Members of this Committee, but they tend to look on The Times as a more traditional part of the Establishment which uses its platform to say things which it thinks ought to be said. It was a very important article and it said something which needed to be said.
  However, there is a danger that the War Office may find itself in a very weakened position vis-à-vis the Ministry of Defence. Here is a danger which has been growing up for a long time. The Ministry of Defence has gone up in status; the Services have sunk a little in status. Policy is worked out in the Ministry of Defence and sometimes tends to be imposed upon the Navy, Army and Air Force. Here there is a great temptation for the Government, who want to get the requisite recruits to tend to say, "Get them by any method you can." There was a suspicion of this in the speech of the Secretary of State for War the other day when he talked about the lowering of the standards of education of recruits. It was a most retrograde step to advocate and it brought me to my feet as the right hon. Gentleman said it. Perhaps I misunderstood him perhaps that was not his intention. But, of course, one has to remove from one's mind the possibility of such a step.
  This situation has to be watched very closely indeed. For there was the kind of thing written in The Times yesterday morning about the Green Jackets, a crack regiment. Well, of course, I know that the Guards will be all right. They always are. No matter what the Army may try to do, the Guards and the Household Cavalry will take very good care that they do not get anybody they do not want. But if they look after themselves and the Green Jackets look after the Green Jackets and the Royal Armoured Corps looks after itself, and so on, and this goes on through all the various units of the infantry, what will happen to those service branches of the Army in which, despite the shortage of numbers, are needed some of the more intelligent and abler and skilled people who are absolutely essential to them? What will happen to them if this process goes on?
  1308
  The suggestion I make is a very simple one. I could have tackled the problem by putting down a Question on the Order Paper, which is what I do not want to do, or I could have asked for a White Paper. What I should like the Government to do is to make available in the Vote Office a statement, the sort of cyclo-styled statement we get, on recruitment in which the Government would publish, starting at 31st December, 1960, the number of recruits obtained in that quarter; and then that they should also publish the number of men who have become non-effective in that quarter, breaking the number down by brigades for the infantry and for all the units and branches of the Service. Then we should begin to see how many recruits are coming into each brigade group and what the wastage is.
  The information could be broken down through sub-paragraphs. The model of paragraph 503 of Queen's Regulations could be followed. If that were done there would not necessarily be a direct relationship between the figures of recruits in any quarter, except in the Army's sub-paragraphs, showing, for instance, those discharged for offences on enlistment. I hope the hon. Gentleman follows what I have in mind. At least, however, there would be an indication of what is happening and information would be made available to hon. Members on both sides who want this information, which would enable them to tackle this problem in a responsible way in order to safeguard what, irrespective of party, I am sure we must be worried about, the problem in the Army not only of numbers but of quality as well.
  I am sorry to have taken up even these few minutes of the time of the Committee on these three points, but I hope very much that if the hon. Gentleman cannot give me an answer tonight—I shall not be very disappointed if he cannot—he will take these points away and consider them. Perhaps on some future occasion he can let me know the result, perhaps by answering a Question. I should be happy to co-operate with him about that. Or perhaps he will let me know by letter. However, I urge him to consider these points which are put forward in no partisan spirit but in the best interests of the Army.
  9.15 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Vote 1 deals with the pay of the Regular Army and is one of the weapons whereby we can hope to attract a sufficient number of recruits. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has raised an extremely important point about the devaluation of the Deutschmark, because if we are to have troops in Germany, playing our part in N.A.T.O., and are receiving in real value less than those stationed elsewhere it will not be a great inducement to men to join the Army.
  I wonder whether the White Paper on Army pay published in February, 1958, foresaw such an issue arising. I very much doubt that it did. It would be totally wrong if we were involved in N.A.T.O. to a considerable degree—and N.A.T.O. itself is taking a very large proportion of the Regular Army—and if these men were to suffer by being stationed in Western Germany.
  Last November, The Times said that General Norstad was complaining that units in the British Army of the Rhine were seriously below strength. There may be a tendency for that strength to get even lower, but the Minister of Defence says that he wants seven brigade groups in Germany, amounting to 55,000 men. I notice that while a map published with a White Paper last year showed that in Berlin there was one brigade group, a similar map issued this year shows that there is only a brigade in Berlin. Are we economising in Berlin or are we running the risk of having an unbalanced force there?
  I have been one of those who have tried to help the hon. Member for Dudley over the years in the attempt to bring Army pay up to a satisfactory level, but we shall defeat our own object if at the end of the day we are to have one of the principal overseas stations—though I agree that it counts as virtually being in the United Kingdom—being a place where men are not getting what they ought to have in real terms in relation to others who are serving in the Army. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to say something about that.
  I should also like to ask to what extent the £24,880,000 paid to officers and the £68,730,000 paid to warrant officers, non-
  1310
  commissioned officers and men and the gross total under this Vote of £139,880,000 are paid in the overseas stations in real terms so as to ensure that those who receive the pay get the same amount pro rata. This would apply in Cyprus, in Aden and all the other overseas stations. If we are to allow for the revaluation of the Deutschmark we must do the same with pay at other overseas stations. What about Hong Kong? There are many men there. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to satisfy us that wherever a man is stationed the rate of exchange will not act to his disadvantage.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am much in agreement with a good deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said. If we have soldiers then there is a case for paying them. I do not disagree with that proposition. But if one looks at the cost in hard cash to our people—which is what I am concerned with—then one can only express some alarm.
  We are asked to vote £133,170,000, which is Government expenditure the economic result of which is inflationary. When any other Department, like the Health Ministry, brings its Estimates to the Committee, every item of expenditure is denounced as inflationary. Yet we are now being asked to vote this considerable sum and, in a way, rush it through because the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) wants to get to the Air Votes. Our job is the meticulous examination of public expenditure.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: There is also a net increase of £5,929,990 over last year.
  Mr. Hughes: I shall come to that later. If I omit anything, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) will make up for it. The devaluation of the Deutschmark has created an interesting situation. It makes one ask why we need to keep such a large number of troops at such expense in Germany. The Committee must consider whether it should revise its ideas about expenditure on soldiers in Germany, and ask if it is justified in the national interest. The devaluation of the Deutschmark must make us think again. What is happening

  1311
  at present? The West German Government are becoming more independent in many ways of the other N.A.T.O. Powers——
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Ronald Russell): Order. The hon. Member is going rather wide of this Vote. This has nothing to do with the policy of the West German Government.
  Mr. Hughes: I am not dealing with the number of men, Mr. Russell, but with the expenditure, in pounds, shillings and pence of keeping an Army in Germany. This is an expenditure which we shall have to reconsider, because we shall face a financial crisis. If the West Germans get into a stronger economic position than we are, then we shall find ourselves paying a disproportionate amount of money for military purposes.
  I do not see what useful purpose is served by keeping the British Army in Berlin. It is no use there. If the Russians wanted to take West Berlin they could do so. Vote I, in so far as it covers expenditure in Berlin, is unnecessary national expenditure, and I am opposed to it.
  I am not enthusiastic about bringing Gurkhas over to this country. The pay for the Gurkhas is included in this Vote. I read with some interest a military article in The Times saying that we could not solve the problem of recruiting by means of posters, television or enormous publicity campaigns, and that the one way out was to bring in the Gurkhas. Now we have Americans at Holy Loch, we may have Germans in Wales and Gurkhas somewhere else. We shall have a fine international Army here to defend us.
  I want to refer to the criticism of the Army contained in The Times. I follow the instructions of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley very carefully. If he says that there is an interesting article by the military correspondent of The Times, I read every word of it.
  I do not know whether it was my hon. Friend who advised me, or whether I advised him to read a recent leading article in The Times which dealt with wastage in the Army and with which I was very much impressed. It said that the recruiting figures seemed to be going up, but it asked about wastage, saying that within a month of entering the Army
  1312
  10 or 20 per cent. of the recruits bought themselves out while others were discharged because they had not passed certain psychological or educational tests. As fast as the Minister gets the men, they disappear. The Army is mobilised and at once begins to evaporate. That situation will not be solved by specious ideas about selective service.
  The Times leading article went on to reach the interesting conclusion that the average intelligence of those who remained in the Army was lower than that of a cross-section of National Service men. Thus, according to The Times, we are spending money on an Army with an average intelligence lower than the average outside. That puzzled me when I read it and I await with interest the report of a committee set up by the Secretary of State for War, who ought to have put in some sort of casual appearance in the debate. I do not know where the Minister of Defence is. In a previous debate the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was on the burning deck for about six or eight hours.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Has the Vote anything to do with the Minister of Defence?
  The Temporary Chairman: I was waiting to see how far the hon. Member went in that direction.
  Mr. Hughes: These big items of national expenditure deserve the presence of a senior Minister, and it is not good enough that the Government should send the office boy.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): Without wishing to quarrel with the hon. Member's description of me, may I say that it is traditional that debates of this kind should be attended and answered by the Under-Secretary, wearing his erstwhile hat of Financial Secretary. That explains the non-appearance of my right hon. Friend, who is following tradition and not intending any discourtesy to the Committee.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have been in the House of Commons for a long time. I did not intend any discourtesy to the hon. Member and I at once withdraw every word that I said.
  The situation presented by the article in The Times is curious. The last article in

  1313
  The Times which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley asked me to read was two columns long and said that even if the Government got the men into the Army, they would not have the equipment for them. We should then have the curious situation of having an Army which had nothing to use. That is an insoluble problem, and yet we may have an Army without any equipment, conventional or strategic, on which we shall have spent £133,370,000.
  A considerable sum is to be spent on recruiting activities. In our last debate on the Army I pointed out that the enormous amount of money spent on publicity had been completely ineffective and exceedingly expensive and that some of the recruiting literature grossly underestimated the average intelligence of the young person in Britain today. They want to know why they are asked to join the Army. That is what the average citizen does not yet understand.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I prefer to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) rather than those of the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), especially as the hon. Member for Dudley referred to the vital rôle of liaison with colonial forces. In debates in this House over many years there has been some discussion of the advisability of raising colonial forces to supplement the British Army. In fact, of course, these colonial forces do exist. There are large numbers of Malayans serving in the Army, large numbers of Nigerians, large numbers of West Indians and Ghanaians, and they are, of course, serving in their own countries, and, to a large extent, have taken over some of the responsibilities which the British Army once had.
  For instance, if there is an outbreak or an insurrection in Malaya, the prime responsibility for maintaining law and order will rest on the Malayan forces. There has been a British battalion in the past earmarked ready to fly out to the Ghanaian diamond fields in case there should be a breakdown of law and order there. Now, of course, the maintenance of law and order in Sierra Leone will become the prime responsibility of the Sierre Leone military forces. One can go on round the world pointing to places
  1314
  where we now share the responsibility with the emergent forces.
  At present, there are 1,000 British officers and 1,000 British N.C.O.s who are engaged in helping these emergent forces to find their feet. I believe that they do most excellent and admirable work, but I fear that only too often we in this country are inclined to strike rather hard bargains with the Governments concerned. I have noticed in West Africa and the West Indies that, whereas we should be urging them to accept this form of help and assistance, we seem to be trying to extract the very last penny from them. It seems to me that it would be intensely useful to increase Vote 1 by a small amount for British officers and N.C.O.s going to serve in this liaison capacity.
  I should like also to pay a tribute to the work done at Sandhurst and the Staff College, and, above all, at the Imperial Defence College, in furthering this Commonwealth ideal, which all these officers engaged in this liaison work are doing so well.
  9.34 p.m.
  Mr, George Chetwynd: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has rightly raised the effect of the change in the German currency upon the position of our troops in the British Army of the Rhine. Within these troops there is a section who, in my opinion, have been unfairly dealt with in the past few years. I refer to the National Service men who have been serving in Germany side by side with Regular troops at a rate of pay about one-third, or even less, of that of the Regular soldier.
  A man who has served between 12 or 18 months in the Rhine Army has to live on a rate of pay of 5s. 6d. At the current rate, that will be capable of purchasing something like 4s. worth of goods in Germany in the future. It will not leave very much with which to buy the things the man needs in order to keep him happy in these circumstances. Even now, I know of cases in which many of these men, who were deferred up to 21 years of age, who were used to fairly regular spending habits, are now dependent for cigarettes and things like that on their wives and families in this country sending them out to Germany.

  1315
  I suggest that this category of men who are serving today in the Rhine Army, and are now coming to the end of their service, ought to be better treated than they have been so far. If there are any priorities in this matter of trying to put affairs in Germany right, we should insist that the National Service man is given the first priority.
  It is easy for the Minister to say that they are all going out, and that they have to be there by law in any case, for another twelve months at the most, so why should they be paid any more. But one reason for the failure of his recruiting campaign to attract National Service men to join the Regular Forces so far has been the discrepancy in pay as between the National Service man and the Regular. If he could make National Service men happy in their last nine months' service in the Rhine Army he would stand a good chance of getting some of the men to transfer to the Regular Army. I therefore beg him with all my power to see that an extra allowance is given to the National Service man in Germany, in order to make his rate of pay commensurate to his needs.
  This will be all the more important if we are going to have German troops over here. As a result of the change in currency regulations they will be better off than before, and it will be a poor commentary upon the fact that we have been in a position to defend Germany up to now if their soldiers serving here are better placed than our National Service men serving in Germany. That is an additional reason for doing something for them, even at this late hour.
  9.36 p.m.
  Brigadier Sir Otho Prior-Palmer: I support what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said about German currency. He expressed the matter very clearly, and I shall do no more than refer to it.
  I want to turn to the question of the marriage allowance. At the moment it is not too bad; people are quite happy with it. But there is one burden which married couples in the Army have to bear which has not been sufficiently alleviated, namely, the expense involved in disturbance. An incredible amount of money is spent by married families in the Army in moving their furniture, goods and chattels from one station to
  1316
  another, more than once or even more than twice a year. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment upon that aspect of the matter and undertake to look into it carefully.
  My second point concerns education allowances. I want to say a word about the education of the children of officers, warrant officers and men. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are extremely anxious that recruiting should go well, and one of the chief deterrents to recruitment in the past has been the doubt about the facilities for educating the children of officers and men. I know that a good deal of improvement has taken place, but I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the question of children who are sent home and who are entitled to receive a local authority grant to assist them with their education.
  This system does not work very satisfactorily. Local authorities, when deciding upon the size of grant to award, base their decision upon the standard of living or the cost of living in their own areas in this country. They have not the foggiest notion—how can they have?—of the standard of living or the cost of living in the station in which the parents or guardians of the children may be at the moment in any part of the world. I hope that my hon. Friend will make a careful study of this matter and, if possible, instruct local authorities, by circular or in some other way, about the cost of living in stations abroad so that the children of whom I am speaking can be given an adequate grant, thereby relieving their parents of an undue strain upon their resources.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. G. W. Reynolds: Reference has been made to recruiting. Pay in the Army inevitably plays a large part in recruiting. Most of the advertisements which I see on recruiting emphasise the travel facilities available and the adventurous life awaiting those who join the Army. The advertisements show the large number of jobs available and the facilities which are provided for technical training and matters of that kind. Very few posters mention the pay which one is likely to receive if one joins the Army. It looks very fine on a poster to see a smart officer in the Army coming out of a Beau Geste type of fort in the Aden Protectorate, but some idea ought to be

  1317
  given to the man of what he is likely to get for doing that job.
  Can the Minister give us some idea of the sort of salaries and wages which men receive? They are given at the back of the Estimates, but they are complicated. Can the Minister give us some idea of what a grade 1 private with six years' service who is not a tradesman but who has signed on for twenty-one years is getting at the moment? Perhaps he could also give us similar information about a sergeant in similar circumstances on the assumption that he is married, has two children, and is living in married quarters outside London. He might also give us the information with regard to a captain with six years' service in that rank, again married with two children and living in quarters. More information of that nature included in recruiting posters and advertisements might be of great help in persuading a few extra men to come into the Army.
  My main point, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) I have given the Minister notice of this, is the problem of the Rhine Army and service in Germany. I was in Germany until a couple of days ago and I heard rumblings about this matter although I was some distance away from British troops on the Continent. As I see it, most other troops stationed overseas receive allowances if the cost of living in that country warrants their payment, but this does not apply to Germany which is regarded as a home posting for the British Army.
  There has been a 5 per cent. revaluation of the Deutschmark. It can be said that this is only a small thing, and that it is something about which we should not be unduly worried, but my fear is that after the Federal elections in the autumn—and this is already being rumoured—there will be another 5 per cent, revaluation, making 10 per cent. in all. Unless we get the matter clear now, we may find our troops in Germany in a worse position than they are at the moment. Because of the 5 per cent. revaluation, some warrant officers may be £50 a year worse off. A private might be £25 a year worse off, and a captain £75 worse off in terms of pay, with the possibility of further revaluation to come. I am of the opinion,
  1318
  as I am sure the majority of my hon. Friend are, that something must be done in this matter otherwise it will seriously damage recruiting, which the Government are trying to encourage.
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. Kershaw: On the question of recruiting, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of opening British recruiting offices in parts of the Commonwealth? At present there is nothing except for Gurkha recruits, and it is not possible to join the Army from the Commonwealth unless one goes to a consulate and they pays one's passage across the sea to join the Army here. If one is doubtful about whether one will be accepted, that will obviously make young men hesitate to undertake the journey here, and if such arrangements could be put in hand with the Commonwealth I am certain that it would be easy to get many satisfactory recruits for the Army if we had recruiting offices open for the British Army in the Commonwealth.
  Secondly, I should like to refer to the small item of the outfit allowance for officers and to regret, once again, that the War Office is adamant about not allowing household troops in London to walk out in full dress. This would be a powerful recruiting incentive, and I am certain that it would not cost, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War said, £100,000 a year. It could not possibly do so. That is the amount which is spent on all the full dress, and it is not to be presumed that they will be ruined and that a second suit will be needed. The War Office ought to look at this again. It would be very factory if it did.
  On the question of the German revaluation, it will cost us £3 million this year on £60 million, and possibly, with revaluation after the election, £6 million. We have the possibility, which I hope my hon. Friend will bear in mind, of bringing two brigades back here for our Strategic Reserve. That will be cheaper and better, and will be within our obligations to N.A.T.O. and will not harm our alliance. We have the right under the N.A.T.O. Treaty, for balance of payments reasons, to move part of our forces here. Nowadays, under the changed conditions, that could be done without any military or political harm to N.A.T.O.

  1319
  Lastly, under Vote 1, I have been looking at rates of pay to men and lady officers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Women"] Some are ladies. I am very surprised that an officer in the W.R.A.C. is paid nearly £100 less on joining and throughout her time gets about £100 to £200 less than the equivalent rank of a man. I wonder for what reason that is. She has just the same appearances to keep up and she can be married with a husband to support. I should like to know why they are paid so much less. I should also like to know how many women officers receive marriage allowance.
  9.45 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I can make my speech almost in one sentence. I have listened to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Every single proposal he made would result in an increase in expenditure. If we followed the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) there would be no expenditure whatever. At any rate, there is one hon. Member of this Committee who believes that expenditure should be contained and held at all costs this year. If these various expenses have to be incurred in Germany, I sincerely hope that a proportionate number of troops will be brought home to prevent us having to spend more money.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. Ramsden: I am sorry that we have not had longer time for our discussion on the Army Votes. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been kind enough to give me notice of many points to which they require an answer on other Votes besides this one. I am grateful for that consideration and I shall try to say something in reply to the points which have been raised on this Vote.
  The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) and also my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) all spoke of the effects of the recent revaluation of the German mark. So far as we can see at the moment, the additional cost to Army Votes will be in the region of £2 million a year, because it will cost us more to buy the marks to give our soldiers to spend. Hon. Members also referred to the effects of this recent
  1320
  German decision on the purchasing power of our soldiers' pay. I am able to assure the Committee that as a result of the German decision, which was taken only recently, we have instituted an urgent examination of the need for a revision in the rates of local overseas allowance.
  It was suggested that, Germany being treated as a home station, our soldiers there are not eligible for such an allowance, but the position is that local overseas allowance is paid in all theatres where local living costs are greater than they are in the United Kingdom. That, I think, will cover the position arising out of the recent German decision. As this has only just happened, there is nothing more I can say at the moment beyond that it is our intention that soldiers in Germany should not suffer because of this revaluation and, where necessary, we hope to adjust the rates of local overseas allowance accordingly.
  The hon. Member for Dudley and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) both referred to pay and allowances of officers seconded to the forces of various overseas territories. I was glad that (they both stressed the importance of these arrangements. not only to the countries to whose forces they go but to this country. It is right—here I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley—that we should see that the men seconded to other forces are well paid since we must be able to attract a high class of volunteer for this work. For that reason the cost to the Governments concerned is inevitably rather high. I am glad to say that the demand from overseas Governments for officers and men to do these jobs is what may be described as buoyant. I do not, therefore, think that there is necessarily a case for any kind of subsidy beyond that which is at present paid in some cases from Colonial Office and Foreign Office Votes but, as the hon. Member for Dudley said, this is not a question on which I am properly qualified to give an authoritative answer.
  I stress again to the Committee the value of these appointments, and I assure hon. Members that I am confident that it has been accepted now throughout the Army that these jobs are worth doing and that it is in every respect an asset to a man's career to be chosen for secondment.

  1321
  The hon. Member for Dudley and other hon. Members asked about wastage. If I do not say very much on the general subject of wastage at the moment it is because time is short, but there will almost certainly be an opportunity for an extended debate on this subject when the Army Bill comes back from the Select Committee.
  The hon. Member for Dudley asked whether I could place in the Vote Office a return setting out, by arms and brigades of Infantry, recruiting figures, and number of discharges. He wished me to give the reasons for discharge, the number discharged in the first three months of service, and the number discharged later in their service. I was impressed by his argument and I will certainly look into the point. I cannot at the moment give him any definite undertaking.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) was good enough to assist our recruiting publicity by asking me some questions about current rates of pay. To give him only one example, a sergeant non-tradesman who signs on for a 22-year engagement, with first option of discharge in the ninth year, assuming he is married and has two children, will be getting in cash £869 a year, which is about £17 a week. In answer to a further point on which the hon. Member for Dudley previously expressed interest, a soldier can expect on average—I emphasise on average—to be promoted to sergeant at about the age of 28 or 29.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) asked about disturbance and educational allowances. The disturbance allowance rate has been improved within the last year. I will look into the other matter he raised and write to him in due course. Educational grants are paid to parents who have children at home in boarding schools at a rate of £150 for the first child, £175 for the second and £200 for the third. My Department is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education for what he has done to make available places in boarding schools for the children of parents to whom my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. I will certainly see whether there is anything
  1322
  further which we can ask my right hon. Friend to do in the light of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech.
  I think that I have covered as best I can most of the points made by hon. Members in our short debate. I conclude with a further expression of regret that our time for discussion of the other Votes is likely to be drastically curtailed.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend reply to my question about Berlin?
  Mr. Ramsden: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I assure him that the brigade in Berlin has supporting administrative arms and, therefore, it is not essentially different from an ordinary brigade group.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is there a monetary saving on last year?
  Mr. Ramsden: That may be so. I cannot tell my hon. Friend without notice.
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that we should spend a little time examining with more attention all the items in Vote 1, to say nothing of Votes 2, 8, 9 and 10 and the Supplementary Estimate. I take a view different from that taken by hon. and gallant Members opposite who are interested in the Services. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) take a different view, but I take part in these debates purely from the point of view of my constituents. After all these items have been considered, I want to know what the justification for them is. I wish to understand how I may justify them when I have to face my constituents.
  We have heard, for example, about the recruiting campaign. I could not find that there was a recruiting campaign in my constituency and I could not find out whether anyone had joined up, so I asked the Secretary of State for War how many recruits from Ayrshire had joined the Army in January. There are five constituencies in Ayrshire, and the total number joining in January was eight. This includes not only my constituency, but Kilmarnock and the constituency of the hon. Member——
  The Chairman: I must interrupt the hon. Member. He is dealing now with numbers, not with pay. He is dealing with Vote A.
  Mr. Hughes: I will relate it to pay. I suppose that the eight would receive at the most £72 in a week or, rather, four times that in a month. This is expenditure which indicates the background of the Estimates we are discussing. I am very surprised that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who is really my opposite number in these debates, has not been here to discuss these Estimates. He has not contributed anything constructive.
  Not only have I failed to discover a recruiting campaign in my constituency, but I have failed to discover anything in the constituency of Bute and North Ayrshire.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. The hon. Member is making many points and it is questionable whether they are all in order. May I call your attention to the fact that the Air Estimates have not been discussed at all, yet there is all this rubbish about Ayrshire?
  The Chairman: It is not a point of order that the Air Estimates cannot be discussed. I think that the hon. Member
  1324
  for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is again dealing with numbers rather than with pay.
  Mr. Hughes: I do not mind at all if the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), in his anxiety about the Air Force, should refer to my constituency in that way, but in referring to Ayrshire as rubbish he is referring to four other constituencies, including two represented by his hon. Friends. However, that is not the point.
  In my part of Ayrshire, what interests us is the growing amount of public expenditure under these Estimates which will have to be met, and which is being met, by increasing other charges, raising Health Service charges, and making economies——
  Mr. Reynolds: If my hon. Friend does not sit down, he will not be able to vote against the Estimates.
  Mr. Hughes: I do not quite understand——
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Report of Resolutions to be received Tomorrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  HOSPITALS (AMENITY BED CHARGES)
  10.00 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Pay-Bed Accommodation in Hospitals, etc.) Regulations, 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 184), dated 1st February, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be annulled.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. I want to put this point to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is a perfectly honest point of order. I have no intention of trying to delay the House, but I want to put a point of view to you which I think is strongly felt by many of my hon. and hon. and gallant Friends. I suggest this to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Most of the day has been spent on the Navy Estimates.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I cannot discuss what happened in Committee of Supply.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. What I want to suggest to you is this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As we have had no opportunity to discuss the Air Estimates and as we are now going——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That cannot arise now.
  Mr. Robinson: The effect of the Regulations against which we are praying is to double the charge for amenity beds in hospitals from 12s. to 24s. per day, or from 4 guineas to 8 guineas per week. The title of the Regulations is somewhat misleading. Amenity beds, which are the type of beds covered by the Regulations, are not what we normally refer to as "pay beds". They are in effect Section 4 pay beds and Section 5 beds.
  As there is frequently some confusion about this, it may be helpful to recall the difference between these two types of hospital beds. They are called Section 4 and Section 5 beds because the provision for them is contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the National Health Service Act, 1946. Under Section 4 of that Act beds in single rooms or in small wards—the majority of them are in single rooms—when available can be provided
  1326
  for patients who prefer to have some degree of privacy, though they may not need that privacy on therapeutic grounds. They are made available to such patients in return for the payment of what at any rate used to be a modest fee. This arrangement is always provided—this is a very important proviso—that such beds are not required for non-paying patients who do need a private room on medical grounds.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I rise to a point of order. Mr. Speaker. as there is practically nobody on the benches 'apposite interested in this problem, is there any machinery by which we can continue with the debate on the Air Estimates instead of this rather boring subject?
  Mr. Speaker: No.
  Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is bored, there is a perfectly simple remedy available to him. He can leave the Chamber. We should probably all be very glad if he did.
  I was saying that normally the important thing about these beds is that medical reasons should have the priority. This aspect was put very succinctly and with complete approval by the Guillebaud Committee in paragraph 417 of its Report, which stated:
  "We would agree that the first claim on this limited accommodation"—
  and I should explain that in that context the Committee meant both pay-bed and amenity-bed accommodation:
  "should be for those hospital patients who are in need of privacy on medical grounds, whether or not they are prepared to pay for a private bed. Secondly, we feel that it is right, on humanitarian grounds, that a proportion of the private accommodation should be set aside for use as 'amenity beds' by those patients who desire privacy even when it is not considered essential on medical grounds; the patient then pays for his privacy and in all other respects is treated in the same way as patients in general wards. So far, we think few will disagree with what we have said."
  We on this side do not disagree. We think that this is a perfectly reasonable provision. We see in it no conflict with the principles underlying the National Health Service as originally conceived, and we support it.
  The Section 5 beds are very different. These are beds for which the patient pays what is roughly their economic cost—perhaps 25 or 30 guineas a week—and in

  1327
  which the patient is looked after privately by a consultant who receives the full private fees for treating that patient. We think that this is a much more dubious provision; and that the existence of these private Section 5 beds not only tends to lead in the direction of there being two classes of service in the same hospital but certainly also leads to abuse.
  We support the Section 4 beds because there is really no opportunity for abuse and, as far as I know, there has never been any complaint about abuse of that kind. On the other hand, we have had complaints time and time again about queue jumping with the Section 5 beds. This was referred to in the same section of the Guillebaud Report, and that Committee then said that it thought that it could not amount to very much because the number of pay beds' in the hospital was a very small proportion. Nevertheless, that complaint has been made time and time again——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to waste time or to take the hon. Member's time, but I have great difficulty about this, because it seems to me that this Order is concerned only with Section 4 charges. and I cannot relate what he says about Section 5 to that.
  Mr. Robinson: I was trying to help the House, Mr. Speaker, because there is confusion between the Section 4 and the Section 5 beds. I certainly do not want to dwell on the Section 5 beds, but it is very important that we on this side should not be misunderstood. It would be most unfortunate if it were thought that we were praying against something concerned with pay beds in the fully accepted sense of the word.
  I will conclude that part of my remarks by saying that the Lancet, in an editorial in January of this year said, in very round terms:
  "To give priority to a patient, not because of clinical urgency but because he has paid a consultation fee, is not an exercise in professional freedom but more nearly an act of conspiracy."
  I think that we would all agree with that.
  Occupancy of these beds in hospital should be determined on medical grounds, and my experience—and, I believe, the experience of most of my hon. Friends—is that by and large this is the case with the Section 4 beds, but very much less
  1328
  so with Section 5 beds. The occupancy figures for these paying beds in hospitals do not show very much difference between the Section 4 beds and the nonpaying beds, which are also known as Section 3 beds. I am sorry that this is so confusing. We find that usually in a hospital where the normal occupancy of beds is something like 85 to 90 per cent., the occupancy of the Section 4 beds is probably around 80 per cent. That is quite a common figure. In other words, the beds are filled with patients who need privacy on medical grounds. This does not happen with the Section 5 beds. That is another reason why we are not particularly enthusiastic about them.
  The implication of all this is that on present demands we have—or, at any rate, we had—probably about the right number of Section 4 beds. By the same calculation, the implication is that we have rather too many Section 5 beds, since their occupancy rate is so low. What has been happening under the Government, however? I have some figures from a reply which the Minister was good enough to give me last week concerning the Section 4 and Section 5 beds in 1955 and 1959, which is the last year for which figures are available. The Section 5 beds remain virtually unchanged; there has certainly been no diminution. In a mere matter of four years, the Section 4 beds have gone down in number from 5,997 to 5,425. This represents a 10 per cent. drop in Section 4 beds.
  This is deplorable, but it is all of a pattern. This all fits into the policy of the Government and their predecessors in constantly encouraging the private, paying section of the Health Service to the detriment of the free Health Service. Now we get the increase from £4 4s. to £8 8s. a week for Section 4 beds. I remind the House that under the 1946 Act and the 1948 Regulations made there-under, the original charge for Section 4 beds was £2 2s. a week. Therefore, in just over twelve years, the cost of these beds has quadrupled. The Minister cannot say on this occasion that this is merely an adjustment to keep the price of the beds in line with the cost of living, because, certainly, the cost of living has not gone up four times since 1958.
  Our case against the Regulations is, perhaps, somewhat different from the

  1329
  case we have made against other proposals of the Minister of Health and against the rest of his taxes on sickness. I am not claiming that the Regulations cause hardship—at least, not to any great extent; I would not say that. What I do say is that they will price the amenity bed out of the market. A reasonable proportion of the population are in a position to afford the old charge of £4 4s. a week if they particularly want privacy when they go to hospital and if a Section 4 bed is available. There are far fewer people who can possibly afford £8 8s. a week.
  Thus we get to the position that I do not believe that the Minister will achieve his estimated revenue from the Regulations. I gather that the estimate is £125,000. One wonders whether it was worth doing for that sum. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate, I should like to know whether that estimate is based on any drop in the use of Section 4 beds by paying patients and, if so, what estimated drop has been calculated. I prophesy that either many of the beds will remain empty or—I very much hope that this is what will happen—hospital management committee will do their duty and ensure that these beds, if not occupied by Section 4 patients, will be occupied by non-paying patients who could benefit from the privacy on medical grounds. In our view, this Statutory Instrument is totally unnecessary. No case has been made for it. It is undesirable and we believe that it will probably be ineffective in its revenue-raising purpose. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby against this Measure.
  10.15 p.m.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary I am sure will agree that Section 4 beds are valuable and are needed and are a provision which, frankly, we could not do without. In the long run, we hope, every bed in every hospital will be an amenity bed of the type we are now discussing. That is surely the sort of thing to aim at, but as things are today they are required for one of two reasons and sometimes for the two reasons together.
  It is an ordeal for many people, on the grounds of personal modesty, to go into hospital and share the life in a large
  1330
  ward with many other people. This affects not one class of patients but all classes, and, if I may suggest it to the Parliamentary Secretary, men more than women. Men tend to adapt themselves less easily than women do. Women, I was going to say, are more courageous; they are certainly tougher, in certain senses of the term, than men are. It is true. We know it. Women are nearer to the earth earthy; they understand the meaning of life and death perhaps more easily than men do. So it is men I am thinking of.
  I have had some personal experience in the open ward and the amenity ward both as patient and as medical man. I remember that on one occasion I insisted upon spending a certain length of time in an open ward. Frankly, it was not a sort of experience I should like to undergo again. There is noise, which is often excessive and, in large wards, unavoidable. I remember one patient with meningitis a few beds away from me, whose great meningital cry rang through the night, night after night. As a result of modern treatment, on the fourth or fifth night his cries were stilled because he was better; he made a complete recovery; but it was very disturbing for everyone else.
  Those who have the benefit of a side ward or a small ward where there are only two or three patients have some advantage, obviously, because there is not so much noise and so they can rest more easily. It is very common in open wards to make patients sleep by giving them drugs at night. They cannot get to sleep otherwise sometimes. It is not the best way of giving people rest, but it is unavoidable in the circumstances. Then, if, on the other hand, there are patients who cannot possibly remain solitary or in a small ward with only one or two other patients, they must be in the open wards.
  I think we all agree that amenity beds are utterly desirable and that we must have them. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) in deploring that there has been a fall in the number by 10 per cent. in the past few years. I certainly support him in asking rhetorically of the Parliamentary Secretary, why was this change in charges made? It is a small sum. The need for the beds is

  1331
  great. Surely we could have done without this £120,000 rather than interfere with something which all of us with experience know to be necessary—and even those of us without, for imagination is enough and experience is not necessary to understand what I said at the beginning, that every bed really should be an amenity bed of a sort, and the best possible sort.
  We know that our hospital service has improved remarkably since the 1946 Act. We know of the devotion and care given by medical men and staff to patients in amenity beds and those in other beds. It is almost incredible now to read of what life was like in our principal hospitals a hundred years ago. One has only to look at Daumier's cartoons of life in Paris to realise what it was like. A hundred years hence people looking back at the provisions that we are making will say, "What was the matter with those people?"
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell)The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell)indicated assent.
  Dr. Stross: I notice that the Minister agrees with me and I can almost forgive him for speaking as strongly as he does about the need to improve hospital accommodation, because viewed from the vantage point of even fifty years hence the present position is scandalous. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North. I ask that in each and every case if these beds are not being used by those who pay they will not be allowed to stand unoccupied but will be filled with patients who need them not for modesty's sake but strictly on the ground of the kind of operation they have undergone, or that the attention they require is such that it disturbs nearby patients, or that that which is being done for them is such that they become emotionally involved because they feel that they are upsetting patients nearby.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Member must know that Regulations to that effect already exist. The beds are used for these purposes when they are not occupied by paying patients and these Regulations do not in any way alter the position.
  Dr. Stross: If I were still capable of sucking eggs I would tell the hon. Member that he could not teach me anything about that. Of course I realise that, but I ask that the beds should not be empty if anybody needs them. Nobody should be allowed such a bed for money if on clinical grounds there is anyone in the hospital who has a right to the bed. I am not sure whether the Minister agrees with me on that point but if I were superintendent of a hospital and had any influence I would not allow such beds to be used purely for modesty's sake if on clinical grounds, because of the seriousness of an operation or the nature of some treatment, they should be used free of charge.
  If the Parliamentary Secretary can give an assurance of that kind, I shall feel some relief. I think that she probably will say that, but we should like the firmest assurance. In any case, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North that this provision should never have been brought forward. These charges should not have been increased. Whatever assurance I receive on the points that I have raised, I shall still gladly and on principle support my hon. Friend.
  10.24 p.m.
  Dr. Donald Johnson: I should like to compliment the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) on raising an interesting subject in the debate, in sharp contrast to many of the objections to present legislation that we have heard during recent weeks. But I find his remarks contradictory because, first, he explains at some length—and I was pleased to hear him—the advantage and rightness of paying for privacy and then suddenly he switches round and says that this fee-paying practice is a wicked act of conspiracy.
  In fact, in the hon. Member's speech and that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) I think I have heard the best defence of the fee-paying practice that I have heard in the House since I have been a Member. I was glad to hear it. I remember that fifteen years ago I debated against the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central at Rugby, when I spoke in favour of fee-paying practice and he spoke against it. I am delighted to feel that some of my arguments then have sunk in.
  Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Member has had a lot of fun, so perhaps he will now make it clear that we on this side have been speaking not in favour of fee-paying practice but in favour of the idea of a modest fee being payable for privacy. We are wholly against fee-paying practice, which is a totally different matter.
  Dr. Johnson: I must apologise to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North if I fail to see the distinction he makes, because it is exactly privacy and other similar amenities for which people are willing to pay fees.
  Dr. Stross: I remember our little adventure in Rugby, and all its details. I thought that I had the better of the argument at the time. I remind him of how very good humouredly he took his defeat. In addressing his remarks to this point, will he bear in mind that there is a distinction between pay beds and amenity beds?
  Dr. Johnson: I do not see that in relation to this argument. I feel that, after fifteen years, the penny has dropped with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I am very pleased. That is the principal point I wanted to make. I feel that this rise in the fees is not unreasonable if people wish to pay for privacy, which is essentially an amenity.
  As has been made clear during the debate so far, it is provided that if privacy is needed for medical reasons because the distressing circumstances of the general ward are militating against the health of a seriously ill patient, then an amenity bed is available so that the patient can have peace and quiet. We are all, on both sides of the House, in favour of that—indeed, we are insistent that it should be done.
  Apart from that, if payment is made for strictly non-medical reasons—squeamishness or the simple desire for privacy—then I do not see why the fee, which is very much less than the fee for a private bed, and very much below the cost of the bed, should not be increased. It is for that reason that I am glad to support the Regulations.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I hope that the House will accept this Motion so that these Regulations may be annulled. These Regulations are part of the operation which the Govern-
  1334
  ment have brought before us in the past few weeks, of increasing charges in the National Health Service. As I understand it, the argument for the increase in the National Health Service contribution was that it would mean that the contribution as a proportion of the earnings of an adult male would still be the same as it was in 1948.
  That is one of the arguments that we have been given from the Treasury Bench as a justification for an increase in the contribution. This increase that is now demanded in these Regulations, this doubling of the charge, in my view—I am open to correction when the Minister replies—will mean that the charge will fall on a far greater proportion of the average adult male wage than was the case when it was originally fixed in 1948. If one of the main arguments for increasing the contribution is to bring it into line with the proportion which applied in 1948, why is it proposed to make this charge fall on a much greater proportion of the average wage than it did in 1948?
  I sense an ulterior motive in this proposal. Many people, when they go into hospital, have a horror of lying in a ward with fifteen, twenty or more patients. They feel that they must have some sort of privacy, preferably in a ward of their own, or in a ward which they can share with one other person. This is a fear that I cannot understand. The last thing that I want to do on entering hospital—and I have had considerable experience as a hospital patient is to be locked in a small room by myself from first thing in the morning till last thing at night. I prefer to be in a large ward and to enjoy the company of the other patients. Nevertheless, some people have this fear. They are not particularly worried about going into hospital, but they dread going into a ward with a lot of other people. They want a certain amount of privacy.
  If the charge is 4 guineas there is nowadays a wide range of people who can afford to pay it, but as soon as it becomes 8 guineas the proportion of the working population who can afford to meet such a payment is considerably reduced. How on earth can someone earning £13 or £14 a week—the average wage at the moment—even if he is fortunate enough to continue drawing full pay when away from work, afford to pay 8 guineas a week for a private bed in a ward, or even the smaller

  1335
  amount required for a bed in a ward which is shared with a few others? It cannot be done.
  People, realising that that is what they will have to pay if they want privacy, will go to one of the insurance companies which specialise in policies which enable this sort of charge to be met, and will start paying premiums weekly, monthly or annually, for the purpose of being able to meet a charge for an amenity bed should they have to go into hospital for treatment.
  While these Regulations will bring a certain amount of extra income into the coffers of the Treasury—part of the large amount that is to be gathered in to help pay for the small amount of additional capital work that is to be carried out—the main result will be to bring in a great deal of additional money to the insurance companies which will be collecting a substantial number of extra premiums from people who will find that that is the only possible way of affording what the Government are now making a luxury but which ought not to be considered a luxury—namely, obtaining a certain amount of privacy when receiving treatment in hospital under the National Health Service.
  As I have said, I cannot understand why people should want that kind of privacy. I would not want it; I should prefer to be in a general ward. But we must face the fact that some people want it and require it and should have that kind of privacy, which cannot be justified on 100 per cent. medical grounds, and, therefore, they have to be prepared to pay for it.
  The charges now proposed will put that part of the National Health Service, giving a little additional privacy, completely beyond the reach of the vast majority of our people and force many thousands to go to the insurance companies, thus increasing the profits of the insurance companies; and, in my view, that is as much a reason for the new Regulations as the attracting of extra money into the coffers of the Treasury.
  10.36 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K Robinson), in opening this
  1336
  modest debate about these modest charges, said a good deal of what might be included in my speech, because he explained what is meant by Section 4 beds. I make no complaint about that. I agree with him that there is still some confusion and that there are people who do not understand what is meant by Section 4 amenity beds, and that these beds are confused at times with the Section 5 pay beds. Tonight we are clearly dealing with Section 4, and, despite the path open before me, I am not prepared to stray into the question of Section 5.
  Section 4 provides for accommodation in single rooms or in small wards not for the time being needed on medical grounds for any patient. This provision is available to those who undertake to pay the charges, which are in turn designed to cover part of the cost. It dates from the inception of the National Health Service Act; that is, from 1948. Under the old hospitals scheme there was nothing precisely parallel with amenity beds as we now have them. With the introduction of the scheme in 1948 it was considered that some patients who were unable or unwilling to pay the medical fees and the full cost of accommodation as private patients would wish to have this amenity of privacy, and that they would be prepared to pay for it.
  In 1948 the Regulations fixed the daily charge at 6s. for a single room and 3s. for a bed in a small ward, but the same Regulations allowed for proportionate reductions if the average daily cost per in-patient in the hospital was less than 24s. in the last financial year available. The average daily cost was defined in the 1948 Regulations in these words:
  "…the average daily cost per in-patient of the maintenance of the hospital and the staff thereof and the maintenance and treatment of the in-patients therein;"
  I ask hon. Members to keep that point in mind during this discussion.
  In 1952 the charges were amended to 12s. and 6s. respectively. But the Regulations still provided that if the average daily cost was less than 24s. the charge should be reduced proportionately.
  The present Regulation substitute 24s. for the single room and 12s. for the bed in the small ward or, alternatively, a half or a quarter respectively of the average daily in-patient cost. whichever is less.

  1337
  So, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said, the effect of the present Regulations is that the charge is doubled. But the proportions remain the same as in 1952. The position is that these Regulations bring the charge up to date after a period of nine years.
  As I said, the principle was established in 1948 that the charge should be related to the average daily cost of an in-patient. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) asked "Why change the charges?" The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) asked "How are they worked out?" This is the answer. Since 1952, when these charges were last revised, hospital costs have increased, as every hon. Member knows. For 1961–62, these increases are approximately 70 per cent. for acute non-teaching hospital beds and 125 per cent. for psychiatric hospital beds. That is above the level known at the time when the last increase was made in 1952. This, I feel, is the argument for increasing the charges now.
  Mr. Albert Roberts: We are dealing with a different principle, are we not? The hon. Lady must realise that she is now making the amenity bed prohibitive for the people with moderate incomes. The argument which she is putting forward is that she is aligning the cost of the amenity bed with hospital costs.
  Miss Pitt: That is exactly the principle laid down in 1948 when amenity beds were introduced.
  Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Lady cannot get away with that. The fact is that the initial cost of an amenity bed was 2 guineas a week in 1948. It is now 8 guineas a week. The hon. Lady cannot argue that it has therefore kept pace with the increased cost of hospital treatment, because that has not gone up four times since 1948.
  Miss Pitt: That is what I am arguing, and I was about to give the House some details of hospital costings. These figures are worth bearing in mind. In the acute non-teaching hospital for the year 1950–51—the last figures available before the change was made in 1952—the cost of a bed per week was £16 19s. 6d. For 1959–60 that cost had gone up to £25 16s. 7d. For 1961–62 the estimated figure is £29 a week.
  1338
  On the psychiatric side, the cost of a bed for the year 1950–51 was £3 16s. per week. For 195–60 the cost for a psychiatric bed was £7 12s. 6d. For 196–62 the estimated figure is £8 10s. I think that these figure——
  Mr. Robinson: We must get this straight. These figures show that in round terms the cost has doubled. The cost of the amenity bed has quadrupled. Therefore, we cannot align the two.
  Miss Pitt: These figures show that the cost has doubled since the last increase was made in 1952. They were 4 gns. a week in 1952. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is incorrect. I am talking about the period since the last increase was made in 1952.
  Mr. Robinson: Would the hon. Lady give the comparable figures for when the amenity bed charges were first fixed in 1948?
  Miss Pitt: I have not got the figures and I doubt whether anyone has, because there was then no such service. I do not know on what basis hon. Members opposite when they were in power in 1948 made their decision to charge 3s. and 6s. respectively, because there was then no National Health Service on which to base an average cost. I have the figures for the period which we are discussing and I am sure—[AN. HON. MEMBER: "There were hospitals then."] I am sure there were hospitals then, but they were run on a different basis. In some cases they were run by local authorities and in others by voluntary organisations.
  Mr. A. Roberts: These are amenity beds provided for people with moderate incomes. It is not a question of calculating on the basis of unit costing in a hospital. The very word "amenity" means what it says. It is wrong to react in this cold, calculated way.
  Miss Pitt: But the basis laid down in 1948 was that the charges should be related to the cost of providing a bed in a hospital. On the figures I have now given the House I am sure that these proposed new charges are justified.
  Dr. Stross: The hon. Lady tells us—and we probably feel some sense of shame about it—that the cost of a bed in a psychiatric hospital used to be £3 15s. and that it has now doubled. Will she

  1339
  explain why, at the time it was £3 15s., and when the cost was rising a little, the cost of the amenity bed—which is only for amenity, carrying with it freedom of treatment, and where only privacy is being paid for—was higher than the total cost of the average bed, including everything? Will she also explain, on the figures she has given us with regard to psychiatric hospitals, why 8 guineas today is more than the cost of the average bed, including everything?
  Miss Pitt: Yes. I am proposing to come to that point. I think it will help the hon. Member when I reach it.
  The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked me about the occupancy of beds, as did the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. They were concerned that the numbers had diminished over the years. The answer to that, so far as I am able to ascertain—and I have inquired into it myself—is that over those years the general wards have been considerably improved. Furthermore, a number of wards have been split up either into cubicled or curtained accommodation. Thus, I would expect far more people to be prepared to go into the general wards, with this greater degree of privacy, than was the case in the early years of the service.
  Both hon. Members also asked if I could assure them that, when amenity beds are not occupied by patients who are prepared to pay extra for the amenity of privacy, they are used for the ordinary patient. That is the case. Already they are used for the ordinary National Health Service patient who is not paying anything towards the hospital cost, if, on medical grounds, he needs privacy.
  Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Lady should go a little further than that. The priority must be for the non-paying patient who requires the bed on medical grounds.
  Miss Pitt: That is so, and that is made clear by the Regulations. It is also made clear by the agreement form which the amenity patient signs. I have personal experience of cases where a person has booked to occupy an amenity bed and has had to wait because it was being used by an ordinary patient in the hospital who needed privacy on medical grounds. I also know of people in occupation of amenity beds who have
  1340
  been transferred to general wards because their beds were needed by people from the general wards, again on grounds of privacy.
  Mr. Charles Pannell Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)rose——
  Miss Pitt: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have given way on many occasions already, and I must get on.
  I said that I would come to the point which concerned the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. The costs for mental beds—or psychiatric beds, as we should call them—and mental deficiency beds work out, even today, generally between £6 10s. and £8 a week. This means that charges for psychiatric patients admitted to amenity beds, with few exceptions—and this relates only to a few isolated hospitals which provide a specialised service—will not be affected, because of the low cost of a bed. That is to say, the half principle will apply, and in the majority of cases they will not be paying any more than at present.
  Furthermore, if this is not clear to hon. Members, they will be glad to learn that there will be no increase in the charges being paid by existing occupants of amenity beds. This is stated in the Regulations, and it follows the pattern of the previous Regulations. It does not affect any agreement subsisting at the date when these new Regulations come into operation.
  It means that long-stay patients, people who have been in hospital for years, if they became inmates before 1952 will still be paying on the original basis of 6s. for a single-bedded ward or 3s. in the case of a two-bedded or three-bedded ward. If they became patients between 1952 and the date of the operation of this Regulation, 1st March, 1961, they will continue to pay on the basis of 12s. and 6d. respectively. I think I have shown on the figures I have given that the proposed increases are justified.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Before the hon. Lady departs from the figures in which I am very interested, I do not want to be ungallant or ungenerous, but the whole of her case which I have listened to in the last few minutes has been based on the cost of £29 a bed. I should like more information about what formula is applied, because obviously these beds are used for part of the time as amenity beds

  1341
  and for part of the time as general beds. How can she arrive at that average cost, which is more than in some private nursing homes?
  Miss Pitt: That is correct. I think that intervention tends to show that, even by paying the proposed new maximum of 8 guineas a week, this will be very good value in comparison with a nursing home. Furthermore, it represents the true cost of the whole of the provision of that hospital and the beds available in that hospital.
  I was about to conclude by saying that I think these charges are justified. I believe that the service is a reasonable provision, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said. For those who occupy an amenity bed because for their own personal reasons they desire privacy, I am sure the charge is not unreasonable and it can be met and cause no hardship to people already occupying such beds. It is in accord with present-day costs. I was glad to hear the hon. Member say that this is a good service, and I hope that the House will accept the Regulations tonight.
  Mr. K. Robinson: I asked the hon. Lady if she had the figures on which her Department based its estimate of £125,000.
  Miss Pitt: I am sorry, I meant to answer that point. The £125,000 is the estimated increased revenue for the whole twelve months and does not reflect any diminution in the use of the service, which we expect to continue as now.
  10.54 p.m
  Mr. Charles Pannell: The hon. Lady would not give way to me although she gave way to my hon. Friends. I am afraid I must, therefore, treat the House to a speech in order to ask about some of the figures. I do not know why the hon. Lady is so selective when she looks across to this side of the House.
  I have not yet taken part in debates on the National Health Service and I do not know whether she recognises me as a fee-payer or a non-fee-payer in this context. In contradistinction to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), when I went into hospital I had an amenity bed. He is gregarious and speaks at a great speed. I do not trouble the House so often and consequently when I went to hospital, as I am not one of the more talkative hon.
  1342
  Members, I wanted reasonable peace and quietness. I wanted a change from this place. If I went to hospital again I should want an amenity bed, where I should not have to listen to others and could occasionally read.
  I am still bothered about what the hon. Lady based her figures on. One knows one's own region. Presumably, the hon. Lady has recourse to some national statistics. She gave the figures for 1952, and then excused herself by saying that there were no statistics for 1948 on which the original figure of 2 guineas could be based. I assume, therefore, that it was either a hit-or-miss figure or it was arrived on some consideration of the average wage. I wonder where we start when we consider the appropriate figure for amenity beds.
  Was the figure of £29 based upon national statistics or was it taken from the regions? One can think of hospitals where £29 would be a ridiculous figure. I suppose that the most "hospitalised" town in the country is Dartford, for certain geographical reasons, and I can think of a very big hospital there where the amenity beds are just beds off the main ward which take the normal services of the ward. From a purely administrative point of view, they cannot be said to present more difficulty for the staff or to be more expensive to run. It is no more than a matter of providing privacy for certain patients. I find the figures which the hon. Lady gave rather suspect.
  I do not think the hon. Lady gave what is the expected sum to be brought in by these regulations.
  Miss Pitt: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) gave i—£125,000.
  Mr. Pannell: Presumably the hon. Lady agrees with that.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: The Minister is getting the information from the Opposition.
  Mr. Pannell: As my hon. Friend says, so badly are the Government briefed, they have to take their information from the Opposition. Another necessary figure is the number of amenity beds in the country. What did the hon. Lady base her £29 on? It was an average, so the number of amenity beds in the country comes into it. Does not she know?
  Miss Pitt: Again, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North gave the figure. I did not wish to take the time of the House on it. Of course, if the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) does not listen to his hon. Friend, I cannot question that.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I do not quite follow what the hon. Lady says. If the Government are to obtain all the information from the Opposition Front Bench, why do they not take the policy from there, too?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) is in great difficulty in giving way to two hon. Members simultaneously on different sides of the House.
  Mr. Pannell: Not for the first time have I been victimised in this way, Mr. Speaker.
  I find it a monstrous doctrine that, when the Opposition say this or that, the hon. Lady can be silent on the points with which she agrees and give her views only on the points where she disagrees. The Opposition are not briefed as the Government are. We have to do our homework. In fact, of course, we may well be better briefed because we are briefed from experience. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is rumbling about. We are told, simply because the Opposition have said something, that the Government need not make a statement. The Government are not usually so accommodating. On other matters they will ten—
  Mr. F. A. Burden: The information was right, so why should it be denied?
  Mr. Pannell: Of course, it was right the first time, but we expect it to be confirmed or commented on one way or the other.
  Mr. Martin Maddan: Earlier this afternoon, the Opposition were stressing how many hon. Members opposite would want to take part in this debate. I thought that they would be grateful to my hon. Friend for being so brief and not wasting time saying things which had been said already.
  Mr. Pannell: I cannot understand what the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) is talking about. I do not
  1344
  know whether he understands what an amenity bed is. There are plenty of amenity beds in the House, in the interview rooms.
  Dr. Stross: And all free of charge.
  Mr. Pannell: I am now being interrupted by one of my hon. Friends from behind me. From my experience of these beds, I find difficulty in accepting the hon. Lady's figures. If a common figure is taken for all over the country, I cannot see that that is the sort of figure which we can accept.
  The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North are good ones. It is not necessarily snobbery to want an amenity bed. Some persons have to have three weeks or a month in hospital. A diabetic patient probably needs an amenity bed. Some patients want to carry on their business and want a limited amount of freedom whilst in hospital.
  Superficially it can be said that these extra charges are the least objectionable of those which the Government are imposing, but they will constitute a very real blow to those who cannot afford to pay them. The Government should deal with these matters with precision. Certain figures have been flung at our heads tonight which I have great difficulty in accepting. If we were in Committee, we should probe them and want to know what they were based on. When the hon. Lady is asked anything, she says that she did not give the figure for that because it had already been supplied by the Opposition. We are justified in criticising that attitude, because the Government are not quite so good at accepting the arguments of the Opposition. One example of their unwillingness to accept our arguments was the procedural difficulty in which we were involved this afternoon because the homework had not been done. I should have saved the House the trouble of listening to this speech if the hon. Lady had not been so selective in giving way.
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: One can take any statistics one likes, depending on the base from which one starts. The hon. Lady was very careful never to go back to the origin of the amenity bed. She stuck to her figure from the

  1345
  base line of 195–52. It may be true that we did not have a costing system in hospitals at the beginning of the National Health Service, but we are not unaware of what has been happening to various costs ever since. There has been an increase in labour costs, coal costs, other fuel costs, and so on. It is not difficult to "job backwards" and ask what the weekly cost of a hospital was at that time.
  It is not good enough to say that one can only take the base line of 195–53 or 195–53 and not go back to the original date. The only way on which we can make a serious calculation is to base it from the time when the amenity bed system was first introduced, which was in the National Health Service Act, 1946, which came into operation in 1948.
  My hon. Friends are fully justified in comparing the charges which are now to be imposed for amenity beds with the charges which were imposed on their introduction. The cost fixed when the service was introduced was what was thought at the time to be a fair charge bearing in mind not only cost, but also wages and conditions.
  I also have had some experience of amenity beds. They are a great boon to some people. It is the sort of service which should be provided as cheaply as it can be. I am not sure about the costing aspect. The hon. Lady gave figures of the costs of hospital beds, but they were not the costs of amenity beds. They were the costs of all beds in a hospital.
  I concede that for an extra service an extra charge may be made if it is a service which is not absolutely necessary but one which can be taken of choice. I should have thought that the extra charge should have borne some relation not to the total cost of all hospital beds, but to the average of the rise in cost of amenity beds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) pointed out, many amenity beds are attached to wards or are on the outskirts, so to speak, of wards, so that the extra cost of running them can be only a little. Therefore, it is a little difficult to see why this imposition, which, I admit, will not affect a very large number of people, should be imposed on this small number who wish to have these beds.
  1346
  Though the number may not be large, we are concerned with small minorities as well as majorities, are we not? This small number of people have been able to afford these beds. We are pushing up the charge to such an extent that, as my hon. Friends have said, fewer people will be able to afford this slight extra service. One of my hon. Friends talked of patients being forced to go to insurance companies to help pay for this service. That is only another way of imposing on the individual charges which previously were borne on the Health Service general charges.
  I can only hope that we are not going to see more of this sort of thing. It seems to me that the Government are trying to reduce everybody to a dead level, or to two levels, and it rather surprises me that they of all people should: either one is very rich and can afford to pay for the lot, or one is of the general run of those who cannot afford to pay anything at all.
  Instead of recouping this miserable sum to the Treasury, I would have thought that the charges should have been kept as low as possible and bear some relation both to costs and to average earnings, as when they were first introduced. The hon. Lady knows very well that the charges will be about four times what they were in the past, whereas costs have not risen anything like that.
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I have listened very carefully to this debate, and the more I have listened the more it has seemed to me that hon. Members opposite are getting into very deep water. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said that we must accept either that one is very wealthy and can afford to pay for the lot or very poor and can pay nothing at all. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are introducing differentials into the Health Service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. They are doing just that. It does not matter whether the charge is £2 for an amenity bed or £8 for an amenity bed, what they are saying is that if a person wants to pay for the privilege of privacy he should be allowed so to do if he can afford to do so.
  If we take that argument to its logical conclusion then, equally, there is nothing

  1347
  wrong whatever in any member of the public saying, "I do not want to deal with the Health Service. I want to deal with private consultants. I want private hospitals." And hon. Members opposite are saying, "We have nothing against that. It is perfectly right and proper." That is the logic of the arguments they have been putting forward. It is surely logical on that argument, that if a person who can afford to pay £2 for an amenity bed he should have the right of having that privacy, equally to say that a person who can pay £8 should have the privilege of so doing.
  But hon. Members opposite must also remember that if their argument is correct there are many people in the Health Service who are unable to pay £2 for an amenity bed just as there are many who can afford to pay. They are creating a differential. The whole point is that the amenity beds are not available for anybody who wishes to pay for them as long as there are any persons who need them without any payment whatsoever. But that does not absolve hon. Members opposite in any way from the arguments that they have put forward in saying that if a bed is available for a person who can afford to pay for it he or she should have it.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Does the hon. Member not realise that even if we granted for the sake of his argument that to have a private bed for a private payment is a kind of differential, it does not make any difference to the fact that a much greater number of people can do it at a charge of two guineas than could do it at a charge of eight guineas?
  Mr. Burden: It is not my argument. I have merely used the argument that that is being put forward to illustrate the point that hon. Members opposite are saying tonight that they are in favour of a National Health Service differential for the people who can afford it.
  Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Member keeps on saying that hon. Members are saying this tonight, but the provision for Section 4 beds and pay-beds and private treatment in hospitals was written into the 1946 Act. The hon. Member has made no discovery about anything that is happening tonight.
  Mr. Burden: But hon. Members have now made this perfectly clear to the nation by their arguments tonight, whereas they have kept very quiet about it in the past.
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I have listened to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health addressing us in her previous office at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and in her present office many times. There have been occasions when she has discharged her duty with a great show of diligence, with evidence that she had done her homework, and with good humour, but tonight that was not so. Perhaps she felt that her brief did not sound very convincing. At any rate, if a Government spokesman, including a junior Minister, speaks we expect at least that the figures presented in support of the case are a reliable indication of the facts. But there is nothing in the figures which she presented tonight which suggest to me, sceptical as I am, that they can be accepted as authentic in the circumstances of the case which the hon. Lady argued.
  I present the precise figures which the hon. Lady gave us, and I hope that I am not misquoting her. She took as a base year 1951 and gave a figure of £16 19s. 6d. per week as the average cost of an amenity bed in the hospitals from which the figures had been taken. She next quoted a figure of £25 16s. 7d. for 195–60. But I cannot think why she should have gone on to make a forecast of £29 for 196–61. [Interruption]. If the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) wants to say anything I am willing to give way to him if he rises, but I am addressing a serious argument to the rest of the House and to those who are challenging us but who have had the courtesy to listen to what we are saying.
  Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is not awake.
  Mr. Price: The thing that struck me at once as rather questionable was that when the Parliamentary Secretary entered the realms of prophecy she tried to bolster the previous figures quoted with an estimate for 196–62. No one has that figure yet. Not even the private

  1349
  office of the Ministry of Health has a reliable figure of the average for 196–62.
  Therefore, I prefer to relate what I have to say to the figures quoted between 1951 and 1959; and that is a difference of between £16 19s. 6d. and £25 16s. 7d. which, according to my rough arithmetic, represents an increase of about 50 per cent. over a period of eight years.
  The hon. Lady has tried to substantiate her argument with the cost of the pay beds by saying that it must be doubled because, on average, they are costing twice as much. Yet, on the figures which she has given—and I am entitled to disregard the estimate for 196–62 because that is purely a guess, and she is only justifying her own basis for it on logic that there should be an increase from four guineas to six guineas instead of eight guineas—she has not shown that to be the case. I will leave that point at that, because I want to speak on another aspect of this matter.
  I should like to remind the hon. Lady that both she and her right hon. Friend the Minister should remember that it is not so long ago that the Prime Minister boasted in another context that the Conservatives would double the standard of living of the people within twenty-five years. We say that the right hon. Gentleman is just doubling the cost of living: he is doubling the cost of these hospital beds and they are an essential part of the cost of living for those of our people suffering from illness. It really will not do. Some of my hon. Friends, more sceptical and cynical than I, and far less charitable than I try to be on some occasions, said at the time, that, instead of doubling the standard of living, the policies of the Government would double the cost of living and that everything in this island—rates and taxes, and all sorts of things would rise. Now the cost of pay beds is being doubled.
  I am entitled to remind the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson), who entertained us earlier with details of an ancient exploit which he had with one of my hon. Friends from Stoke-on-Trent during a debate in Rugby. I gathered that the hon. Gentleman came off second best, but what he did not tell us was the merits of his argument, or anything of what he said in the debate.
  Dr. D. Johnson: I said precisely what the hon. Member is saying tonight, fifteen years later; he is copying my argument.
  Mr. Price: Well, I was not there, and' I have seen no report of the proceedings; but at that time, most members of the medical profession, and members of the Conservative Party in the early days when the National Health Service was being canvassed in this House and throughout the country, were against it.
  Mr. Speaker: These are interesting reflections, but I must warn the hon. Member that they are far beyond the issues arising on these Regulations.
  Mr. Burden Mr. Burden rose——
  Mr. Price: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Speaker, for what it is wort—[HON.
  MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, Mr. Speaker is a good natured person and has to keep order; but I was provoked by hon. Members opposite. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot give way again, because I want to address myself to another observation in our case against these Regulations.
  The hon. Lady has quoted figures and says that there are rises in costs. We understand the economic circumstances to which she refers, but I should like to know why, when she refers to the averages for the cost of beds—and her figures are higher average figures than in some private nursing homes—she did not make clear whether they included general hospitals, or whether they were only for teaching hospitals, where there are all kinds of extra overhead charges which have to be borne in mind and which should not be loaded against a proposition such as this.
  I do not think that the hon. Lady, in defending the Regulations, has made out her case. The case rests on completely fallacious, sketchy and unconvincing figures which could not be accepted by any responsible tribunal in the country. After all, this is the High Court of Parliament, and we should not accept this sort of slapdashery in support of propositions which are put forward for purely political reasons.
  Since I have been in the Chamber—and I apologise for not having been here at the very beginning of the debate, but I have been here for most of the time—nobody has referred to the fact that when

  1351
  the Health Service was formulated there were serious difficulties with the specialist branch of the medical profession. They threatened a sort of stay-in strike. They were not attracted to playing any part in the Health Service. I am not arguing the case tonight—it would be wrong to do so—but it is a fact that a concession was made to obtain the co-operation of the specialist branch of the profession, in that it was agreed that a limited number of beds should be available for patients of these specialists.
  That is the background of the situation. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether, since we still have this pernicious and objectionable system of the private control of beds by the profession, we can have an assurance that the specialists will not abuse this system. Many of the patients who are now being sent into private nursing homes where the fees are considerably higher than the present charge may be prepared to go into the general hospitals if the charge for a private bed is increased to 8 guineas a week.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman said a short time ago that the Government were doubling the cost of these beds. In fact, they are doubling the cost of the beds only to people who can afford to pay for the privilege of having them. If people need these beds and are unable to pay for them, they are always available.
  Mr. Price: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in my remarks. He at least pays me the compliment of having listened to what I have been saying. I submit that on medical grounds it is debatable whether there ought to be any sort of private beds at all. We on these benches are sceptical about the whole system. However, this is a typically British situation, because we do so many things which are quite illogical but which, nevertheless, work in a sort of pragmatic way.
  May I say, in conclusion—and I have been concluding for the last five minutes; I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker for having spoken for so long—that if the upshot of these Regulations should be that a limited class of people who can afford to pay four guineas a week for privacy are to be prevented from having
  1352
  these beds, and they are going to be available for a different type of person who at present prefers the private nursing home system, the House ought to object to the proposal.
  11.25 p.m.
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has managed to impart a little humour into the debate. But I must tell the House that, frankly, I cannot see anything funny about this proposal, especially when one remembers that we must look at this not as a thing apart, but as part of a scheme which the Minister of Health has introduced which attacks every branch of the Health Service. It is in that light that we have to form our judgments, and it is because of that that I believe we are abundantly right to oppose the Regulations.
  It is interesting to examine the Parliamentary Secretary's estimate of the amount of money that the additional charge will bring in to the Exchequer. This afternoon we have had another debate not unlike this in some respects, because among the other items that we discussed was scientific improvements in the Royal Navy under the Navy Estimates. There we are to spend another£¾ million a year—massive increases in some directions. Yet the Minister of Health, through the Parliamentary Secretary, asks us to impose additional charges to bring in the measly sum of £125,000. Let us compare that with the figures involved in our earlier debate today.
  It is astonishing that the Opposition now find themselves having to defend in the House the people whom the Conservatives have always said they represented. After all, the increased charge will not hit the working class, because they have never been able to afford the charges anyhow. They certainly will not be able to afford eight guineas a week for amenity beds now. The people who will be hit are those who like to feel that they are within what we term the middle class, of whom the Tories have always professed to be the defenders. Thus, it seems that the Conservatives are indiscriminate in the attacks they are now making upon our people. It does not matter whether they are ordinary working folk or middle class; they will all have to suffer through the actions of the Government in imposing the increased charges.

  1353
  I am one who believes that amenity beds should be made available, even free of charge, to all who need them—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are"]—and people need them for various reasons. It is not always on medical grounds that they may need them. Some people need them because they are modest—or perhaps too modest; perhaps they do not like being in public. The hon. Lady said that many beds in general wards now are, technically, at any rate, private beds because they have all been screened off. My understanding of the position—I have had very close connections with a hospital with 1,000 beds or more—is that most of these improvements have been carried out not through money provided under the Health Service but through hospital amenity funds collected voluntarily.
  I do not want to talk the Prayer out. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are anxious to register their protest against what we believe to be yet one more iniquitous infliction upon our people.
  11.29 p.m.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: In the limited time that remains to me before we divide, I wish to say that I agree to a very great extent with many of the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). But I could not agree with the general theme of his argument. He has been saying that he wants to wipe out the National Health Service altogether. He is saying that none of the general wards of a hospital is suitable for people who have certain illnesses and that they ought to have private rooms. That, in fact, is tantamount to saying that there is no worth-while general provision in the hospital service and that everyone should be encouraged to fend for himself and be able to provide a private room for himself whenever he goes into hospital.
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95A (Statutory Instruments, &c. (procedure)).
  The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 158.

  Division No. 107.]

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Gourlay, Harry

  Proctor, W. T.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Grey, Charles

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Awbery, Stan

  Hannan, William

  Redhead, E. C.

  Baxter, William (Stlrlingshire, W.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Beaney, Alan

  Hilton, A. V.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hoy, James H.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Blyton, William

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Danner, Sir Barnett

  Ross, William

  Bowles, Frank

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Short, Edward

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Kelley, Richard

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Lawson, George

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Callaghan, James

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Chetwynd, George

  Logan, David

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Cliffe, Michael

  MacCoil, James

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Stones, William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Mason, Roy

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

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Milian, Bruce

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Deer, George

  Milne, Edward J.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Delargy, Hugh

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Dempsey, James

  Morris, John

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Diamond, John

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Evans, Albert

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Willey, Frederick

  Finch, Harold

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Fitch, Alan

  Peart, Frederick

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Yale)

  Pentland, Norman

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Woof, Robert

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Probert, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Dr. Broughton and Mr. [for Davies

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Bryan, Paul

  Allason, James

  Black, 8ir Cyril

  Burden, F. A.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bossom, Cive

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Box, Donald

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Channon, H. P. C.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pott, Percivall

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jackson, John

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Coulson, J. M.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Gritchley, Julian

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Cunningham, Knox

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees, Hugh

  Curran, Charles

  Kirk, Peter

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roots, William

  Dalkelth, Earl of

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Sharples, Richard

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Leavey, J. A.

  Shepherd, William

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  du Cann, Edward

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Stodart, J. A.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Longbottom, Charles

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Farr, John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Finlay, Graeme)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Fisher, Nigel

  MoLaren, Martin

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Temple, John M.

  Freeth, Denzil

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Gammons, Lady

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maginnis, John E.

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Turner, Colin

  Grimston, Sir, Robert

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Marten, Neil

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Mawby, Ray

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wail, Patrick

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hendry, Forbes

  Mills, Stratton

  Whitelaw William

  Hiley, Joseph

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Hobson, John

  Heave, Airey

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Holland, Philip

  Noble, Michael

  Woollam, John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Peel, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Gibson-Watt and

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

  NATIONAL REFERENCE LIBRARY FOR SCIENCE AND INVENTION
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Science has waited a rather long day for his first appearance at the Dispatch Box to answer a debate in his new position. I hope that he will feel that although the hour rather late this subject is worthy of his attention on the first occasion when he answers a debate on matters dealing with science.
  Before I proceed with my argument I want the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that nothing I shall say should be taken in any way as wishing to hold up the progress of establishing the National Reference Library for Science and Invention. The Patent Office Library was started about a hundred years ago and is
  1356
  situated at present in very overcrowded premises which it has occupied since 1902. They are quite attractive in what I should call the cast-iron style of the end of the last century. I am not sure that when the Library is moved and they are taken down they will not attract the attention of John Betjeman.
  Far many years the Patent Office Library has been starved of money and its enlargement is very much overdue. The proposal that the Library should be taken over and turned into a National Reference Library for Science and Invention was made in 1951 under the Labour Government, and in 1952 the Conservative Government endorsed the proposal for a reference library as part of a science centre. Putting this proposal into operation was, however, deferred on the ground of economy. Since that time there have been repeated references in the annual Reports of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. In 1958, Lord Hailsham, then Lord President of the Council, announced that

  1357
  the Library would be housed in the new Patent Office on a site on the South Bank. Last year, as Minister for Science, Lord Hailsham said that he hoped that a start would be made on building in 1963 and that it would be completed in 1965 and would form part of the British Museum Library.
  One of the great advantages of the Patent Office Library has been that it has open storage access. This is very much appreciated and is extremely important for research workers. This, however, has already been partly lost through storage of the growing acquisitions in basements and in other buildings outside the main building. I understand that as at present planned the actual stock of the library has been fixed at a completely arbitrary figure of 500,000 and these will be current books, the remainder, the non-current books, to be kept at the British Museum.
  The definition of currency varies greatly with the age of a subject. There are some subjects—for example, mechanical engineering—in which some books fifty or sixty years old may be current. This is important for patent officers and agents who may be searching for an invention made many years ago, but which has only now become feasible due to the developments of complementary science. If the size of the library, considered as the number of publications it is to hold, is compared with libraries in other countries, it is very small indeed. The stock would have to be twenty times what, in fact, is proposed.
  There are a number of points I want to put to the hon. Gentleman to which I hope he will be able to give replies. The first point is: what steps are to be taken to ensure that the non-current books, that is to say, the books not held in the new library but stored at the British Museum, will be readily available? This will be extremely important, as it will be very annoying for those who wish to consult books if there is undue delay in obtaining them. At present, even though they are stored sometimes a little distance away, I understand that the time taken is not very great and that they can be obtained almost immediately or in half a day.
  The second point I put is this: in view of the growth in the number of publications—and no one can doubt that that
  1358
  will go on with the growth of science, probably at what the scientists would call an exponential rate—is there room for expansion on the site? Some measure of the existing size of the problem was given by Dr. Killian, the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said that in science technology alone the annual rate of world publication for journals is 55,000, for hooks 60,000, and for research reports 100,000. I understand that the library at present takes about 7,000 periodicals.
  There are already signs that the Patent Office is needing to expand itself, and the danger, with the two bodies in one building or, at any rate, on the one site, will be that the Patent Office requirements will tend, unless we are careful, to squeeze the space available for the library, so that it may already be insufficient, or insufficient if one takes into account the need for growth. This is an important aspect which must be watched. I should like to know whether there is more land available on the site and, if so, what steps the Government are taking to acquire it from the London County Council. It would be very annoying if, having set out on this great task, we were to find in a very short time that the whole thing was on much too small a scale.
  I come now to my third point, the recruiting of staff. The new library, enlarged and, perhaps, with some new functions, will undoubtedly require more scientific staff of high calibre. Are steps being taken now to recruit that staff? This is necessary not only because of the new and possibly enlarged task which the library will fulfil in the future, but because it is necessary immediately to form the nucleus of a staff capable of assessing and exploiting the greatly enlarged stock the library will acquire when it takes over the British Museum stock and the British Museum stock is put to its new purpose and becomes part of the National Reference Library. The recruiting of staff, of course, needs funds. Will the funds be available during the next twelve months for this purpose when the planning of the library and the assessment of the new stock should begin?
  Although I realise that there may well be advantages—I think that this is generally agreed—in the control of the library being in general under the British Museum, there may well be confusion of responsibility. After all, the Patent

  1359
  Office, of which the library remains part, or with which the library remains associated, at any rate, is responsible to the President of the Board of Trade. The British Museum, of course, is responsible to the Minister of Education. Perhaps the Department most interested in the National Reference Library for Science and Invention is the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the D.S.I.R. is responsible to the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend the Minister for Science. The D.S.I.R. will have responsibility for the other library, the lending library of science and technology just about to open in Yorkshire, and, of course, it is very important that developments in the two should take place along parallel lines.
  This could be the cause of serious conflict, I believe, and it is my own view that the D.S.I.R. and, therefore, the Minister for Science has the greatest interest, in the end, in the new developments which are taking place. I want to be quite certain that there will be no confusion of responsibility and that the whole scheme does not fail or become treated as of less importance than it should be as a result of the division of interest between the various Ministers and Departments.
  Does the hon. Member feel that the whole scheme has been fully thought out, and has the task which the new library will have to perform been thoroughly considered? Obviously, it will not remain just a library for the Patent Office—not that the present one has been that. The Patent Office Library is, perhaps, for 60 per cent. of its use, used by industry, by scientists and research workers or by information officers in industry, and it is not by any means used only for patent purposes. Nevertheless, it is clear that the new library will require some new functions and that the work that it carries out for industry and research workers will be greatly increased.
  For instance, will it provide an information service? This may be especially important for small and medium-sized firms which have not got skilled and trained information officers of their own and also for research workers in borderline subjects between two disciplines. Research workers working for a single
  1360
  discipline can very often obtain the information they require from the libraries of their professional organisations, but when working between two overlapping disciplines, as so frequently happens today, it may be more difficult and in this field this library may make a substantial contribution.
  Is it considered desirable—has it been thought about—that the abstract services at the library should be centralised? I have no opinion about that and do not know anything about it. It is a subject which has been raised and it should be considered. Will the library provide translation services? All these problems provide a field for what I might call operational research, both on the functions of the library and on the use of the space it will have.
  There is a body—the Association of Special Libraries and Information Bureaux, A.S.L.I.B., as it is called, which could perform a very useful function. A.S.L.I.B. represents perhaps the largest body of potential users, namely, industrial firms and their information officers. It might well be asked to assist in carrying out research of this type and in the planning of the library, which should be taking place at present. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that the whole conception has been thought about on big enough and broad enough terms? The building of the new library provides a great opportunity for the dissemination of scientific information and research into many aspects of it.
  The Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy for 1960 suggested that this type of research might be centred in the library and also in the Lending Library in Yorkshire. Work of this type has already been done to some extent by A.S.L.I.B., with grants from D.S.I.R. and the American National Science Foundation. The ideal solution would be a National Institute of Scientific Information, closely associated with the Library, preferably in the same building, of which A.S.L.I.B. might well form the nucleus.
  There is here a very great opportunity, but it will be lost if the scheme is carried out without adequate vision or if it is subject at the opening stage to cheese-paring. This is the time when the ship can be spoiled for a ha'porth of tar.

  1361
  Many industries in this country are belatedly at the turning point from traditional to scientific methods in their design, development and manufacture. The Government should look on this new project as a major contribution to this change.
  11.53 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): Mr. T. E. Utley, in his recent book, "Occasion for Ombudsman", describes what he imagines happens on an Adjournment debate in these words:
  "The Parliamentary Secretary to the Department, whose unhappy lot it is to answer the debate, which lasts for half an hour, may drift in from a dinner party and read a prepared brief."
  I assure the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) that I have not just drifted in from a dinner party, partly, I suppose, because nobody asked me to one, and if I have something with me which might be called a prepared brief it is because of my great interest in the subject which he has raised.
  I should, therefore, like to begin by thanking him for raising this important subject, which has not been debated in the House, to my knowledge, for some considerable time, if at all.
  As the hon. Member stated, the idea of forming a National Library for Science and Invention stems from the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy issued in 1951. The Report recommended setting up such a library, which would serve the Patent Office and its clients, working scientists in research stations and in industry, and those concerned with technical development work.
  In addition to information on patents, it was also thought desirable to cover the natural and applied sciences, technology, geography, certain fine and applied arts, and other borderline subjects in so far as they were relevant to science. The aim, in fact, was to provide a complete reference service with all the information necessary to the library's full use, such as an expert staff and open access to the shelves. Accommodation for 500,000 volumes was thought necessary. The hon. Member suggested that this was possibly an arbitrary figure; at any rate, it was the figure given by the Advisory Council. It also suggested that
  1362
  there should be accommodation for a collection of patents with space for 600 readers sitting at any one time in the reading rooms or among the book stacks.
  This proposal, as he said, was originally part of the more general scheme of providing a Science Centre on the South Bank of the Thames, which was abandoned in 1957. However, the proposals for a reference library on the South Bank were reaffirmed the following year by the library Sub-committee of the Advisory Council which reported and confirmed its earlier recommendations, and in May, 1960, my noble Friend was able to announce, in another place, that a building would be erected on the South Bank of the Thames to house both the National Reference Library for Science and Invention and the new Patent Office. It was hoped to start building in the spring of 1963 with a view to completion by the end of 1965. These dates still remain our targets.
  The library itself will be formed as part of the British Museum Library with the existing Patent Office Library. We do not, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, anticipate any overlapping or confusion of responsibility. The National Lending Library for Science and Technology will be under the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, whereas this library, of course, will be part of the British Museum Library, and, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, after its establishment, be answering for it in this House. The one is a reference library; the other is a lending library.
  The new building will be erected to the east of the southern approach to Waterloo Bridge just north of the existing Cornwall House. It will occupy the whole of the available site. The library itself will have a total area of approximately 130,000 sq. ft. and will, in our view, be well suited to meet the Advisory Committee's recommendations with regard to the number of volumes which can be housed at any one time. There will be reading rooms which will total about 22,000 sq. ft. and will seat about 300 people. There will be seating room for a further 300 people among the book stacks. The total cost of the new building—although the hon. Gentleman did not ask for it—is provisionally estimated

  1363
  to be about £½ million. We therefore consider that the site is sufficient to provide a worthy national reference library.
  In answer to the first two points that the hon. Gentleman made—I tried to note them down by numbers, but I lost count; at any rate, the first two points I did note—I can say that while, admittedly, the site does not give room for all the expansion in future years which might be considered ideally desirable, we do believe that it will provide a worthy national reference library. However, earlier publications will have to be housed at the British Museum and we believe that it will be possible to provide a speedy and an adequate system for enabling research workers to procure earlier works which they require.
  I should inform the hon. Gentleman that legislation will be needed to enable the Trustees of the British Museum to house part of their collection in the new building and to move books from one building to another. The House will, therefore, have a further opportunity to discuss this arrangement in detail before the new library is opened. A substantial nucleus of the collection of volumes which will be housed in the new library will be provided by the present Patent Office Library, and in addition to that, as my noble Friend said on 31st May last, scientific publications at present in the British Museum Library will be incorporated in the new library.
  As the hon. Member said, the present Patent Office Library was started just over a hundred years ago, like so many other things largely as a result of a suggestion by the Prince Consort. The present library building came into use in 1902, and we have yet to cross the bridge, if that is the right word, of Mr. Betjeman. Today, the stock amounts to about 210,000 volumes of periodicals, 100,000 volumes of patent specifications and 70,000 textbooks. Over 7,500 current periodicals are taken, including over 300 Russian journals. The hon. Member suggested that the library had been perpetually starved of funds. One can, of course, always suggest a larger sum of money for a project of this kind, but in 1960 expenditure on the library amounted to just under £180,000 and the staff numbered 72.
  1364
  This library has always been run on the principle of open access to the collection on the shelves and it makes use of the photo-copying facilities on the premises. The hon. Member acknowledged the importance of this set-up. It will, therefore, be seen that the evolution of the new library from the very substantial nucleus of the present Patent Office Library will be a natural development. All concerned will take particular care that when this library becomes part of the larger National Reference Library for Science and Invention the services offered as a research library in the field of invention will be at least as satisfactory as they are now.
  The hon. Member suggested that some kind of advisory committee, of which A.S.L.I.B. might be a member, should be set up to advise the British Museum and Patent Office during the preparatory stages of this project. He said however at the beginning of his speech that he wished to suggest nothing which might delay the completion of the building and the start of its use as a full-scale national reference library for science. The building plans which have already reached an advanced stage have been agreed in general form with the Patent Office and the British Museum and are about to be sent by the Ministry of Works to the London County Council as the planning authority.
  As for the internal lay-out, a great deal of work is at present being done by Mr. Wilson, the Principal Keeper in the Department of Printed Books in the British Museum, and by Miss Webb, head of the Patent Office Library, and the architect of the Ministry of Works. In addition, Sir Frank Francis, Director of the British Museum, has been actively concerned with the scheme since its inception and has played a leading part in the library committee of the Advisory Council for Scientific Policy. I am sure that the House will agree that we are all grateful to these people for their help. Miss Webb was appointed in April, 1960, particularly with this preparatory work in mind. She is both a science graduate and a chartered librarian. She has had experience of the work of public libraries and of scientific information work in industry as well as of practical dealings in the patent field. I am sure that she will be able to appreciate the

  1365
  requirements of both scientific and industrial users of the new library.
  It therefore seems to us that the establishment of a special advisory committee at this stage could result only in delaying the preparation of plans and the commencement of building work. Any suggestions which scientists, industrialists, librarians, research workers, and Members of Parliament, as well as workers in the patent field, may have for this building can, I would suggest, be more speedily evaluated and, where not conflicting, incorporated into the new library if they are sent to any of these persons or to myself, who can pass the ideas or to them, than if such information had to be submitted to a special advisory committee not yet set up. There is a very substantial difference between the establishment of an advisory committee at this stage and the establishment of the advisory committee which will be set up when the new library is brought into operation—to which my noble Friend referred in another place on 31st May last.
  When the library is in operation there will be many problems still to be solved and I would remind the hon. Member that I am talking here about 1965. Some degree of selectivity must be exercised in the acquisition of literature, and some selectivity must be exercised in relation to which volumes are to be transferred to Bloomsbury. Advice will be needed on the use of micro-films, and of many other modern techniques.
  The exact constitution of this advisory committee is as yet undecided, but we shall undoubtedly benefit from the experience of the National Lending Library for Science and Technology, which already has an active advisory committee of distinguished persons ready to give it counsel. My noble Friend is, naturally, fully prepared to consider any points that may be put to him on this matter, both as to functions and composition, but the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, agree that, for the moment, it would be wrong to hurry this phase of the work.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for expert staff and to have scientists on the staff of the Library. This is a matter for consideration between now and 1965, but it will be impossible to have specialists in every single subject
  1366
  about which books are included in the library. I think that what we should aim at is a sufficient staff of persons with academic training, capable of extending their fields of knowledge in a scientific direction. We are determined to see that an expert staff will be there to do all that it possibly can to provide a first rate information service for the benefit of those using the library. The hon. Gentleman laid emphasis on this point and, as I have already said, the Patent Office has ample provision for providing photo-copying facilities which are being, and will be, widely used.
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 35 of the 195–60 report of the advisory committee. The Government have already accepted the importance of research into information techniques and are now considering how this recommendation may best be put into practice. We fully agree that the new library, when it is set up, should co-operate in this kind of research in any way in which it may be able, but of course, the question of what research should be done, and where, must follow a decision upon what research is most vitally needed and would be most advantageous.
  I cannot go farther than that, but I can say that my noble Friend considers this to be a most important and urgent matter, and that the National Reference Library will play a full part in any cooperative effort which may be undertaken. We consider this to be of the greatest importance to the future of the nation's scientific effort. The planning stage is almost over and nothing must hamper the speedy conclusion either of this stage or of the construction of the building which will follow. When the library is opened, the Government will co-operate with the advisory committee which will be set up to ensure the provision of a National Reference Library for Science and Invention which will be worthy of our nation and of those who carry out research in it.
  12.9 a.m.
  Mr. Frederick Peart: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) is to be congratulated on raising this subject tonight, as is the Parliamentary Secretary on his very full reply.

  1367
  There are just two points that I would raise in the minute left to me. My hon. Friend asked about translation services. Will they be afforded? The other point was the division of responsibility. My hon. Friend stressed this and asked whether it was to be with the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Education, or the Minister for Science. I believe that the main responsibility should be with the office of the Parliamentary Secretary's noble Friend and, in this House, with the Parliamentary Secretary himself, for
  1368
  answering Questions on matters affecting the new library.
  Mr. Freeth: For translations we shall offer the best service that we can. So far as the second point is concerne——
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SCIENCE
  Research and Development, Scotland
  Research and Development, Scotland
  Nuclear Research (Nimrod Proton Synchrotron)
  Nuclear Research (Nimrod Proton Synchrotron)
  Medical Reserarch
  Medical Reserarch
  National Lending Library for Science and Technology
  National Lending Library for Science and Technology
  Land
  Land
  D.S.I.R. (Liaison Officers)
  D.S.I.R. (Liaison Officers)
  Research and Development (National Expenditure)
  Research and Development (National Expenditure)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Welsh Water Advisory Committee (Report)
  Welsh Water Advisory Committee (Report)
  Village Plans
  Village Plans
  Glasgow Development Plan (Inquiry)
  Glasgow Development Plan (Inquiry)
SCOTLAND
  Edinburgh Northern General Hospital
  Edinburgh Northern General Hospital
  Agriculture (Crofting Counties)
  Agriculture (Crofting Counties)
  Housing, Dunoon
  Housing, Dunoon
  Education (Holy Loch)
  Education (Holy Loch)
  Hydro-Electric Scheme, Glen Nevis
  Hydro-Electric Scheme, Glen Nevis
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection
  Geriatric Beds, West Fife
  Geriatric Beds, West Fife
  Invalid Tricycles, Glasgow
  Invalid Tricycles, Glasgow
  Migration
  Migration
  Three-Apartment Local Authority Houses
  Three-Apartment Local Authority Houses
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Education
  Education
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Bank Notes
  Bank Notes
  P.A.Y.E.
  P.A.Y.E.
  European Currencies and Sterling
  European Currencies and Sterling
  Common Market Countries (Investment)
  Common Market Countries (Investment)
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Cairnryan Military Port
  Cairnryan Military Port
  Exports to North Africa
  Exports to North Africa
  Normanton
  Normanton
  Bacon
  Bacon
  Motor Tyres
  Motor Tyres
  Local Land Charges (Committee's Recommendations)
  Local Land Charges (Committee's Recommendations)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Homicide Act, 1957
  Homicide Act, 1957
  Surrendered Firearms
  Surrendered Firearms
  Retail Shops (Closing Hours)
  Retail Shops (Closing Hours)
  Taxi-cabs (Metropolitan Police District)
  Taxi-cabs (Metropolitan Police District)
EMPLOYMENT
  Dockers, Port of London
  Dockers, Port of London
  Ashington and Morpeth
  Ashington and Morpeth
KENYA
  Mau Mau (Oaths and Ceremonies)
  Mau Mau (Oaths and Ceremonies)
COAL
  Prices (Industrial Coal Consumers' Council's Report)
  Prices (Industrial Coal Consumers' Council's Report)
ROADS
  A.46 Road, Newark
  A.46 Road, Newark
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Maternity Services (Cranbrook Report)
  Maternity Services (Cranbrook Report)
  Social Workers
  Social Workers

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

LIFE SENTENCE REMISSIONS
2.35 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the factors which govern the release of prisoners serving a "life" sentence; and on whose advice and authority is it that remissions are earned and releases effected.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have powers, under Section 27 of the Prison Act, 1952, and Section 21 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1952, to release on licence at any time a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment. Any person so released may be recalled to prison at any time.
In considering how long it is necessary to detain a prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment, my right honourable friends take into account all the circumstances of the offence, the age and character of the offender and his development in detention, and the need to protect the public from any prisoner who might be a danger if released. The actual period of detention varies widely, according to the circumstances of the case, from a year, Or even less, if there are strong compassionate grounds for early release, to twenty years or more in exceptional cases.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his reply, and may I be allowed to take the oppor-
758
tunity of offering to him my warm felicitations on the interesting event recorded in yesterday's newspapers.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question? Observing that in many cases the actual period of imprisonment appears to bear no relation whatever to the sentence passed of "life" imprisonment—in other words, that the term "life imprisonment" no longer means what it says—is it not time that this misnomer was discontinued, and some such term as "detained during Her Majesty's pleasure," substituted.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I do not know whether the first part of my noble friend's supplementary is strictly in order. But I suppose that it is not often that one can stand at the Despatch Box and welcome such a supplementary. I thank my noble friend for his kind expression, as well as the expression of your Lordships. The suggestion that my noble friend has made runs along the lines of part of a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment. It is open to objection, however, because "detained during Her Majesty's pleasure" is a term applicable to certain classes of Broadmoor patients, and persons who are under the age of eighteen who have been convicted of murder—the sort of cases I mentioned in an answer to a Question the other day. So it would be confusing to extend this term into a different field as my noble friend would like.
There is the further point, my Lords, that as the scope of capital punishment has been greatly reduced by the Homicide Act it is desirable to retain such deterrent effect as the teen "imprisonment for life" has in its wording. The term "imprisonment for life" really does mean, as I indicated in my first Answer to the noble Lord, that a prisoner may be detained for life.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, can the noble Earl explain why the extended use of this term would be confusing? It is already applied to persons of unsound mind and to persons who are under the age of eighteen. It seems to me to have already a considerable range of interpretation. Would it

759
be unreasonable to apply a similar expression, "detained during Her Majesty's pleasure", to adults over the age of eighteen?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the difficulty—and I am sure the noble Lady will appreciate it—is that if we extend the term, we should have to extend it to all cases, and I do not think that would be in line with what my right honourable friend would consider appropriate.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider this point in respect of the supplementary question asked by my noble friend? Under the present system it is easily possible for a man to be liable to two life sentences, and that is rather an absurdity in one human life.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I note the point my noble friend bas raised, and I am sure my right honourable friend appreciates it. Nevertheless, there is this threat that the sentence might be "life imprisonment", which might mean imprisonment for the rest of his life.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that although the use of the term for all cases of life imprisonment might not be in keeping with what his right honourable friend thinks, it is clearly in keeping with what his right honourable friend does?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I note the point that the noble Lady makes.
LORD SOM̃ERS: My Lords, may I ask whether there have been any cases during, say, this century of actual life imprisonment?
EARL BATHURST: I cannot say how many there have been, but I do know that there have been prisoners who have died in prison of a natural cause.

STATISTICS OF BRONCHITIS SUFFERERS
2.41 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the number of cases of bronchitis registered as disabled with the Ministry of Labour, the number of these at present in employment, and the number who are in receipt of sickness benefit.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, in April, 1960, when an analysis of the Register of Disabled Persons was last made, there were 43,404 men and women classified as being disabled on account of bronchitis, bronchi-ectasis and emphyzema. Of these, 5,500 were registered as unemployed, but no information is available as to how many of the balance were in employment, nor how many were in receipt of sickness benefit.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am sorry, I am not quite clear about that Answer. Am I right in thinking that the first figure was the actual number on the Register of Disabled Persons?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes
LORD TAYLOR: It is quite clear that there are a very large number of chronic bronchiactics who could be employed in sheltered work. Could the Minister draw the attention both of doctors and of patients to the desirability of registering, as this is now perhaps the most common cause of disablement of the industrial worker?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that it is our purpose to do that. As the noble Lord is probably aware, the Minister of Pensions, together with the Minister of Labour and the Health Departments, is instituting an inquiry into the incidence and duration of diseases, of which this is probably the most important.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, having represented in another place a constituency where the incidence of chronic bronchitis is the highest in the country, may I ask the noble Earl if he

761
could tell the House more about the geographical distribution of these cases?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords, I do not think I could tell the noble Lady anything in particular about the geographical distribution in reply to a question, but that is one of the purposes of the inquiry which is to be started next June.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I beg Leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the number of cases of chronic bronchitis at present in receipt of sickness benefit.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, medical certificates submitted in support of sickness benefit claims do not normally distinguish chronic from acute bronchitis. Altogether, some 82,000 persons were receiving sickness benefit for bronchitis of some kind on May 30, 1959, the latest date for which figures are available, and at this time of year the number may be higher.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I think that it tends to bear out that there are many cases of bronchitis, probably chronic, which are not registered as disabled.
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether, in the annual figures, the trend is upwards or downwards?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords, I could not.

ALLHALLOWS STAINING CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RIO TINTO RHODESIAN MINING LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FLOOD PREVENTION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, it may be convenient to take the two Amendments in my name together. The first Amendment, to Clause 3, meets representations, made after the Committee stage, that the Bill should require prior consultation by local authorities with statutory undertakers before carrying out maintenance and management operations. This Amendment is similar to provisions in other Acts, including the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946. The Second Schedule already gives statutory undertakers the necessary protection in operations requiring flood prevention schemes. The second Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 3, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("(4) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act relating to maintenance and management operations shall authorise the carrying out by a local authority of any such operations so as to affect injuriously any works or property belonging to, or the carrying on of their statutory undertaking by, any statutory undertakers, except with the consent in writing of the statutory undertakers:
Provided that consent for the purposes of this subsection shall not be required if it is withheld unreasonably, and any question whether any such consent has been withheld unreasonably shall be referred to and determined by the Secretary of State.")
Clause 15, page 10, line 11, at end insert (""statutory undertakers" and "statutory undertaking" have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

DEFENCE
2.47 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON) rose to move to resolve, That this House approves the Report on Defence, 1961, (Cmnd. 1288). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House approve the Report on Defence. This is the annual occasion which enables your Lordships to discuss the whole field of defence and the Minister of Defence's

763
White Paper. We shall have an opportunity of discussing the Service Estimates in greater detail after Easter, when we can examine closely the proposals which the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air and I myself have put forward for the conduct of the Services for the next year.
But to-day I thought it would be more appropriate if I spoke to your Lordships over a much broader field. It is, I think, some considerable time since two Amendments to a Government Motion of this kind have been put down. The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party is not in itself very unexpected, because he spoke on much these lines last year, with particular reference to the last phrase of his Amendment, about the continued adherence to independent nuclear projects, by which I take it he means our independent contribution to the nuclear deterrent.
The Amendment of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition is perhaps even more to be expected, since it is no doubt phrased so widely in order to enable the many diverse opinions in the Labour Party to take shelter under one very large, shapeless umbrella. Now, none of us should complain about that, and in drawing attention to the many different views which are held both in the Liberal Party and in the Labour Party on defence, I do not in any way intend to deride them. I know very well—as all your Lordships do—that they are most sincerely held. But I think the very diversity of them is indicative of the difficulty of the subject which we are discussing this afternoon.
In the old days, our defence policy was really very straightforward. It was almost invariably plain as to where your greatest potential threat came from and you built up your force—or you tried, or perhaps failed, to build up your force—to meet that threat. In doing that, you took care of all the other eventualities that could conceivably happen. Even in 1939, Britain was secure in her island safety. It was clear that a large Navy combined with a powerful Air Force, all composed of relatively simple equipments, would be capable of ensuring our safety against a direct attack on these islands.
My Lords, the situation to-day has, I suggest, changed in four respects. First of all, the advent of the atomic and subsequently the thermo-nuclear weapon. The shattering power of these weapons has completely revolutionised our strategic thinking. The policy of the deterrent has grown up. An overpowering need to avoid global war if Western civilisation as we know it to-day is to survive; the almost philosophical debates about whether the weapon will ever be used; about escalation; about the difference between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons; the difficulties of more than three or four or five countries having a nuclear capability; the obvious uselessness of nuclear weapons in small bush fires or small limited wars; all this has wrought a complete change in defence thinking and, as the Prime Minister, I remember, once said, makes it necessary for us, if we continue with our nuclear capability—and I shall come to that in a moment—to have two sets of golf clubs, one wooden-shafted and the other steel-shafted, if we mean to cover all possibilities.
The second change that has taken place is the vastly increased complexity of the ordinary conventional weapon—conventional in the sense of non-nuclear. Some examples of that are given in the illustrations at the back of the Defence White Paper. One can give many more. This has meant that although the hitting power of modern weapons is much greater than previously, their cost, both in research and development and in the end-product, has also risen greatly, and the time that it takes to develop them has very greatly increased.
It may not have struck your Lordships that when in the Admiralty we are discussing plans for a new ship, a new design, a new concept, that ship will still be operational in 1990, nearly 30 years from now, assuming a life of about twenty years. So not only are we faced with the time and the cost of development, but we are faced with the not very easy problem of deciding what the world will look like in thirty years' time. And the pace of change and of technical advance is getting faster and faster. My Lords, there was very little difference between the ships which fought the Spanish Armada and Nelson's "Victory", a period stretching over 200 years. The

765
aircraft carrier of to-day is so far removed from the aircraft carrier of even fifteen years ago as to be an entirely different weapon of war.
The third thing which has changed in the last twenty years is that defence is no longer a narrow question of national politics in which only one nation is concerned. It is nowadays a great international issue, involving half the nations of the world. What happens in the most far-oft and backward country may affect the whole peace of the world. We are deeply involved with our Allies in the West, and the effectiveness of our defence depends upon our cohesion and our unity. Not only must we consider the possible effect of our policy upon our enemies; we must take into account the reactions of our friends.
And, lastly, the increasing complexity, technicality and cost of modern defence has made it impossible for us on our own to build up forces on the same scale as those of the two giants of to-day, Russia and the United States, with their gigantic industrial capacity.
What then do we conceive to be the ultimate purpose of our defence policy in these new circumstances? Clearly, it must he, acting together with our Allies, to preserve peace and to maintain and foster the spread of our way of life throughout the world. In other words, defence is the instrument of the foreign policy of the country. Without defence forces we should, in the words of Mr. Aneurin Bevan, "go naked into the conference chamber". Without them, the influence which we can exert throughout the world and which we in Britain believe to be a good influence, would be greatly diminished.
But any Government must first of all consider the economic problems. We have to consider the effect of our defence budget on the economic position of the country, for Britain's ability to maintain her position and influence in the world depends above all on a sound economy; and we can make our proper contribution to the stability and peace of the world only if our economy remains strong. Here, too, our problems are immeasurably greater than they were before the war.
Then we have to decide on a purely practical level what is the technical
766
nature of the threat to this country and what are the best ways of meeting it. Difficult choices are involved. The threat is not from one particular form of attack alone. It can take many forms. It may come from the air; it may come on land, or at sea. It can be launched with nuclear weapons or with conventional forces. It may come directly in Europe, or indirectly by an attack on our interests in different parts of the world. We cannot hope to meet every aspect of it fully with our comparatively slender resources. We have to assess the probabilities over a long period ahead, and assign some kind of priority to our various requirements.
In the face of all these conflicting problems and difficulties, the Government have tried to achieve a balance. We believe that we should make our independent contribution to the deterrent, and I shall in a moment come to our reasons for that. We believe that we must contribute on a considerable scale to the Western Alliance. Our contribution to N.A.T.O. is in fact our largest defence commitment.
About 40 per cent. of all our available Army formations; 50 per cent. of all our front-line aircraft, including Fighter Command which will shortly be placed under SACEUR; and 85 per cent. of the active and operational reserve Fleets throughout the world are assigned to N.A.T.O. In addition, we are contributing with our V-bombers to the strategic nuclear forces of the Western Alliance. All this is a very significant contribution in real terms to the whole range of common defence, and one which entitles us to a major voice in the councils of the Alliance.
We believe, too, that we must be prepared, with versatile and mobile conventional forces, to put out "bush tires"; and you will have noticed in the Defence White Paper and in the Navy and Air Estimates the increase in the mobility of our forces, the rise in strength of R.A.F. Transport Command and the decision announced that the Royal Navy is to build an assault ship of powerful capability and is to have a second commando carrier in commission. We must guarantee the inernal security of the Colonial Empire. We must help to train our Commonwealth friends and Allies. All these tasks we have set ourselves to do,

767
and it is the belief of Her Majesty's Government that the shape and size of the forces which are proposed to Parliament in the Report on Defence enable us to fulfil them at a cost which the country can afford.
My Lords, the two items of Government policy which have been called most into question are our independent contribution to the nuclear deterrent and recruitment to our all-Regular Forces. There are very many views expressed about our contribution to the deterrent. It has been challenged at every level of consideration: on purely military grounds, that it is an unnecessary duplication of the American deterrent; on economic grounds, that we cannot afford it; on political grounds, that it is a barrier to disarmament; and on moral grounds, that it is iniquitous to use it. I can assure your Lordships that the Government have most carefully weighed all these considerations before coming to the conclusion that we should and must retain our independent nuclear power.
From the military point of view, there is no doubt that the V-bomber force, with its existing capability, is a powerful contribution to the Western deterrent. As the Minister of Defence said in another place, the United States have made it plain that for reasons of geography, for reasons of the strength of our Alliance, and for other reasons of a more technical and secret character, they greatly welcome this essential contribution. It increases the dispersal of the Allied nuclear striking force and thereby the certainty of over-whelming retaliation in the event of a Soviet attack. It narrows the Russians' field of manœuvre in the cold war, increasing the risks which they must run in their attempts to disrupt the Alliance. I believe that our possession of it enables us to influence world affairs much more widely than would otherwise be possible. For instance, in matters of disarmament or at the conference table between nations, I believe the fact that we are in the nuclear "club" enables our voice to be listened to much more readily. And to those who say, as I think Mr. Grimond did in another place, that what we are really seeking to do is not to deter the Russians but to influence the Americans, my answer is that we seek to do both, and that there is nothing odd or foolish or wasteful in
768
trying to influence your friends by demonstrating your technical ability and your determination to contribute to the Western cause.
As for the economics, the facts are these. The greater part of our expenditure on it—which is tied up in the medium bomber force and in the fighter and missile defences of the deterrent bases—would be incurred in any case, unless we were prepared to do without a bomber force of any kind. The capital cost of the delivery system—the V-bombers—has in the main already been incurred. The saving in men and money which would result from the abandonment of our nuclear capability at the present time would give us an increase in conventional strength which would be infinitesimal compared to the defence which we should have sacrificed. There can be no doubt whatever that, in terms of both men and material employed, the nuclear weapon is the supreme example of the economical use of force.
As to the moral issue contained in our possession of nuclear weapons, I would ask those whose consciences protest to consider carefully where their attitude would lead them. Is it less moral to possess weapons of our own, and to be prepared to use them in defence of our civilisation, than to shelter behind the United States and its deterrent? Or should we renounce our partnership in the Western Alliance? That might be soothing to some consciences; but I believe that it would be highly dangerous for the future. And let us not waste time speculating on the independent nature of our deterrent. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence recently said in another place, an aggressor knows that we have these weapons, and that in certain circumstances we should be prepared to use them.
My Lords, we have these weapons. The V-bomber force exists, armed with the free-falling bomb, to be replaced later by Blue Steel. What on earth would be the point of giving up at this moment all the hard work and skill and success which we have worked for and achieved over so many years? He who thinks that such a unilateral renunciation of nuclear weapons would be the start of

769
some kind of nuclear disarmament and change of attitude in the world must be a very sanguine man. Can it seriously be argued that China, for example—a nation which does not share our morality—would be deflected from her course by any act of renunciation on our part? We should simply be throwing away our own achievements for no gain whatever.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, this is a very interesting argument, and well put. But may I ask what right we have to ask them to renounce these weapons on moral grounds while we ourselves retain the independent deterrent?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord has been following my argument. I am saying that I do not think we should throw away our independent nuclear deterrent on the off-chance that, by our example, anybody else will do so.
LORD OGMORE: If we are now—as we are doing—asking other countries not to have the independent deterrent, what right have we to do so if we retain the deterrent ourselves?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we have not asked other countries not to have the independent deterrent, so far as I know. If the noble Lord will consider what I have said about China, I think he will agree with me that any unilateral renunciation on our part is hardly likely to affect that country.
The Minister of Defence in another place has made clear what the future of our independent contribution is to be. After Blue Steel, the stand-off bomb, we are arranging to introduce Skybolt in the late 1960s. Skybolt is under development and is making good progress. And there are other means of delivery which we could adopt for deterrent purposes—the Buccaneer and the T.S.R.2 which will come into service in the mid-1960s. In addition, as the Minister of Defence has also told another place, a team of British Royal Navy experts is at the moment in the United States studying the whole progress of the Polaris weapon system and the nuclear submarine which carries it. And I am grateful to the American Navy for their co-operation and generosity in keeping us so fully informed on this project.
It will be seen from this, my Lords, that not only do the Government believe
770
that it is right for us to continue the nuclear deterrent, but that it is possible and practicable to do so.
I now turn to the question of manpower. There is no doubt that this is a problem which is causing the most concern throughout the country, and which was most in evidence during the debate on defence in another place. Not least are the Government concerned because success in our recruiting drive is an absolute necessity to carry out our defence plan. The revolution which, as I have already mentioned, is taking place, and has taken place, in equipments and weapons does not in any way detract from the importance of the sailor, the soldier and the airman. I sometimes wonder whether the concentration on equipment—on the radio, in the newspapers and in our speeches in this House—does not lead the ordinary man to believe that any future war will be a "press-button" affair run by scientists, in which ordinary men will be useless, and that to join the Services to-day will not provide a worthwhile long-term career.
In my view, my Lords, nothing could be further from the truth. The human element is as important to-day as it ever was. The 1957 White Paper laid down our future defence policy and outlined recruiting prospects as they were then seen. It was forecast at the time that the shortage in the Army at the end of 1962 would be 50,000, or perhaps, at best, 25,000. Even on the most pessimistic assumption these estimates are very much out of line with the situation as we see it to-day.
The problems in front of the three Services are quite different. I do not believe that the Royal Navy has a great deal to worry about. It is true that there are certain branches of the Service in which recruiting is not so good as might be, but in general the position is fairly satisfactory. Indeed, the Civil Lord told another place that last year there were over 15,000 applicants for the Royal Navy. The R.A.F. too, although the problem here is a little more difficult is a Service which should not have too much difficulty in getting the right number. As the Secretary of State for Air said, the most serious problem is a shortage of officers in the General Duties Branch, which may b3 due to the

771
wrongly held view that there is no future in flying. It is therefore in the Army that the problem is gravest. We still have not got 165,000 Regulars. During the next two years we believe that the advantage of service in an all-Regular force, with progressive training, better uniforms, better accommodation, better weapons and better equipment, will become increasingly apparent.
Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed the very imaginative proposals which the Secretary of State for War has announced. There is, first, an intensive recruiting campaign, and immediate plans include a scheme to attract National Servicemen to stay in the Army. Then there is a campaign to bring the Army to the people; more overseas training exercises—for the first time in history it is proposed to have an exercise in Canada. Other proposals include plans to unite families until housing catches up with the demand; a "save while you serve" scheme to help ensure that a man can get his own house where he wants it when he retires; and, finally, methods to help solve the loss of recruits by discharge by purchase before they have had a chance to settle down.
These very imaginative proposals, coupled with the success that we have already had, lead us to expect that we should achieve our minimum target of 165,000 early in 1963 and that, because of the upward tendency in recruiting by then, we shall be able reasonably quickly thereafter to get a little over the 180,000 ceiling. But it will not be until the end of this year that we shall be able to see clearly what the figure at the end of 1962 will be. The result of the pilot scheme of television advertising has been very encouraging, and recruiting figures in the areas concerned have increased by about 18 per cent. as compared with the previous year. It has been decided to go ahead next month with a national campaign.
In all these circumstances, my Lords, I do not believe it would be right to start talking about the reintroduction of National Service, with all the consequences which would flow. The shortages, we believe, will be only limited and temporary, and there are ways other than the reintroduction of National Service for dealing with them—for
772
example, by adjustment of medical and educational standards, and further civilianisation. All those methods would be examined.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether that means that the Government go right back on the pledge on the 1957 White Paper, which quite clearly stated, at the beginning of the 1957 programme, that if by 1962 we had not got the men it would be necessary to return to call-up?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that anything I have said goes away from that. I am saying that we shall not know until the end of this year whether or not we shall get the numbers required. If it is plain that we are not getting them, there are other ways of going about it than by National Service—for instance, selective service or the other means that I mentioned. We shall examine them all before we do it.
My Lords, I make no apology for going into some detail so far as the Army is concerned; for the Army as I said, has much the greatest problem to face. But in general I believe that these problems of recruitment should be left to the Departments themselves. It is the individual Services that men are being asked to join, and each Service should be allowed to gear its machinery to produce the best effect for its own purposes. Life in the three Services differs widely, and it is true that there is some competition in the appeal by each Service for recruits. But whatever the appeal of the sea, the land or the air, in the matter of terms and conditions of service there is nothing to choose between the three.
If we are to attract recruits we must be able to offer rewards comparable with those obtainable in civil life and make sure that the Serviceman does not find himself cast adrift in middle life with no prospect of obtaining fresh employment. The pay in the Services is now fully comparable with earnings in industry and the biennial reviews which are carried out (the next will be in April, 1962) ensure that this comparison is maintained. The Regular Forces Resettlement Service gives full advice about employment prospects in different parts of the country and about vocational training courses. All these arrangements are

773
working well and, speaking generally, there is no real problem at the present time in resettling other ranks within two or three months. Officers have always presented a particular problem because of the age at which they retire, or, rather, used to retire. We hope that the new career structure announced last year will help to overcome this problem.
My Lords, to sum up the manpower problem, the Government are modestly optimistic about the future. We believe that it was right to go for all-Regular Forces, even at the risk that, having taken that decision, we might be faced for a little time with shortages in some categories. But with the career prospects, the pay and conditions which the Forces can now offer, we believe that our target of around 400,000 will be reached in the not too distant future. I do not pretend to have covered all the many problems and difficulties which beset us. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will also be speaking in this debate and will no doubt deal with these other problems.
But I have tried in my remarks to say something about the two issues which are most prominent to-day. I have tried to show your Lordships, if indeed it were necessary to do so, some of the difficulties and uncertainties upon which any defence policy must necessarily be based. My Lords, I believe that the Government have a good story to tell, and that if the people of this country were asked to choose between their policy and the policy of the Labour Party, or the policy of the Liberal Party, they would unhesitatingly choose, as they did eighteen months ago, that of Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the Report on Defence, 1961 (Cmnd. 1288).—(Lord Carrington.)
3.15 p.m.
LORD REA LORD REA had given Notice of his intention to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert:
"this House deplores the fact that, in spite of an increased defence budget in excess of £1,655,000,000, Her Majesty's Government have failed to provide a convincing explanation of the part to be played by Britain in a co-ordinated Western defence system
774
and further, while approving the declaration contained in Command Paper 1288, that 'a narrow nationalist policy for the choice and production of arms makes no sense today,' regrets that Her Majesty's Government do not recognise that this declaration is inconsistent with their continued adherence to the concept that Britain can only maintain her position in the world by relying on independent nuclear projects."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will defer until the end of the debate moving the Amendment which stands in my name, so that we can discuss the whole question in all its many aspects before turning our minds to the Division Lobbies. In this way, I would respectfully submit, the character of our discussion to-day and to-morrow will have greater continuity than it would have if we had to dispose of one or more Amendments before concentrating upon the substantive Motion so ably moved just now. Therefore, with the permission of the House, if I may have it, I will now quite shortly make my few observations. Then, if I may have the leave of the House, I will rise again to move my Amendment formally at the end of the debate to-morrow.
My Lords, I think the clarity and ability with which the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, put his case has won the admiration of us all, and our thanks. I always find it a great pleasure to listen to him, and I must say that I wish it were somebody less reasonable and less pleasant to whom I find myself in opposition in this debate on Defence. It would seem that I should apologise also for the length of the Amendment in my name, but its apparent verbosity has an advantage, because it puts into about 8½ lines all the main points that I want to make and so relieves your Lordships and myself from enduring a long and possibly tedious speech.
My points are very simple ones. First, whilst I think we all agree that this country must certainly have defence, and must certainly have the best defence it can pay for, it must, to use to-day's cliché, cut its coat according to its cloth and not according to dreams of prestige. The Defence Budget, as your Lordships

775
know, increases every year, and it is already an amount of money that is more than we can afford. To be really effectual as an individual military Power to-day we should surely need to spend many times the £1,700 million now proposed; but, of course, such an idea does not come within the bounds of sanity. As it is, the immense weight of the present Defence Budget, I think, must obviously impair very drastically all our hopes of greater assistance to our national prosperity and welfare, and if we do continue at the present increasing rate, where is the money to come from?
Without beating about the bush, are we really to cut down on housing and health and pensions, and such things which really do matter to the poor and the old in this country. Are we to cut down on education, transport improvements and forward planning, which affects us all? Are we to defer the easement, which we look forward to so much, of heavy industrial and personal taxation, which is to-day a frustration to incentive and, therefore, is keeping our commercial status in the world lower than it might be?
If all this money is needed for our share in a co-ordinated Western defence system, how is it that the people of this country simply do not know what that share is—for I am convinced that they do not—or how it works. If the Government cannot tell them, is it possible that the Government themselves do not know? We have had tremendously expensive failures in Blue Streaks and the like, and still the people in this country do not know why. To-day, I suggest we are trying to keep up with the Kennedy-Joneses and the Khrushchev-Joneses, by way of "show-off" gestures of expenditure on arms and weapons which I think experience has shown are likely to be obsolete almost before they are started. What I call the "Kennedy-Joneses" and the "Khrushchev-Joneses" can, of course, if things go wrong, pour out further millions or billions on a newer destructive project. But we cannot. We should be heading for bankruptcy and should retreat perhaps to second-class or third-class national status, which is the last thing any of us wants.
The White Paper itself in paragraph 29 says:
"Both the United States and Russia spend on research and development alone sums greater than our total defence budget. We obviously cannot afford to spend on this scale."
Those are the Government's own words. The greatest issue is, of course, as the noble Lord has pointed out, the retention of our own national nuclear deterrent, which in itself will deter nobody if we are left to "go it alone". But is not the possession of this thing pretty terrible, as the noble Lord very frankly said, as an example to other countries? He said: "If we give it up, it will not make China give it up". But the fact that we have it when we could go without it in the general sense surely is a bad example to such countries as Argentina, Ecuador, Indonesia and Ghana. Of course they will want to follow suit. Where, then, is the progress of multilateral and universal disarmament?
There is one rather misleading and not quite fair argument used in favour of keeping this national deterrent—an argument which, I suggest, is so facile that it is rather apt to be swallowed without being analysed as being selfish, and selfishness masquerading as patriotism; for Edith Cavell's words about patriotism being "not enough", had a real meaning; they were not just a woolly aphorism. The argument which I criticise was, according to The Times, used in a speech in another place by the Secretary of State for Air, Mr. Amery. These are the words he used:
"I understand and respect the pacifist case that force is wrong. But there is a rather ignoble variant about, to the effect that since nuclear weapons are so devastating, it is better to accept slavery than death."
The he went on:
"This is not the spirit with which Britain faced her destiny at Dunkirk."
Of course that was not the spirit at Dunkirk, or at any other crisis in the long history of our country, right up to the time of Dunkirk, or even a year or two later, because, as the noble Lord has said, up to the time of the invention and use of nuclear weapons it was, I hold, often possible to save posterity by laying down one's own life. Of course, millions have done it, to their everlasting honour and glory. But after the advent of nuclear

777
weapons the offer to lay down one's own life may involve the resultant death of nearly all mankind—and which of us has the right to bring that about? It may cause the extermination of all past civilisation, which is a terrible thing, and the denial of any existence to our potential descendants. Have we, in this passing generation, a mandate to bring that about either?
To boast that one would rather be blown into ten thousand smithereens than endure personal national subjugation for a short time is, I think, a sort of egoism which takes no account nowadays of any generation other than one's own small, passing and relatively insignificant generation, no matter whether this boast is made by a Russian, a Chinese or a Briton. It sounded very fine and magnificent and chivalrous up to this century; but now it has become vainglorious, short-sighted and totally selfish. The voluntary sacrifice of life by one individual nation, which was once a noble thing, may now, I think, be a very evil thing. We must consider it carefully.
But how can we cope with this dilemma? Not, I believe, by the Labour Party's proposals of unilateral disarmament; for that, I personally think, would tend to bring war nearer. Surely, the only course is (again in the words of the White Paper) to reach agreement on general world disarmament under effective international control—I would underline the word "international". In other words, our objective must be not really to prepare for war, because war destroys all that it aims to save; but to prepare wholeheartedly for peace, which at least brings hope. It is not really easy to see what progress the present Government is making towards multilateral disarmament, when it comes to Parliament year after year for vast and increasing armament expenditure, for more armament and rearmament.
Of course, on the other side of the House the "die-hard" element is still with us. It is not very easy for Victorians to become Elizabethans. I suggest it is dying very hard, as we see in a Conservative Party split from top to bottom (or is it laterally?) by that traditionally Conservative element of "die-hards" on the one hand, and a more liberal element (spelt of course with a little "c") on the other.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): How does one spell "liberal element" with a little "c"?
LORD REA: The country was greatly moved by the fine and statesmanlike speech of the Foreign Secretary in this House only a few weeks ago. But how can the people be expected to support a divided Conservative Party which is pulling both ways—pulling both ways, but yet not making ends meet? Alternatively, how can the people be expected to continue support for a Labour Party, tethered as it is to unilateral disarmament and to further nationalisation, neither of which the country wants, when that Party has come to the end of its tether and does not know whether it is coming or going—certainly not coming. The Party can paper over the cracks of disunity for a short time by, shall I say, manufacturing rather hysterical Parliamentary diversions on relatively trivial issues; but it remains tethered, and divided in its doctrinaire disagreement, apparently taking as its motto "Any stigma is good enough to beat a dogma."
Where, then, is the country really to look for leadership and guidance in our curious political set-up—the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, indicated where it should not look, but I am not quite sure that I agree with him—particularly as such vital matters as we are discussing to-day are not intrinsically Party matters at all? Both the Government and the Opposition claim to detect pleasant noises of general approval when they point out with pride how liberal they are becoming. Perhaps, my Lords, they want confirmation of this trend in public opinion; and perhaps a General Election would give it.
3.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH had given Notice of his intention to move, as an Amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert:
"this House has no confidence that the policy set out in the Report on Defence, 1961 (Cmnd. 1288) will provide effectively for the defence of Britain."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this certainly is every year one of the most important debates that your Lordships can engage in; and I must say that I

779
wondered, when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was rising to move the adoption of the White Paper, whether we should get the kind of speech that we had last year from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on which, he will remember, I passed some remarks, because then the Government had the great trouble of trying to keep off (as the noble Viscount cleverly did last year) explaining away the difference between Sandys and Watkinson, and we did not get any real explanation at that time of the White Paper. This year we have had a most interesting speech of a general character from Lord Carrington, with his usual facility and at least a smiling aspect, even If he does not always feel that way towards us inside. He puts it over very well and gracefully. But I must say that while he did go into some detail about two main points, for which we are grateful, he did not really tell us much more about the true state of affairs than we were able to get from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, last year.
Like the Liberal Party, we shall be moving our Amendment at the end of the debate. But our Amendment goes much deeper than does that of the Liberal Party. Ours is a Motion of no confidence, and the Motion of no confidence is even less qualified than the Motion of no confidence of last year; it is just a straight issue. The more we go on with these White Papers on Defence by the Conservative Government, the more their failure seems to emerge. That is the true situation. We have to go back in time to examine the basic facts. You were handed over large forces in 1951. You have not got those forces to-day. You were always pressing us at that time. I remember very well that when the so-called "bush fires", incidents like the Persian Gulf and Abadan and things of that kind, arose, you always pressed us to know what forces we had to deal with our commitments. Our forces were much larger than you have at any time sought to retain since the actual war in Korea.
The problem for the country to consider is this. The White Paper proposes a budget in manpower which, I take it, will, by the end of the financial year, be no more than 400,000. It is true that that is 25,000 better than the figure first postulated by Mr. Sandys in his 1957
780
Paper—because he foresaw a shortage as far ahead as 1962 of the strength he was seeking to achieve of 375,000. What is the cost of the programme attached to this total personnel maintenance proposed report? The budget of Mr. Sandys in 1957 was much praised by many people because for the first time there was to be a reduction in cost. The gross figure submitted to the House fell to £1,480-odd million, and then we were to get from Germany and the United States net receipts which reduced the net cost in the estimate to £1,420 million. Now we are to have, in this current year, a total personnel, beginning at 440,000 and being reduced to 400,000, on a net budget of £1,655 million. Comparing net budget with net budget, that is an increase of £235 million over the net budget of 1957, and there is not much more than half the personnel compared with the figure given in April, 1957. That in itself is the bare bones of a situation which invokes a Motion of "no confidence".
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has quite fairly given our appreciation of the difference in our defence situation engendered by the increasing cost, apparently, of defence efforts arising from continued research and development. It is quite fair; but let us look more deeply and closely at it. In this and in almost every other White Paper we have read since the war we have had to give lip-service to the fact that the basic economic position of the country is one of the prime factors in our defence situation. Though I have forgotten the actual words, the 1957 White Paper put it differently from the present White Paper on Defence. But who is responsible for the cumulative defence decline over the last nine years? Who is responsible if a Government gets in, in the first instance, on an ambitious political campaign stating that we need to "set the people free" from controls and proper, balanced programmes to deal with the situation? Who is responsible now for the fact that our economy cannot match up to the basic necessities of our urgent defence? There they sit, on that side of the House. Every control of the kind that would have given a management of our economy in relation to our prime defence efforts has been taken off.
It was because in 1951, in the first instance, the country was completely misled on that basic issue that we have a so-called "flourishing" country today. We were told some fifteen or eighteen months ago, at the time of the General Election, that we had "never had it so good". To-day we have a situation when the basic factor in this Defence White Paper is that we cannot afford the defence we really require, and I say that that means that the country has a right to say it has no confidence in the defence policy of the Government. Let us look a little more closely at the problems. It is perfectly true that the way in which things have gone has led to divisions with regard to modern weapons which are in being and which may spread in ownership throughout the world; and it is quite true that in the Labour Party there are large sections—too large to please me—who are nervous about the position with regard to atomic and nuclear weapons.
But do your Lordships think that it is only from political Parties that this particular form of anxiety arises? This is coming from every kind of religious body. I believe there are representatives of almost every kind of Christian church in this country who take the same view. There is no comparison between the weight of this kind of opinion to-day and even the religious parties which stood behind the old Peace Pledge Union campaign before the war. After the war had been on for some time, some Conservatives considered that that had been a great and baneful influence on the Conservative Government, leading them, in spite of the pleas of the then Mr. Winston Churchill, to fail adequately to prepare for the war which was to break out in 1939. Mr. Baldwin used to plead that they were doing the best they could, and that in all the circumstances they had to be careful not to irritate these people, because, as he said, one could be sure that the bomber would always get through. This basic situation about which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has talked—people's opinions in relation to current circumstances—has always been there. It is now a question of degree as to how wide the damage goes if a major conflict arises.
Let me say on this White Paper that what encourages me most is its first paragraph in which Her Majesty's Government reiterate that their primary desire is to be able to proceed to disarmament. I would say to noble friends of mine, who remain my friends in spite of my attitude upon military matters, that if one wants to proceed satisfactorily to an agreed disarmament, the great thing is not unilaterally to disarm oneself first. My plea to the present Government is that, in approaching disarmament, they have already given away in regard to the number of personnel, ships, aircraft and other types of equipment of our Armed Forces, more than they could afford to give away. It makes one want to ask: "When you go to the Disarmament Conference Council, how much have you got to lay on the table as a sacrificial effort towards agreement at that time?" In regard, therefore, to the reduction of forces under this Government over nine years, I would say they have really engaged in a form of unilateral disarmament.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, evidently does not accept the fact; but if that is so, I take him back to a point he made in his speech—a most important one from his point of view—as to the value of keeping the independent deterrent, a deterrent which the Government were providing and contributing to the general pool of Allied defence because it was of such international importance to have that influence with other nations. But all the other elements in defence equipment are also important. I want to tell noble Lords opposite this fact, which was strongly held by both Mr. Bevin and myself at the time; that we should never have got the first steps to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation if we had not had the plan to go in for National Service, on the same basis as France and Belgium. There would not have been the Treaty, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in its present form would never have existed. Every part of defence equipment counts with whatever influence it may have in the world.
If you talk about the differences of things you require as regards a major strategic conflict, or putting out bush fires, you have to remember that the noble Lord himself said, "You also have

783
to remember that the spread of the risk now is so broad over the world, and any happening in a little country anywhere may be the beginning of a big conflagration". All that makes me ask that the Government should give answers in detail, either to-day or when we come to debate the Service Estimates, and should give some explanation to the country and to this House as to how they propose to meet commitments and how far they propose to reduce them.
Supposing the Government started to reduce commitments now, it would not be the first time that has been done by a Conservative Government. Until the time of the 1957 White Paper we were under pledge about the size of the British Army of the Rhine. Under the White Paper of 1957 that Army was reduced by 17,000. It has since been reduced still further and, so far as I can tell, it is proposed to reduce it again. I should like to have firmer information about that when we come to the Army Estimates. What sort of force have you, then, effective on the European front, if that is to form a large part of your strategic reserve, for moving your troops to any one of your points of danger in the world? Let us have some facts about it. Let us see what is really proposed.
If we go back to the White Paper on Defence in 1957, we find that the Government were then pretty explicit as to what they considered to be their liabilities. They were stated in two parts in paragraph 8. The first, of course, we well know:
"to play their part with the forces of Allied countries in deterring and resisting aggression".
The second was:
"to defend British colonies and protected territories against local attack, and undertake limited operations in overseas emergencies".
Do not forget, my Lords, that the position as stated in the debate in the other place the other day seems strangely different from that of last year. Then, everybody was anxious to lay the ghost of the Sandys White Paper and of Mr. Sandys influence—and anxious not to talk about it. But in the other place, on this occasion, the present Minister of Defence said that we were dealing with the five-year programme that had been
784
so wonderfully and skilfully thought out by Mr. Sandys, and with the progress that had been made with it. Well, what progress has been made on this basis which I have just quoted? Let us have a look.
The First Lord of the Admiralty this afternoon has given, with figures which I saw were quoted by the Minister of Defence in another place, the disposition of our Forces in certain percentages. Eighty-five per cent. of the whole of the operational (active and reserve, that is) naval ships are denoted as assigned to N.A.T.O. I would ask: How do you cover all your other commitments? What do you send on the part of the Navy to all the great places all over the world from what is the smallest Royal Navy in the whole of my lifetime—and that is nearly 76 years? Are you, from that point of view, adequately securing even those hare bones referred to in the 1957 White Paper:
"to defend British colonies and protected territories against local attack, and undertake limited operations in overseas emergencies"?
And please remember that the First Lord was—I will not say careful to omit it; he probably overlooked it; but when he told us that 85 per cent. of his Navy had gone to N.A.T.O. he did not tell us what the disposition of the Navy was to be for either C.E.N.T.O. or S.E.A.T.O., though I suppose that in the case of C.E.N.T.O. part of the N.A.T.O. obligations would be almost interlocking.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount would allow me to intervene. What I said was that 85 per cent. of the operational Fleet was declared to N.A.T.O. That does not mean that 85 per cent. of the Fleet is permanently in European waters. It means that, in the event of global war in which N.A.T.O. is involved, they are declared to N.A.T.O. If there were a S.E.A.T.O. war, all the Fleet would be perfectly capable of going there.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps I am old-fashioned in my defence thinking. If that is the position, you first of all have to manage all your proper joint exercises in the areas in which they are likely to operate. I should have

785
thought you would require that in the case of C.E.N.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O., as well as for N.A.T.O. But it makes me wonder how much you have left to put into those areas. How much have you got there? If the strength of N.A.T.O. is to be measured in your plans, maybe from the point of view of global war, what becomes of a threat of attack in any other part of the world? I think that this planning needs a little extra examination and thinking out. I am convinced that, from the point of view of the Naval commitments of this country, we are most inadequately served in numbers and ships at the present time. That is my exceedingly strong opinion.
Let us look for a while at the Air Force. Please remember, my Lords, that in the 1957 White Paper it was estimated that there would be a substantial saving, and that there would be a reduction not only in the personnel of the Forces but in the equipment of the Royal Air Force, and that they would be able to contribute to that reduction. If we look at the last part of the White Paper of 1957 we see that it was forecast that that reduction would not only be made then and for the time being but would continue in later years. The Paper said—I will leave out two sentences to be fair:
"It is not yet possible to forecast the level of expenditure in later years…Nevertheless, it can safely be assumed that the new plan, when it is fully implemented, will further appreciably reduce the burden on the economy".
And so it was expected that when this five-year programme, which was referred to by the Minister of Defence a few days ago in the other place, was in full operation there would be a continuing reduction in the military costs to our economy.
What about the air in that respect? Was it not quite plain, when one studied it and then looked immediately at the reactions of the Government during the next twelve to eighteen months, that they really believed what they had said—that they would be able to do away with a large portion, at any rate, of the fighter force in the Air Force by the substitution of other weapons, like missiles? Now that is a fairly straight point. And what is the position now? Blue Streak was developed to "x" position, whatever "x" was. We were never told exactly
786
how far it had gone, but it was at a cost of something like £100 million—wasted unless you can count the fact that perhaps there is still some space-research value in what remains of it. Then your budget, instead of going down from £1,420 million net, is up to £1,655 million; and your personnel is certainly 270,000 less than it was in April, 1957. My Lords, am I not giving you facts which illustrate the necessity for a vote of no confidence? I challenge anybody on the other side to deny the facts that I am putting before your Lordships to-day.
I look now at some of the things that were mentioned in the rather hurried series given at the beginning of the noble Lord's speech. I must be fair; he covered them all, but I did not get them all down. Certainly he spoke about what was the difference between the strategic and the tactical. When we come to look at the question of defence in relation to the danger threatened, what can we possibly think of the policy of the 1957 White Paper which Mr. Watkinson now upholds? If you look at the statements of the Government, and carry along with them the statements of General Norstad when he talks about the difference between the tactical and the strategic target, all I can say is that at the present moment we have armed our troops in B.A.O.R. and in the Royal Air Force, and other N.A.T.O. troops as well, with atomic weapons the use of which, whether you aim at a suggested tactical or strategical target, would immediately bring back the full weight of an hydrogen, extra-powered attack upon your bases here. That is the actual basis of your planning and your equipment, and I do not see how you can possibly get away from it.
Therefore, there is a good deal more reason for the case of the people Lord Rea mentioned, because of the risk that they feel they are taking in this country; although, far myself, however unpopular it may be in some sections of my Party, I would say that we have a better chance of getting an ultimate settlement in Europe by retaining the use of nuclear weapons so long as any potential enemy is holding them against us. That is just a plain, basic fact, and I believe that, to have that, is one of the most important approaches to any disarmament conference table.

787
Now I must say that in all the years I have spent on defence I have never been more disappointed than at the situation which we have arrived at to-day. The five-year programme of 1957 is out. It is struggling; groping; hoping it will get by somehow: but it is practically impossible to achieve. If the Government were really to set about getting an export trade development, were to help that export trade development with proper economic control, and were to use the resources of the country as a whole for such defence requirements as are needed, they might be getting somewhere near the objective that people like myself have for the last twenty years been trying to achieve and maintain in the defence services of the country. But while you go on as you are going at present, I can see no hope of your getting either united Parties or a united populace behind you in your defence programme. You may go on putting it over to them, that they have "never had it so good", but the loss will be all the greater if the struggle should come. You can teach them to "eat, drink and be merry, for to-morrow we die", but, in the end, the result will be the same.
3.56 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in the first place, I entirely disagree with both the Amendments to this Motion which appear on the Order Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said that we must cut our coat according to our cloth, and that our Defence Budget is far too high. My Lords, we must be prepared to pay a proper insurance premium to preserve our lives and the future of this country, and I am convinced that the people of this country would not have it otherwise. The premium may be high, but provided that it is kept within reasonable bounds, and does not destroy our economy, I maintain that we must meet it. I also suggest that we are at the present time striking a reasonable balance.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, also deplores the increase in defence costs. He must realise, of course, that supplies cost more now than during the last twelve or fifteen months, owing to increases in wages; and there has also been a considerable
788
increase in the pay of Service personnel. That alone would account for a considerable increase in costs. The noble Viscount tries to make political capital out of the abandonment of Blue Streak. But surely he realises that the use and improvement in weapons is going on continuously, and therefore we must be prepared to make changes.
My Lords, I would say that one of the most significant matters in defence that has arisen in the past twelve months is that the West and Russia appear to have arrived at parity in nuclear intercontinental weapons, and I would suggest that the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles means that the strength of the strategic Air Command may well be halved by the year 1965. There is also no doubt that the growth of the missile programme means that the need for manned aircraft is diminishing. Large reductions have already been made in the fighter force, for the simple reason that manned aircraft cannot deal with missiles. We now have to rely more and more on defensive surface-air missiles, such as Bomarc, in the United States, and Bloodhound, in this country. On the other hand, I would suggest that there will always be a future for manned aircraft, because it would certainly be a mistake to rely on any one weapon such as a missile. It may well be that in the near future we may see the development of a defensive antimissile missile which will destroy an on-coming missile in the air. And, of course, if that were to happen, the manned bomber would be required for its original purpose.
That brings us to the policy on conventional weapons and the balance between the so-called "sword" and "shield"—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, put it, between two kinds of golf club, wood and steel. The sword, of course, is the nuclear weapon, and the shield consists of sea, land and air forces. With a strong shield adequately trained and equipped, the enemy would be unable to face us with a fait accompli. In other words, any move against the West would require a deliberate move by the enemy against strong resistance, rather than an unopposed move which might tempt him to think we should prefer to leave it unanswered rather than resort to nuclear weapons.

789
That is the case for conventional weapons, and the question is: Have we the right balance between nuclear and conventional weapons? I would suggest that the balance is still too much toward the sword rather than toward the shield, and that we must improve the strength of our conventional forces as much as possible, not necessarily by increase in manpower, but by increase in fire power and other technical improvements. There still seems to be a possibility that N.A.T.O. may become a fourth Nuclear Power, with direct control over the use of its nuclear weapons. In fact the Supreme Commander recently asked for medium-range ballistic missiles, with, I think, a range of some 1,500 miles. Even with tactical atomic weapons, how would one explain to the enemy at the receiving end of an atomic bomb that it was only a little one, only a tactical weapon? The danger, of course, is clear for all to see.
The inhibitions about using nuclear weapons, I feel, are certain to increase, especially if we are able to conclude a ban on the testing of atomic weapons. I maintain that we must not depend too much on the use of nuclear weapons by N.A.T.O., but must be prepared to accept the paradox that perhaps the best road to nuclear arms control may be conventional rearmament. In paragraph 21 of the White Paper, it is stated that
"a full study of the nuclear armoury of N.A.T.O. is now being made."
I wonder if the Minister who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government would like to say something about British proposals, and when the study is likely to be completed.
I must say that I am a little disappointed that very little is said in the White Paper about the Navy, apart from a passing reference to the provision of an additional commando carrier—which is, of course, very welcome—and a new concept of assault forces for the Navy, with which we shall no doubt deal later on, during the debate on the Navy Estimates. I know that it has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government to provide a Fleet with the most up-to-date equipment and weapons, but it has been said that the choice has been between quality and quantity; and the Admiralty, as we know, have chosen
790
quality. I certainly have not dissented from this view in the past, but I think now that we should not dismiss quantity as being completely unnecessary.
I do not want to deal this afternoon with matters which are more appropriate for an Estimates debate, but I should like to point out that only a year ago we had 157 ships in the Operational Fleet, and the number has now been reduced to 144. We have with us the tremendous menace of the Russian submarine—of which there are now some 450 vessels—and we can never build sufficient frigates, at £5 million a ship, to combat this terrible menace. I hope that the Minister of Defence will turn his attention to the provision of a smaller and less expensive anti-submarine ship which can be built in much greater quantities. I know the difficulties about getting all the electrical gear and Asdics in a smaller vessel, but surely our research should now be directed to this very thing. We cannot fight the submarine menace with a handful of frigates. The sea-keeping qualities of the smaller vessels have been greatly improved since the last war, and there is no doubt that smaller anti-submarine vessels could, and should, be built.
Let us look a little further down the scale of size of ships for anti-submarine purposes. It is true that the helicopter is used with the frigate for long-range detection of the submarine, but the small, fast coastal forces craft could be used for the same purpose, and with the additional advantage that they have much greater endurance than the helicopter. The Minister of Defence is no doubt aware that the United States are moving along these lines, and I cannot help feeling that we should do the same. I have mentioned these matters because I feel that our attitude to the Russian submarine menace should be in the forefront of our defence policy, and should not be just left in the White Paper by the wayside. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the enemy might bring Europe to its knees by submarine warfare without the discharge of a single atomic weapon. The Soviet Union could contemplate a nuclear war, I would say, only if she believed that by a surprise attack the whole of the West's power to retaliate could be removed; and that, I would say, is now impossible. For that

791
reason, conventional weapons are to-day of greater importance, and we must reconsider the balance between the sword and the shield.
4.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I was wondering a little, as I listened to the noble Lord opposite, whether he was speaking on that side or on this side of the House, because I agreed with very much of what he said. My only claim to speak in this debate on defence is this. I am not an expert on this subject like so many noble Lords on both sides and on the Independent Benches who I am glad to see will speak to-day or to-morrow, but quite recently I attended two conferences of Parliamentarians, one with our American Ally and one with our N.A.T.O. Allies, and I think I understand to some extent the attitude of our Allies in Europe and North America to the main problem that confronts us and them: the problem of Western security in face of a continuing threat from Eastern Europe.
I should like to break this problem into two main parts, and to deal briefly with each of them. The first is how to stop a nuclear war from breaking out, because we all realise that that would mean mutual extinction. Here, I think the essential requirement, for us and our N.A.T.O. Allies, is a right balance between conventional and nuclear weapons. That point was made with great force by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and I agreed with him when he said that the emphasis at the moment is on the sword—that is, on the nuclear weapon—to the detriment of the shield. I feel very strongly indeed that the balance is strongly tilted in favour of tactical nuclear weapons, with the American strategic deterrent in reserve. One of my strongest objections to the policy outlined in the White Paper is that it does nothing at all to right or redress this extremely dangerous balance. We are not only planning to spend a large and growing proportion of our defence budget on what the White Paper calls "our main contribution to the Western deterrent"—that is to say, going ahead with more nuclear weapons; we are also gravely neglecting the build-up of our conventionally-
792
equipped Armed Forces, although this is the support that our Allies really require from this country.
I cannot believe that the Government are not apprehensive about the shortage of manpower for the Regular Army. I was very struck by a remark which was made by someone taking part in the debate in another place on this subject. That person said that every year there is this debate on defence, and the Government always say quite firmly that the recruiting offices will be jammed tomorrow, but never that they are jammed to-day. The Government are now considering a proposal for acquisition of further nuclear equipment by N.A.T.O., which would be joint equipment, but in which we shall share, presumably, the cost and the control. We are considering the acquisition by N.A.T.O. of an intermediate range ballistic missile which will have, I believe, a range of 1,500 miles, and may be used either in a tactical or in a strategic rôle. I have already explained to your Lordships in a previous debate why I strongly oppose this suggestion, and I will not weary the House by repeating my arguments.
But there is one reference in the White Paper to this matter which I really must challenge, because it seems to me not to make sense at all. I hope noble Lords opposite who will be speaking later this afternoon will be able to make sense of it to my satisfaction; it may only be my own stupidity. In paragraph 22 of the White Paper, under the heading "N.A.T.O.", there is the following sentence:
"If the Alliance should decide to set up a stockpile or pool of nuclear weapons for the tactical rôle,"—
and, of course, this Polaris missile can be regarded as a tactical weapon, although it could be used in other rôles—
"we should be willing to participate, provided"—
and this is the proviso, the condition—
"we were satisfied that political control was such as to ensure rapid decisions in an emergency".
If N.A.T.O. had its nuclear weapons and they were no longer, as they are now, subject to American control, of course, their use would depend on a political decision, taken after proper

793
consultation between the fifteen N.A.T.O. Allies. This may be the right way to take the decision, but whatever else it may be it could not possibly be a rapid decision, and I believe that the delay would be extremely dangerous. It would undermine the credibility of the nuclear deterrent in the minds of a possible aggressor and it would expose the West to instant annihilation.
I cannot help thinking that most people, on reflection, would agree that political control by the N.A.T.O. countries and rapid decision are completely incompatible. If we are to minimise the risk of nuclear war which I think is very grave so long as there is this unbalance between conventional and nuclear forces, then we must accept a revised rôle for the N.A.T.O. forces and consider very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has said about improving our conventional organisation for training and equipment. These forces should no longer be regarded as a tripwire to hold the Russians or their satellites just long enough for massive retaliation from the West. That was the old conception. They should be regarded as something like a shield, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said (if I may go on using a metaphor which is a useful one), which can stand up to the pressure of conventional attack until both sides, and the great Powers that may be backing them, if not openly then by other means, have had an opportunity to negotiate and the United Nations have been given a chance to intervene.
The effectiveness of this new rôle for N.A.T.O. forces, which seems to me in keeping with modern technical developments, will depend on two conditions: first, that an atomic war is not started by accident. Now this could easily happen, if a local commander were to let off a piece of atomic artillery. I believe that if you started at the bottom of the nuclear escalator, very soon you would find yourself at the top. That is the greatest of all dangers involved in nuclear armaments. I do not think that the use of these tactical nuclear weapons would avoid the eventual use of strategic nuclear weapons. The essential thing is to separate nuclear from conventional weapons in the organisation and training of our own and of N.A.T.O. forces, otherwise the temptation to turn military re-
794
verse into a success in the only possible way by the use of a nuclear weapon may be too strong for some local commander, some brigade or even battalion commander.
The other condition which I think is essential is the increased efficiency of the N.A.T.O. forces in their conventional role, and we should play our part, both in manpower and equipment, through our Army in Germany, our contribution to N.A.T.O. This means, of course, more manpower and better equipment all round. General Norstad is not satisfied at the moment, I know, with either. What is wanted, surely, rather than any increase in the nuclear deterrents of N.A.T.O., is a small mixed N.A.T.O. force, in which we should play our part, with a high degree of mobility, which can be moved with great speed to any part of Eastern Europe where trouble starts. That would be a mixed force which would not need to use anything more than convention armaments and equipment.
The other part of the problem of collective security is whether or not—and this has been mentioned, first of all, by my noble friend and Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and after him, though I am not quite certain, by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham—we should go on contributing to the Western deterrent by means of our own nuclear missiles. At present, these consist in our strategic rôle of nuclear bombs carried by our V-bombers. The Government have ceased from producing the Blue Streak, which they gave up, at enormous cost, for the V-bomber, which, of course, will soon be replaced. In the meantime, what is there to guarantee that these bombers will be able to get through the latest system of ground defences? That is a technical objection, and perhaps a minor one, but I think we should ask ourselves whether we are justified in incurring the enormous expense of this constant renewal, because that is what it amounts to, of an independent deterrent, which has to be replaced in accordance with technical developments to keep pace with what is going on in Russia and the United States. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, answered this question quite definitely in the negative—though I did not agree with the noble Lord in certain of his remarks.

795
The arguments in the White Paper in favour of this independent deterrent are, I think, extremely flimsy, when they are closely examined. They are partly military, partly diplomatic. The military argument surely fails unless we believe that our Continental Allies, who have no independent deterrent, are less safe, have less protection from N.A.T.O., than we have. If it is true that an attack on one is an attack on all—and that, of course, is the provision in N.A.T.O.—then surely we have no more to fear without this independent and separate deterrent than any of our Allies.
The diplomatic argument is that possession of this weapon increases our bargaining power over disarmament and strengthens our alliance with the United States through N.A.T.O. I do not believe that our atomic strength, which is really ridiculously small as compared with the two atomic giants, affects our bargaining power in negotiations about disarmament. So far as our relations with the United States are concerned, I can speak from personal experience, because I had an opportunity of finding out what the American reaction is likely to be if we were to decide to abandon this strategic deterrent. The impression I received, after much discussion with members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House and with members of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, was that neither Congress nor public opinion would care two straws if we were to give up our own miniature deterrent. I am sure that it is a fallacy to imagine that America would think we were letting them down—a thing we should never do—or wanting to run out of our Alliance, if we gave up this particularly expensive element in our system of defence. What the Americans are afraid of, and this I had an opportunity of finding out, too, is what they call neutralism—what we call, unilateralism—that possibly at some future date we may refuse them the use of the bases they need in this country. That is what they are really afraid of.
The Labour Party, as my noble Leader has said, and said with much emphasis—and rightly placed emphasis, if I may say so—does not support unilateral disarmament. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that the Labour Party support unilateral disarmament.
LORD REA: My Lords, I was under that impression.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: If the noble Lord will be good enough to read the recent statement on Defence, which has been approved by the Executive of the Labour Party, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, he will not see a word in that document in support of unilateral disarmament.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was going to ask the noble Earl (I am genuinely seeking information here and not trying to make a point) whether the Party Conference had a certain influence on policy by right of the Constitution of the Party. I thought that the Party Conference had gone unilateralist. This was my impression, and if the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said it, it is only what I should have said, genuinely believing it to be true. I have thought that this more recent and, it must be added, controversial statement did not have the authority of the Party Conference.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Viscount is quite right. The Labour Party Conference does influence policy, but it does not decide the policy. That is exactly the same, I believe, in the noble Viscount's Party—at least, I presume it is so.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, having been a member of the Labour Party for some years, may I ask the noble Earl where he gets this new and completely unorthodox doctrine from? Surely Conference is the deciding factor on policy.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not going to be diverted from the subject of defence, which is the one in which your Lordships are most interested at the moment. I hope that what I have said will satisfy the noble Viscount opposite, who was making, I think, a genuine inquiry.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am bound to say that I am surprised. Is it really the case that the Labour Party Conference does not decide policy but only influences it? Am I therefore to take this statement on Defence as the authentic and only voice of the Labour Party on Party policy, and that the Conference decision is now of no importance?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, Conference decisions in the Labour Party are always important to be taken into consideration, but they vary from year to year, because we have not quite the rigid control that the Conservative Party have. We who hold what we call sound views on Defence are still fairly confident that we shall carry them.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I want to be fair to the noble and learned Viscount opposite. I agree that there are individuals in the Labour Party who believe in unilateral disarmament, but I think it would also be fair to say that there are individuals in the noble Viscount's Party who disagree with the Goverment's policy in Africa.
LORD DALTON: There is a new one in the Press every day.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: So long as the Government stick to multi-lateral disarmament (that is what we want; I think that all the sane people want multi-lateral disarmament, by agreement with the countries concerned and with proper inspection and control) and to the maintenance of United States bases here for as long as they are required, no harm will be done to our relations with America by changes—and I am thinking particularly of the change I have just mentioned—in existing Defence policy.
The real reason why countries of medium power—this is my opinion; I may be wrong, but I am afraid that I may be right—want to have their own deterrent is, surely, national prestige. A country that already has televisions sets and racing cars soon begins to think it can afford nuclear missiles and space rockets. This mentality, if it became the mentality of other countries, as I fear it may, might spread nuclear weapons all over the world. Surely we have sufficient self-confidence as a nation, surely we are sufficiently old and sufficiently well-established (if I may put it that way) to have no need to assert our national prestige by indulging in a luxury taste for modern armaments. We should, of course be setting a good example to other countries, and at the same time it would save an enormous amount of money which we cannot
798
afford to spend, if we tried stopping our present attitude of "keeping up with the Joneses" in Russia and the United States. There is surely no disgrace at all in dropping out of an atomic race which, certainly if it spreads the use of atomic weapons, will threaten the world with destruction.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl which voice from the Front Bench is speaking for the Labour Party? As I understood it, his noble Leader this afternoon has pleaded with the Government to retain independent nuclear weapons and, in fact, to increase conventional weapons.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not saying that existing nuclear weapons should not be retained; that is something quite different. All I am saying is that, for the reasons I have already given, we should not go on renewing these weapons at enormous and increasing costs.
I believe that the White Paper is clinging to an old-fashioned and out-of-date conception of national defence. Its excessive reliance on nuclear weapons increases the danger of a nuclear war. Its lack of balance between two types of weapon and its insistence upon the independent deterrent show a complete failure to realise that we no longer have the resources to keep pace with the two nuclear giants. On these grounds alone (I do not want to detain your Lordships for too long, but if I had the time I could reinforce my case), I very much hope that your Lordships will share the view of noble Lords on this side of the House that this Report on Defence is unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
4.27 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I find myself in a certain amount of agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and almost in complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Teynham in this debate. On these occasions someone such as myself feels in the presence of very senior officers rather like a man up for a promotion examination. For these reasons I shall avoid being drawn into this major controversy which some of your Lordships have endeavoured to unravel, and which I think the last speaker, to a certain extent, successfully unravelled for me. I refer to the problems of control and the point at which

799
tactics and strategy meet in that curious kind of halfway house, and all those very complicated problems which arise in regard to whether or not we maintain a separate deterrent of our own.
Instead, I am going to try to make an approach which I do not believe has been made yet in Defence debates. I want to try to pinpoint certain situations which might arise on the ground, and then relate the forces to those situations, and to examine whether or not we are adequate to meet those kinds of needs. Here I should say that I found myself in disagreement with the general proposition that the First Lord, in opening the debate, put to us—namely, that a war is immediately going to get out of hand, and that, before we know where we are, the great bombs will be dropping all over the world. I want to lead into the Defence problem at that point where the political situation may have developed sufficiently to bring us face to face with military action, and I purposely use the word "action" and not "war".
I think we are all agreed, on whichever side of the House we sit, that the potential enemy does not want a nuclear war. Leading statesmen all over the world have repeated this many times. After all, when you are engaged on a programme which would develop future space travel you are not going to seek a war which will ruin it all. Apart from that, I think we all conclude to-day that the Soviet objective is to prove to their people that there is an economic Utopia just round the corner in which everyone will have luxury goods available to him.
My own assessment of the situation—and I say this in all humility, always asking a question rather than making any assertion—is that, in seeking for the process of disarmament, the Soviet would hope that we should disarm at a quicker pace than they would, and that at some point in that process the forces would be sufficiently unbalanced, uneven, as to initiate for them a process which we have always called "arguing from strength". And then what would happen? Political blackmail would follow. In that kind of situation, our task remains, as the Foreign Secretary reminded us the other day, to keep the
800
balance at every stage so that both sides are always in a position to argue from strength—not great strength, but equal strength.
If we are successful in that kind of development of the disarmament situation, what exactly have we to fear? To answer this question, I suggest that we should put ourselves in the minds of the potential enemy, and I suggest that a process something like this would then emerge. Political confusion would be created inside a country. It would be created where it is not already, or it would be fostered where it is already. Then there would be manufactured a local demand for liberation. That would create an impression of validity for subsequent action. The whole of the process may be completely artificial, but those whom it is intended to impress will not know that, and so the troops will be able to move in on their mission of benevolence. But if that is to be successful, action must be extremely rapid, because the whole object will be to face us with a fait accompli.
Once that fait accompli is achieved, my submission is that the big bombs are not going to start dropping in the area concerned. But what about the areas outside? What about the great Powers who are not protagonists of the people who are fighting? Would they set about starting the great war? Should we drop a bomb on Moscow, or would Moscow drop bombs on either London or New York because of a local situation somewhere in the world which, so to speak, had been insulated from the chances of conventional action to restore the status quo ante? Would that happen? Nobody, of course, can answer with assurance, but my own guess, indeed, my own conviction is, No: the big bombs would not start to drop.
In other words, the existence of the deterrent will still continue to deter the use of the deterrent itself. If local military action, using conventional forces, is too late to restore a situation, or even if forces are engaged and the issue is still in a state of uncertainty, wider retaliatory action—that is to say, using medium-range weapons—cannot follow, as I see it. The conclusion is that we must be able to take local action that is so swift as to be able to hold and restore a local situation before the enemy has been able to consolidate—in other words, before we are faced with a fait accompli.

801
Here, it seems to me, there arises this problem of the balance as between the nuclear deterrent and the conventional forces. It seems to me that in this White Paper thought and policy are moving towards a greater emphasis on the need to maintain highly mobile conventional forces; and one welcomes, as I see it, the recognition of that fact in paragraphs 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the White Paper. I raise only one doubt which I have in my mind (and I believe other noble Lords will possibly be expressing this doubt) as to the adequacy of Transport Command to move troops rapidly into these areas which are likely to stage the kind of situation which I have been trying to describe.
My Lords, it may be of use here to follow the map, and to know where on the map this kind of situation of potential local disturbance exists. I here make no apology for being speculative in, I hope, an objective kind of way. The experience of history teaches us that hardly ever does war break out according to prediction. We are always taken by surprise, whether as to the area or as to the kind of warfare which is waged, or both. For years the defence policy of the Government of India was based on the assumption that the great attack would come from the North-West. Yet when it came in 1939 it came from the North-East. For these reasons, I feel justified in using my imagination when thinking about these situations which might call for the rapid and sudden use of conventional forces.
There are obviously two situations. There is, first, the situation where we alone are responsible for the use of our own forces, and then the other situations which bring up these tricky problems of multilateral control. With unambiguous control of our own forces, the political decision may be very difficult, but the control and command, and the planning of the forces, are comparatively simple, because we are masters within our own house. For example, if troops had to be moved from the Reserve, mentioned in the White Paper, in Kenya (and here I may say that I did not quite follow the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, because I think he referred to only one Reserve of troops having to be moved from a Central Reserve here
802
to distant parts of the world, whereas the White Paper mentioned three Reserves) to Rhodesia or the Congo, once the difficult political decision had been taken it should be quite simple to implement a military plan which, one presumes, will have been prepared in advance.
But both the political decision and the military planning become immensely more complicated when we are in Alliance with others. For example, the present Near Eastern Command and the Middle Eastern Command, one presumes, are associated with C.E.N.T.O., where the factor of decisive action and when to take it is correspondingly and increasingly obscure. That means that when action is finally defined and has to be taken, it must be all the more swift and sure if the element of surprise is in any way an idea which is to play its part.
Here I would ask a question. Assuming that our forces earmarked for C.E.N.T.O. or S.E.A.T.O. are sufficient, and trained for the kind of fighting which the country demands, and are equipped for the kind of geography and climate in which the troops would have to fight; and assuming, too, that the transport planes are there and the local staffs are geared to take action, how far has the higher planning got? Has higher planning reached any stage of definition or perfection in places such as Ankara and Bangkok? We are kept somewhat in the dark—I think quite rightly. I dislike the idea of the public being informed of every move, the range of every missile, the thickness of every piece of armament and so on. But I think it would give us confidence if we could be told that the C.E.N.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. staffs have thought of all the possible situations that might arise, and have agreed on the various measures which might have to be taken; and that here at home our allotted contributions to these various situations is approved to the degree to which, of course, advance approval can ever be given on these occasions.
All these considerations surely become far more urgent when we turn to Europe, when we come nearer home. Where on the map of Europe can one visualise conventional forces being used in this

803
way? I should like for a moment to develop my arguments from the case of Hungary in 1956. If Hungary was ever a starter so far as any positive action by the West was concerned, would it have been N.A.T.O. action or would it have been United Nations action? Theoretically, Hungary, I suppose, should have been the concern only of the United Nations, in which case action would have been both too slow and too late. If I were told that politically Hungary was no concern of N.A.T.O., I should reply that the pretext under which the Russians now retain troops in Hungary is that of a threat to the Warsaw Pact Powers. The Warsaw Pact was a direct answer to the North Atlantic Treaty, and I therefore would submit that the Hungarians to-day would be a happier people if the N.A.T.O. Council had been in the position to regard Hungary as just such a situation as I had in mind when I drew attention to the swift use of conventional forces by an enemy who would then face us with a fait accompli.
There is nothing we can do now about the case of Hungary, but we can, I think learn from that great tragedy. I would submit that it is credible to imagine that if this sort of local situation on the fringe of the Atlantic Alliance territory is treated as of concern for the North Atlantic Treaty, then N.A.T.O. forces must be on the spot in time to make an effective challenge to opposing forces which are moving in. What would happen? There would be an appeal to the United Nations perhaps, but I would repeat that this, in my view, would not be the signal for the big bomb to start dropping. It is extremely difficult to say how such a situation would develop, and you may say it is useless to go on speculating. It can be argued, indeed, that hypothetical speculation is of no value, but I do not accept if, because I believe that this is the kind of pattern of events in the years to come which is far more probable than any other kind of development.
If that is so, it is sensible, perhaps, to ask where the next Hungarian situation might be. I would suggest that Berlin is probably as fair a guess as anywhere else. Over the months there could develop around Berlin a move to
804
present Western Berlin as a case for "liberation", and the purpose of the West Berlin garrison must be to hold Berlin until such a time as rescue is at hand. The rescue operation would involve immediate and swift movement into Eastern Germany. You may say, "This is heresy. There is your third world war round the corner", and my reply is still, No, this is not the world war, this is a local situation perhaps developing into a large engagement with a real mix-up on Eastern Germany's soil. I think it is muddled thinking to regard it as inevitably the third world war.
At this point it seems to me logical to ask whose contingents within the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance might be involved in such a situation as Berlin. As I understand it, in two years' time the Western German contribution to N.A.T.O. will be completed. It is 12 divisions. There is an advantage in regarding the safety of Berlin as an all-German affair. Germans would then be fighting Germans, and it might be said that is not a very pleasant kind of situation to contemplate. But would it be quite the truth? I once asked an East German official how he regarded himself; did he regard himself as first a German or first a Communist. He was so rattled by the question that he said it was not a fair one to ask. I submit that the way to look at this particular problem is to turn the Communist technique of liberation to Western advantage, and give the Western forces, whether they be German forces or other forces, the label of liberators, which would be nothing more nor less than the truth. But for political reasons I would submit it is obviously an advantage to have Allied troops also associated with part of such an operation where Berlin is concerned.
The rapid completion of the German contribution to N.A.T.O. is, I submit, a necessity not only in the interests of the general security of N.A.T.O. territory, but more emphatically of the territory of the German Federal Republic itself. Soviet conventional forces, as I understand it, are far thicker on the ground than anything that faces them to-day in Western Europe. In the North, we hear stories that the area of Schleswig Holstein is extremely open and vulnerable, and

805
might lend itself to just that kind of swift operation which I suggested, and it is logical to suppose that German troops should defend German soil. No one would dispute that.
Therefore my final point is just this: that the Germans must be given every facility to complete their N.A.T.O. component as quickly as possible, remembering that they have repeatedly made it clear that outside N.A.T.O. they have not, nor do they desire, any military interest. What I am referring to, of course, is the prospect that we might be asked in this country to provide facilities for German troops to train here. Paragraph 24 of the While Paper, rightly in my view, states:
"The interchange of research and development technique, and the sharing of logistic and training facilities, all have their part to play in strengthening the free world alliance. …"
It is no answer to this problem to say, "Bring your British troops back and let the Germans get on with training on their own ground." That would mean that for a period of about three years central European defence would be in the hands of half-trained troops. The German troops went to France to train the other day, and contrary, I think, to all prediction, understanding and friendship have been developed; and I think I am right in saying that the German troops have trained on Belgian and Dutch soil. I myself would go so far as to say that this is a development which we might welcome here, because I regard it as a duty, whether it be a case of German troops training on British soil or whether it be a case of an American depôt ship in British waters, to indicate to the Free World that we are not really controlled by a chorus of benevolent but rather muddled-minded moralists who might to-morrow expose us to political blackmail. For the same reason, I suggest that this is not the time to make a fierce attack on the White Paper. Of course it is not perfect, and our job is to search out its imperfections; but I say that the right spirit is there in the White Paper, and therefore it has my full support.
4.48 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the purpose of national defence is to preserve the life and liberty of Her Majesty's subjects, and the White Paper now before us sets Out the Government's proposals for so doing. But there is one of those
806
proposals, the first one in the Paper, which stands alone as truly efficacious: that is, the proposal on disarmament, and that is the proposal I want to speak about to-day. My Lords, let us stand back. We have had weapons throughout human history; we have had arms races in the last hundred years or so; we have used the weapons and had wars and made peaces and avoided wars and had peaceful settlements. We have done just about everything we could in the way of using weapons and of not using them. They have been part of our life as long as we have been human; they have been part of life longer than tilling the soil, and perhaps longer than lighting a fire and cooking something has been. And then suddenly, all in a decade, we find that weapons have completely changed and we cannot use them any more. I do not propose to waste your Lordships' time proving that we cannot use them any more, or going into the dangers of escalation and limited war and so on.
I think we all know that weapons have changed from something you could use if you had to into something you cannot use, or, if you are going to use little ones, you must be absolutely certain that this does not lead on to your using big ones. Now the point about this change is its fantastic suddenness. In the scale of human history it has happened, not even overnight; it has happened from one second to another. It has happened as suddenly as a bolt is shot on a door; the door leading to all-out war has been locked on us, and it is no use our battering on it—it will not open again.
It is no wonder that we have not yet adjusted our policies and our habits to keep pace with the change. How could we have? Politics is a tortoise and technology is a hare. At first, when we had these nuclear weapons we thought we could use them: indeed, we did use them once. Then we realised we could not, but we thought we could pretend we meant to use them, in threatening their use, so as to deter the aggressions we fear. This was the age of massive retaliation, the age of "One step forward and I fire." Only slowly did we realise that, once the other side had them too, this was as

807
much as to say. "One step forward and I fire", with the pistol pointed at our own head.
Next came the period of limited nuclear war, when we thought we could safely use the little ones without going on from anger or fear to use the big ones too. We thought we could trust the Russians to understand this and agree to fight with little nuclear weapons—that is to say, on our terms. Then we understood that our whole disagreement with the Communist countries—namely, that doing things on our terms is precisely what we cannot trust them to do—applied here, too. Why should they agree to fight on our terms any more than they would agree to live peaceably on our terms? So we abandoned that, and now some real last ditchers in Washington and in London have come to the idea of stabilised deterrence. They expect the Russians, and presumably the Chinese, too, in time, though they do not talk much about this aspect of it, to abandon the forward movement of the arms race and to agree tacitly with us to arrange our weapons systems in such and such a way which will make their use less likely or less damaging. The same objections apply: why should they? They will not.
This is where disarmament proper comes in. Disarmament has been with us as an idea for as long as arms races have; that means, since the early nineteenth century. Latterly, since 1945, it has become a sort of saluting base—something you can march smartly past, giving a generous salute to the beautiful notion before getting on with the real business of life, which is arms and alliances. The last three White Papers of the Government have been couched in these terms, and so is the one before the House at the moment. But this quarter-deck, this saluting base, this vague symbol of Utopian good will, is now the best bargain; it is the best way to preserve the life and liberty of the people of this country. It is, in other words, the best defence policy. It was not always so. It is now.
The facts of life work equally strongly on both Russia and America. Everybody, irrespective of ideology, is
808
afraid of accidental war, of escalation from small war, of catalytic war, of a sudden attack launched in panic or from a mistaken assessment of the other side's intention. The Russians are just as much afraid of all this as the Americans, perhaps even more so. The Russians are extremely anxious to have disarmament before the decision in the Communist camp, whether to have it or not, passes out of their hands and into the hands of the Chinese.
Let us assume for a moment that general comprehensive disarmament is possible, and is achieved. I will come back to that later. What would a disarmed world be like? Would it be any safer? Would not the nation with the biggest national police force be able to attack and absorb nations with smaller ones? Would not Russia and America and ourselves be free to build up nuclear forces again? What about a United Nations Force to keep the peace in any difficulty? I do not advance disarmament as a course certain to avoid war, and I have never heard anyone else do so either. Nothing ever is absolutely certain. The point is this. It would take about two years for one of the great Powers to build up a nuclear striking force, or indeed a conventional force of any size, out of their heads alone. The threat of all-out war would thus be removed from a time 15 minutes ahead, where it is now, to a time two years ahead.
In two years you can think and think again; you can discover your mistakes; you can inquire; you can negotiate on either side and with your Allies. In 15 minutes you can do none of these things. If there were a quarrel, if there were what the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, calls a "Hoo-ha", each side would have to think: "Do I really want to start mankind climbing back up the slope of armaments again, the very slope which we have come down with such effort? Do I want to start all that danger and expense all over again? Do I want to lose the resources I am pouring into Africa or Asia or into my own housing programme, or whatever it may be? To become the detestation and the ogre of the world?" And it would have weeks and months to think all this out, to take advice, and to confer. I believe myself that thermo-nuclear

809
weapons would be a better deterrent against aggression if the possibility of their use were removed two years ahead than they can possibly be as they are now, at fifteen minutes ahead. That is the whole logic of disarmament: you can make better decisions in two years than you can in fifteen minutes. Once modern weapons are destroyed, I do not believe they would ever be built again; we know them too well by now.
Now to the heart of the matter—inspection and control. A couple of months ago I was in Moscow at a meeting of the International Conference of Scientists, an organisation for which, though I am not a scientist myself, I am privileged to work. The Moscow Conference was the sixth held by this organisation, which has been in existence for about five years. It has always been largely concerned with the possibilities of disarmament, and in its earlier meetings it did useful work in clearing the ground among the technicians, without the politicians breathing down their necks, particularly, for instance, in preparation for the test ban talks. But last year there was a rather dramatic change in this Conference. Science in the Soviet Union is run by the Academy of Sciences; the Academy combines functions which in this country are dispersed among the Royal Society, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the University Grants Committee, dozens of university faculties and research institutes, and the noble Viscount the Leader of this House.
When the Russians told us that all twelve of the scientific academicians would be coming to this Conference on disarmament, and nine other top Academy scientists as well, we realised that the thing was changing gear. Twenty-five American scientists came, including some who are on a par in political power with their Russian opposite numbers and are now in President Kennedy's Administration. There were seventy-six people present altogether, from fifteen countries, including six very distinguished British scientists, and two from the People's Republic of China, which made this a unique gathering. The proceedings of this Conference were private, but I should like, and I think it would be fair, to tell your Lordships this: on the great issue of inspection
810
and control, the scientists from the two sides agreed that disarmament was possible and could achieve a high degree of certainty, and they agreed how the difficulties should be looked at. They agreed what it was that the haggling would have to be about. And when you get to a situation where people are no longer talking about different things altogether, it is all over bar the haggling.
The Russians want a lot of disarmament before they permit much inspection; the Americans want a lot of inspection before they agree to much disarmament. But the two sides are coming together on this; they are, you could say, facing in the same direction. There was a true meeting of minds and clearing of decks at this Conference, and I, for one, left Moscow convinced that the scientists only stopped talking when it was no longer their business to go on doing so. It is over to the politicians now for the actual haggling.
My Lords, agreed, multilateral, phased, inspected and controlled disarmament is now possible as between America and the Soviet Union. Disarmament is no harder to achieve technically than the next step upward in the arms race. Technically, it is easier to achieve than any limited measures of arms control. Politically, of course, it is very much more desirable than either. But it may be no cheaper than continuing the arms race. Inspection and control on the scale required is going to be very expensive, at least at first; but an economic burden which we can bear in order to get more arms we can surely bear more willingly if it is leading us to a safer and more stable world, to the security our weapons can no longer give us, to a world where, in time, we shall at last be able to use wealth to create wealth, and ingenuity to create a wider civilisation, instead of wasting both on creating the risk of general annihilation.
The situation, then, is this: the arms race is very dangerous, very illogical and very expensive. It has taken us time to understand this, but we do understand it now, and the Russians and the Americans understand it as much as we ourselves; and the Chinese are beginning to understand it, too. There is an enormous uprush of serious study of disarmament in the United States. I sat for eight days, eight hours a day, in

811
Moscow, watching and listening to the scientific advisers of the Russian and American Governments threshing this matter out, and I have not the least doubt that both sides will come to the conference table with more realistic plans than ever before, and, for the first time at all, with a real determination to agree.
But what is Britain's part in all this? It is surely to help it forward by every means in her power. In September last the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister suggested at the United Nations Assembly that there should be a meeting of scientific, administrative and military experts from an unspecified number of Powers, who would then report back to the United Nations Disarmament Commission on what it was possible to do. This is the most recent British suggestion on the market, and it is a very good one. But why limit it to one instalment of advice coming from a single conference? The need for study and research would not vanish with the signature of a disarmament treaty, but would increase.
The world needs an institute of disarmament studies, an international one here in London perhaps or elsewhere, but probably better not in America or Russia. Both Russian and American proposals for something like this already exist. At present there is a certain danger of each side in disarmament negotiations producing its own studies, particularly in the non-technical fields, presenting them to the other side, and being told simply, "Sorry, we do not see it like that." But if the studies were worked out internationally from the beginning, and if there were Americans, Russians, British, Chinese, Frenchmen and perhaps others working on these problems together from the grass roots up, peering together at the cathode-ray tubes which are giving the answers to experiments devised, sitting round a table drafting, paragraph by paragraph, there would then be no wasted effort, no more inward-turning national documents which can be brushed off by the other side at the conference table. Those who best understand the difficulties of disarmament want such an institute, and believe it could be made.
If it was to do any good in the world, and achieve real, world-wide disarmament, such an institute would have to
812
include the People's Republic of China; and therefore it would be better for it to be independent of the United Nations at least until the People's Republic of China is seated there. But there are already various organisations and committees, both in the United Nations and outside it, whose experience could be brought to bear on setting up such an institute. There are qualified people available and eager to staff it. It would cost money—some pence in the pound of what we spend on armaments. All that is needed is an initiative, and I would suggest that it would be an initiative most proper for this country to take. It is in line with past British policy as exemplified in the proposal of the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister in September last, and in line with what this country stands for in international affairs in general, which I take to be peaceful courses hacked by objective knowledge of the world. Above all, a British initiative would be welcome to both Russia and America, and would be easier for those two great Powers to accept than if either of them had to make it for themselves.
5.5 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, only so far as I agree with him that our ultimate aim should be general disarmament. I note that he feels a certain amount of confidence that Russia and China may now co-operate more than in the past. If that is so, I am sure your Lordships will be glad to hear it. At the moment we are debating our Defence policy, as outlined in the White Paper, and the main points that emerge are recognition of the fact that peace at the present time rests on the maintenance by the West of adequate power to discourage aggression by either Russia or China, with its rising power, and also on the maintenance of adequate forces to cope with small outbreaks which could develop into a nuclear conflict.
As has been stressed by other noble Lords, the basis of this policy, rightly, I believe, is interdependence. I should like to comment first on strategic nuclear deterrent capabilities and, in particular, of our V-bomber force. As the White Paper says, it is expected that our main contribution to the Western deterrent

813
over the next decade will be provided by weapons carried in aircraft. That is the Government's way of thinking and it seems to me, then, that there are strong grounds for diversifying the deterrent. I believe I am right in saying that the right honourable Gentleman the Minister of Defence in another place on February 27 last laid stress on the importance of diversifying the deterrent.
In connection with the deterrent, I should like to mention an interesting article which appeared on November 4, 1960, in Flight headed "Deploying the Deterrent". This article referred to a number of methods whereby a deterrent could be sent on its way to a target. Without wishing to take up too much of your Lordships' time on this matter, I should like to mention those methods. They are
"Enormous conventional forces—in effect, men under arms.'
"Aircraft carrying free-falling bombs.
"Large ballistic rockets launched from fixed emplacements.
"Strategic cruise-type missiles.
"Ballistic rockets launched from ships, particularly from submerged submarines.
"Aircraft used as airborne launching platforms for cruise-type missiles.
"Ballistic rockets mounted on mobile launchers.
"Ballistic rockets launched from aircraft.
"Ballistic re-entry vehicles ejected from a satellite, or space craft.
"Ballistic re-entry vehicles launched from … vehicles above or within the atmosphere."
At the moment we have two forms of deterrent, of which only one is under our control—I mean with regard to warheads. The White Paper goes on to say that it is hoped to provide a Bomber Command with a combination of methods for, in effect, reaching the target by a variety of missiles. From all that, it seems to me that it is the aim of the Government, taking into consideration the high cost of these missiles, to diversify as much as possible, and that that is what they are trying to do. But at the moment our V-bomber force is equipped only with the free-falling bomb.
I would agree, as was mentioned in another place by the Minister of Defence, that wide dispersal materially assists in the capacity of Bomber Command to reach its target. But I think that the
814
wording of paragraph 16 of the White Paper minimises a little the strength of the Russian defences. It would appear on reading that paragraph that it would be, not plain sailing but just a smooth run to the target; and I think it should not be forgotten that there would be many miles for bomber crews to fly to and from the target over enemy territory. I think it could be truthfully said that defences nowadays are certainly greatly improved over the defences that were available to the various countries during the last war.
In view of this, I would ask the noble Viscount, who will be speaking for Her Majesty's Government later this evening or to-morrow—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: To-morrow.
LORD MERRIVALE: Thank you.—whether he can, consistent with security, give the House any indication of the operational availability of our own cruise missile, Blue Steel. Because it seems to me that we have, regretfully, lagged a little behind the United States with regard to providing our bombers with a cruise missile. I believe I am right in saying that Strategic Air Command B.52 squadrons have been, and still are being, provided with the Hound Dog cruise missile. This is a similar type of missile, the main difference being that it has a different form of propulsion.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, could we have a little more information a bout that last point? It is a very interesting point. I understood from the Secretary of State's Memorandum on the Air Estimates that this particular weapon which the noble Lord is speaking about is going into trial in the coming year only in "management and handling", whatever that may mean. If the noble Lord could inquire a little more into what he wishes to ascertain I myself should be very pleased to see the answer.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I presume the noble Viscount is referring to Hound Dog.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Blue Steel. Have a look at the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for Air.
LORD MERRIVALE: With regard to Blue Steel, my Lords, I was trying to find out the exact position from the noble Viscount who will be speaking later. It seems to me that they are available, or a number are available, but they are not in operational service.
With regard to Skybolt, the air-launched ballistic missile, I understand that the main modification that would be required to the Vulcan, apart from the addition of under-wing pylons, would be the installation in the aircraft of a pre-launch computer. Therefore it seems to me that the amount of modification work will not be too great. I believe that representatives of the manufacturers—at least, qualified staff from the manufacturers—are at the moment working on that matter in the United States. In view of this small amount of modification work that will be required to fit Skybolt to our Vulcan aircraft, could the House have an assurance from the noble Viscount that this ballistic missile will be coming into service—that is, operational service—at the same time as, or in conjunction with, its delivery to Strategic Air Command squadrons? In other words, can be give an assurance that we should receive them, not at a much later date but at a similar time? I hope that Her Majesty's Government will urge the American Government to supply them to our squadrons directly they have been proved over there. I believe it is true to say (and I think it has been mentioned before by the First Lord of the Admiralty) that the programme with regard to Skybolt is proceeding satisfactorily and that it is on schedule.
With regard to nuclear warheads, it is gratifying to see the statement in the White Paper that the warheads for the various missiles and weapons will be British warheads and therefore under our control. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the nuclear deadlock is safe—that is, that we can rely on the nuclear deadlock (and here I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to see that this deadlock is safe)—I think, as was mentioned in another place by the Minister of Defence and by the First Lord of the Admiralty here to-day, we still have with us this very grave problem of the possibility of a small affray developing into an all-out nuclear war. I must say in this respect,
816
in view of its danger, that I would opt for the raising of the threshold at which atomic or nuclear weapons, tactical weapons, would be used in the field by a greater emphasis on the use of conventional weapons. I was not in the Chamber when my noble friend Lord Teynham spoke, but I believe that he also would like to see a greater emphasis on conventional armed forces.
I feel that public opinion in this country is divided on this question of the use of tactical nuclear weapons. There is one trend of thought, as summed up by Brigadier W. F. K. Thompson at the end of his article in the Daily Telegraph, which appeared on March 3, 1961. I should like to quote from it, if I may:
"Nuclear weapons used in sufficient numbers revolutionise tactics and dominate the battlefield. But the conclusion to be drawn from an analysis of their effects is that those nuclear weapons which serve a tactical purpose are neither utterly devastating nor capable of rendering the countryside uninhabitable."
On the other hand, there are others who think otherwise. I should like to quote from an article which was written by Mr. Dennis Gabor, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a professor of Applied Electron Physics at the Imperial College of Science and Technology in the University of London. In his article in the Sunday Times on March 5 last he said:
"… it is absolutely imperative to break in as many points as possible the fatal chain which might lead from a frontier incident to all-out war. The most obvious and dangerous link in this chain is 'tactical' nuclear weapons. They are so evidently liable to lead to 'strategic' nuclear bombing …"
I might add, my Lords, that this gentleman is not against the deterrent: he is merely afraid of the effects of the use of tactical nuclear weapons. But in his article, which is entitled, "Living with the H-Bomb", he agrees with the Government's policy. I should like to stress that fact straight away, so that noble Lords will not think he is against the proposals of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the deterrent.
As I hinted earlier on, the solution may therefore lie somewhere between these two trends of thought. I think there are a number of noble Lords who rather fear the danger of a possible escalator—in other words, that a small affray might

817
develop into a larg-scale war. I think that that is a very serious danger indeed, and one to which very considerable attention should be given. That is why I should like to see, as I mentioned earlier, a raising of the point at which tactical nuclear weapons would be used. In other words, I should like to see our forces equipped with conventional weapons with a greater fire-power capacity, and used to a greater extent than it would appear at the moment, from Government statements, they are being used. This question is a very important one—at exactly what level one should cease using conventional weapons and use nuclear weapons.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to turn for a few moments to the question of civil defence, which is a very important matter. The First Lord of the Admiralty did not refer to it, but he said that it might be that it would be touched on later by other noble Lords speaking for the Government. I would say only a very few words with regard to civil defence, because I believe that there will be a better opportunity to speak on this question at some later date. I very much welcome paragraphs 39 and 41 of the White Paper. I also welcome the fact that local authorities will be receiving grants under four headings, according to Annex III on page 15. Local authorities will be receiving these grants for the purpose of civil defence.
Last December a number of your Lordships visited the Civil Defence Staff College at Sunningdale, and I must say that I, for one, was certainly most interested in the exposition that was given to us on the dangers and remedies in the event (which I hope will never come) of a nuclear attack. I would stress the word "remedy", my Lords, for it seems to me that far too few people in this country are aware of the exact effects of a nuclear detonation, and what steps may be taken to minimise them. In this respect, on this question of education, industry can certainly play a very large part, and is playing a certain part; but there is no doubt that local authorities should certainly take an increased interest in this matter, because it did seem to us—I think I am speaking for all those who were present at Sunningdale—that local authorities were not tackling this problem to the extent to which they should. One thing, my Lords, is that there is a great
818
need for wardens. Without them, it is difficult to start building up the force which is essential with regard to civil defence. Here I should like to say how much I was in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said on December 12 at Sunningdale—that:
"the country is insufficiently aware of the problems involved".
And he went on to say that
"a higher priority, status and dignity should be given by local authorities to this question of civil defence".
I certainly agree with the noble Lord. To end, I should like wholeheartedly to pay tribute to the W.V.S. as an auxiliary of civil defence, for their exemplary work in this field.
5.27 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Carrington, because I think the White Paper shows clearly that we are moving in the right direction. There are some details in it which are chiefly concerned with retaining the right balance between sword and shield—I agree with my noble friend Lord Teynham upon that—but I think the points I have in mind would be much better raised in the debate on the Memorandum on the Navy Estimates rather than on this Paper.
I would say this about the White Paper. It is paragraph 31 which gives me the most satisfaction, and, in particular, that portion of it which reads:
"Some experience has now been obtained of the system of preparing in the early summer of each year a full forward costing of the defence programme, covering the following five financial years".
I am quite sure that, in the past, naval, air and military planning staffs have been badly handicapped in their forward planning by the absence in a parallel form of financial planning; but, to my mind, the statement in this paragraph 31 betokens a very important step forward, and I am certain we shall reap increasing and untold benefits from it. Really serious, long-range planning now becomes more possible and realistic, because without the equivalent or parallel financial forecast one cannot deal properly with forward thinking on defence.

819
Of course, there is nothing new in this. When I was a serving officer, this desirable thing was discussed many times in ward-rooms and staff-rooms, and we all had our ideas as to which Department was the "nigger in the woodpile". I daresay we were right, but I do not want to look back. I like to remember one of Jackie Fisher's favourite quotations, "Remember Lot's wife and don't look back". I like to look forward and see what is facing us in the next five years. It is always difficult to peer into the future, and I am badly equipped to do so in this matter, but I think we must try to do it, particularly in this matter of defence, though not only in the matter of defence must we have forward planning. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned, we should forward plan for health, transport and a number of other very important things. But I do not see how we can plan forwards for all those desirable things unless we also Plan forward for adequate defence.
My noble friend Lord Birdwood has spoken of the uncertainty of from whence the attack will come. He mentioned that for years the Government of India were planning for an attack from the north-west, which eventually came from the north-east. At that time my father was Viceroy and Acting Governor General, and I well remember, as a small boy, being told that he authorised the purchase of more horses from Australia to meet the Russian menace. Preparations for war were much simpler in those days. At any rate, I think there is one thing we can be quite certain of, and that is that if war should unfortunately come in five years' time we shall still be faced with this age-old menacing threat to our sea communications.
In all our long history, we have had to face this threat, the present-day manifestation of which can be summed up in two words—submarines and aircraft. These have long since replaced the frigates and privateers of olden days. In World War I it was U-boats, mines and surface raiders. In World War II it was U-boats, mines and surface raiders, while for the first time aircraft came into the picture to menace our sea communications. Should we be involved in a major war during the next five years, our potential enemy will once
820
again make our sea communications the object of immediate, savage and relentless attack: there is no doubt about that in my mind. This time it will be even more difficult to counter. Greatly improved submarines, including nuclear-powered, will be operating, whilst the increased range and general performance of aircraft will mean that their attacks on our sea communications will be infinitely more dangerous than those we experienced in World War II—and all your Lordships know that they were very dangerous indeed.
I make no apology for placing this question of our sea communications in the forefront of my remarks to your Lordships to-day. Your Lordships know that we have to import one million tons of goods per week to keep this country going. They are the bare necessities. Our history shows that, for this reason alone, our defence must be based on a maritime strategy. Whenever we have departed from this we have faced, and very often met, disaster. Whenever we returned to maritime strategy, we always conquered. Whether or no the Royal Navy and Coastal Command are adequately equipped to deal with this potential menace to our sea communications is, I think, a matter which I should like to turn to in the debate on the Memorandum on the Navy Estimates. I do not think I should go into detail to-day. But I should like to say that in all our long-range planning and thinking, and in particular in our research and experimentation, we must give the highest priority to the ships, the aircraft and the weapons to protect our sea communications. With those intact, we can ensure the safe and timely arrival of our convoys, not only those bringing in the one million tons of supplies per week which are essential to our existence, but those taking our troops, war-time supplies and equipment to those places where they can best act in defence, not only of the country, but of our Commonwealth and our Allies.
In our forward thinking and planning as it applies to all three Services, I think we must next face up to the fact that in five years' time we may well have considerably fewer bases overseas from which we can operate at short notice and without restriction. This diminishing base factor cannot fail to have a most important bearing on our general

821
defence establishment, our weapons and equipment, and the host of other details to which I will refer in the debate on the Navy Estimates.
I should just like to mention the matter of the design of the next generation of aircraft carriers. This question of future aircraft carriers is, I believe, of the utmost importance. Already there is a shortage of established bases, which shortage I believe is likely to grow more acute over the next five years. Therefore it seems to me that the aircraft carrier will assume even greater importance, though importance of a rather different nature than hitherto. I submit. my Lords, that the necessary design studies and preparation of staff requirements, and so forth, should be treated as matters of urgent importance; and in saying that I fully appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Carrington, that the ships which he is considering to-day will still be in service in 1990.
The increasing shortage of established bases, and therefore of adequate aerodromes, will also have its effect on the Royal Air Force in all its commands. In the next five years they may well see further difficulties in the matter of over flying. These difficulties can be overcome only by increasing the effective range of our aircraft, and, most of all, by improving the technique of refuelling in flight. Frankly, I do not know to what stage we have got in that connection, and I have not had the opportunity to consult my noble friend who sits just in front of me and who is my adviser on air matters. Nevertheless, I think that is a very important point.
I should now like to focus attention on Transport Command. On these aircraft we shall increasingly rely for the mobility so essential in support of an effective maritime strategy. Transport Command obviously need reasonable landing facilities where they can disembark the troops, together with their equipment, vehicles and stores. I do not think it is right at this time to pursue this matter in detail, and I shall leave the topic by saying merely that Transport Command cannot expect always to find modern airports. Moreover, where they have to make their main landing may well be some considerable distance from the points where their cargoes and freight are required.
822
I turn now to Bomber and Fighter Commands. They will, of course, face the same difficulties about suitable aerodromes, and I submit that it is really necessary to plan for some aircraft types that can, if need be, use the new aircraft carriers as a base. As to the V-bomber force, which at the moment and for some years will remain our principal means of retaliation, I submit to your Lordships that the real urgency here is to provide them with stand-off capability. I am glad to see from paragraph 17 of the White Paper that this is the intention, although I must say that the wording of the paragraph is a little disappointing, since it merely says that these aircraft will be given increasing stand-off capability over the next decade. I think we ought to try to do better than that. I am not a technician, but, after all, it is eighteen years ago since the Germans were operating standoff bombers of a type which did considerable damage from the Salerno beaches, when they jolly nearly sank the old "Warspite" for one. They succeeded in sinking one of the Italian battleships on their way to Sorrento to surrender or to join us as co-belligerents (whichever term is preferred).
I presume that both the free-falling bombs, with which V-bombers are equipped at present, and the stand-off bombs, with which they will be supplied in future, are, or will be, fitted with the most powerful nuclear warheads. In this connection, I was interested to read the other day that the A-bomb dropped at Hiroshima was 20kt, which, I believe, is equivalent to 20,000 tons of T.N.T. It caused 80,000 casualties. At Nagasaki, the same size of bomb caused 40,000 casualties. A week before the A-bomb was dropped at Hiroshima, there was a fire raid on Tokio, during which only 2,000 tons of bombs were dropped, mainly incendiaries, and there were no fewer than 84,711 casualties, of which 40,918 were wounded. I have no information, but I presume that the present nuclear warheads "pack a punch" far in excess of the original A-bomb. But even if this is so, I do not think it is necessarily true that they will cause proportionately higher casualties, and certainly this would not be true if used against well-trained troops in the

823
open or against well-trained civilian populations, with shelters properly constructed.
As I see it, the main objective of this retaliatory force is one I have described as interdiction, in the first place, of airfields, ports, railway junctions, fuel storage and troop assembly points; in the second place, of shipyards, aircraft and munition factories. Their job is not primarily to slaughter the civilian population but to destroy and disrupt the enemy's war effort. The point I am trying to make, though perhaps I am making it badly, is that I do not think that we should use too much of our limited financial resources in trying to produce bigger and better bombs in the context of explosive power, pure and simple. Surely our efforts should be directed at producing a weapon which will be effective against these vital targets of interdiction and disruption. I do not think we should forget—I am sure most of your Lordships have not forgotten—that despite all the efforts of the Allied bomber forces in World War II, the Germans were still commissioning new U-boats at the rate of 60 every three months as late as June, 1944. They were also beginning to produce the first jet-engined fighter aircraft in considerable quantity, and it was touch and go whether they would get air superiority before the war came to an end. In my submission, the bomb, free-falling or stand-off, and its aiming, requires very special attention, if it is to be a really effective weapon against military targets.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am following the speech of the noble Lord with great interest. It is simply not a historical fact that the bomber offensive had no effect on U-boat production. I was chairman of one of our bomb survey units at the end of the war, and I can say that the delay in the production of the German Type 21 and Type 23 submarines was very strongly testified to, particularly by some captured Nazi leaders who gave evidence after they had been taken prisoners. In any case, even if that were so, I do not understand what the noble Lord is now proposing as an alternative to the atom bomb. What type of weapon has he in mind?
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, as I seem to have explained myself badly. On the question of the effect of bombing in the last war, what I said was that, despite the bombing, German U-boats were still being commissioned at the rate of 60 every three months, and Germany was producing, or about to produce, jet-engined fighter aircraft. I did not say that the bomb had not been unsuccesful in delaying these, but, despite the bombing effort, the Germans were still producing them. On the question of what weapon I would suggest, I have not the technical knowledge or the ability to say whether it is possible to invent some new form of bomb or weapon. All I can suggest is that it should not really depend on explosive power pure and simple. We want a bomb which is to be effective against the military targets I have mentioned. I do not believe that a solution lies in merely increasing the explosive power as such. It may be—I do not know—but that is my belief. We have limited funds for research; let us use them in the right direction.
Lastly, I turn to the Army for a few minutes, and if I have left it till towards the end of my speech it is not because I think that it is the least important of our defensive arms. Far from that being so, I consider that the Army has a contribution to make to our defence every bit as important as those of the other Services, and must be closely integrated with them. Looking ahead for the next five years, I see a vital need for us to take every possible measure to increase the mobility and flexibility of our land forces. I read the other day of electronic and radar devices for use of the Army in the field, I think for the detection of tanks, gun positions and so forth. I am all for the Army having every possible modern aid to battle, but it must be mobile, with a capital "M".
During the operation of the landing in Normandy, the late Admiral Ramsay, my Commander-in-Chief, sent me down to Gosport to observe the lading of a special convoy for the far shore. This was known as the "awkwards lifts" convoy, and awkward is an understatement in describing the vehicles which I saw as I drove down past to the loading hard. I have some apprehension that unless the "boffins" are watched very

825
carefully, the Army could easily get bogged down with electronic hardware. It is easier to do that than keep it mobile. During the war, I spent some time—all too short a time—as a naval liaison officer on the staff of a Major-General Administration in the field. During that time I learnt much about the supply problems of the Army and their magnitude, and I was very impressed by the efficiency with which the job was tackled. Nevertheless, I think there is much scope for imagination and development work to improve further mobility. There is a story written by Rudyard Kipling; in 1904, in Traffic and Discoveries called "The Army of Dreams" which tells something about this. Of course, it has to be brought up to date, but there are many valuable lessons in it not only about mobility but about the integration of the Services.
Although I have read with great interest and pleasure the literary efforts of many distinguished and gallant Field-Marshals, some of whom sit in this House (sometimes), I do not feel competent to voice an opinion about whether we need 160,000, 180,000 or any other number of troops, but I should like briefly to refer to the question of recruiting. Ever since I first was old enough to think about these things, I held the opinion that the Army had a much tougher recruiting job than any of the other Services, and I still think so. I think that their recruiting job is much harder than that of the Royal Air Force. I believe that this view is substantiated by the various figures and statements that have recently appeared, and also by what my noble friend the First Lord said to-day.
But I think the Army's main difficulty is to hold their men's interest during the training period and the early years of their service. There must be a spirit of adventure in any man who joins one of the Services. Therefore, I was very glad to see from the speech in another place of the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for War that special attention was being paid to giving the younger soldiers plenty of variety and change of scene. I am sure that this is the right policy. In my young days "to go foreign" was the main ambition of most of us. In some ways it is not so easy to-day, and the choice of place is
826
more restricted. On the other hand, air trooping has made it considerably easier than in the old days.
I welcome overseas exercises, such as those recently held in Portugal for the Sandhurst cadets, the larger exercise in Libya, and those planned for Canada and elsewhere later this year. Looking ahead over the next five years, I think we should plan for as many of these exercises as is financially possible; and, moreover, they should be combined to the maximum possible extent as to Navy, Army and Air Force. Furthermore, I think that as many comparatively raw recruits as possible should be sent on these exercises. I recently read another interesting book written by a distinguished and gallant Officer of this House, and I was particularly impressed with his description of the steps he took to prevent young soldiers from getting what in the soldier's jargon was called "browned off". To put it very simply he sent them off to fire every weapon in the armoury as soon as they got their uniforms on; in other words, he gave them the experience of being real soldiers as soon as possible.
I have had not a little experience of training young men in industry, and one of my great difficulties has always been to find ways and means of holding their interest while performing the routine and dreary tasks so essential to their preliminary training. I believe that money spent on giving the young soldier field experience as early and as frequently as possible will produce an excellent recruiting dividend and could lend real punch to the advocating campaign which we have heard to-day is about to be launched nationwide.
My Lords, I must refer to another important feature of the White Paper, and that is the references to interdependence in paragraphs 23 to 26. I suppose that this horrid example of modern jargon gives a better expression to the communal defence arrangements which are so obviously necessary for the free world in the circumstances in which we find ourselves to-day. Therefore, despite my dislike of this word, I do not disagree with the contents of those paragraphs which deal with this matter. Nevertheless, I will not conceal from your Lordships that I would much rather

827
it were possible for us to stand on our own feet. All our history shows that Alliances have been fraught with great difficulties and special dangers to this country. My noble friend Lord Birdwood pointed out during his speech, to which I listened with great interest, that political decisions in an Alliance are particularly difficult; and that is true enough. However, I accept that to-day interdependence—in other words, a more comprehensive form of alliance than we have ever seen before—is necessary, and I want only to make one comment.
What I describe as the "nuts and bolts" of interdependence, which are clearly set out in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the White Paper, are obviously of great importance; but what I think is of even greater importance is the development of a common strategical doctrine. The need for this means, I think, that we must accept the fact that large numbers of officers and men of all Services will be required to serve on the various integrated staffs, of which N.A.T.O. is only one, though probably the most important. In the case of the Navy, this means, I fear, rather more shoregoing staff appointments than traditionally we like to see. Nevertheless, we must constantly bear the need for this in mind.
I also hope that the Imperial Defence College and the other staff colleges will open their doors even wider than they are open now to Allied as well as Commonwealth officers. I am aware that much has been done already, but I think we should plan for more. I feel certain that our Allies are only too willing to give us generous reciprocal treatment, and I hope that in our financial planning we shall arrange it so that as many of our own officers as possible can take advantage of these opportunities. Professional sailors, soldiers and airmen have strong international bonds through their chosen calling, and the battle of interdependence, integration, or whatever you may call it, is more than half won before they are brought together for joint instruction and study. But joint instruction and study is necessary if we are to have a common strategical doctrine.
Paragraphs 24 and 26 of the White Paper also refer to the interchange of re-
828
search and development techniques, and to conclude my remarks I must refer briefly to this all-important subject. I have tried in my speech to-day to indicate some of the directions which research and development should take and my view as to the relative importance to be attached to each, although I fear that I have done so only sketchily. What I want to say is that in the Admiralty during the Second World War, and in more than one industry both before and after that war, I have had some experience of what may be best described as the direction, co-ordination and administration of research and development work. It is not easy. Our scientists and technicians are certainly the equal of any in the world—in fact, I would go so far as to say that they are probably the best—but, like all scientists and technicians, they are very apt to be carried away by sheer enthusiasm for the technical aspects of their work, and in doing so to lose sight of the ultimate object of the enterprise, which, in what we are discussing to-day, is purely and simply to wage war. If we were considering industrial research and development, of course, it would have commercial application.
Another point on this question of research and development is that in my experience the true scientist and inventor is never satisfied: he always thinks (and he is nearly always right) that given time he can do better. It needs firm control from the top, coupled with a good deal of courage and judgment, to say at a certain point: "Thus far and no further. This is good enough. We will go into production now. Your improvements, when they come along, can be embodied in the Mark II or the Series II." Failure to do this, I submit, can result only in loss of valuable time and waste of our limited funds. Neither of these can we afford. I hope and believe that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Defence has this point very much in mind. With these remarks, I say finally that I welcome the White Paper, Cmnd. 1288, and in particular the prospect which it discloses of more effective long-range planning for our vital defence organisation.
6.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Motion moved so ably by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty. I should like, however, to add a few somewhat

829
critical, but I hope constructively critical, remarks on one important aspect of defence. The cost of developing and supplying equipment for the Services accounts for over £650 million, or about 40 per cent. of our total Defence Budget. It is therefore of the utmost importance to ensure that we get full value for this vast expenditure, remembering particularly that our technical resources are strictly limited. It is on this subject that I should like to make a few remarks to-day. In doing so I must declare an interest, as much of my working life is spent in a team which is proud to be making a contribution to the supply of equipment to Her Majesty's forces.
Before I go further, may I say one word in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who at the end of his very interesting remarks gave the impression that scientists (I do not know whether he included engineers, though they are a little different) were always trying to get their latest ideas into their products, to the gross detriment of the production programme. In my experience that is completely untrue. At least, the engineers who are engaged in producing the weapons for the forces are extremely conscious of that problem, and it is often—in my experience almost invariably—they who say "Stop; it is good enough". It is the people who are going to use the weapons who all too often force those who are making them to put improvements into them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, stated so clearly, in our Armed Forces to-day it is as important as ever it was to have brave, well-disciplined and highly trained men. But in these days they must have the best possible equipment if they are to be effective in support of our national foreign policy and of our international obligations. The objective of a weapon supply policy must be to provide equipment which, by the time it is in service—and what matters is the quality of the equipment when it comes into service—will enable the Armed Forces to defeat any potential enemy, not necessarily alone, but probably in collaboration with our Allies. To do this, offensive weapons must be able to penetrate the defences of a potential enemy and the defensive weapons able to deal with any threat expected.
830
In the past, numbers have been as important as type of weapon, and the time cycle, as the noble Lord pointed out, from decision to order new weapons to supply was very short. The longbow and swords, and later on ships, armoured cars and rifles, could rapidly be provided to meet the changing situation. But the age of the tank, the aeroplane, the nuclear submarine and the guided missile has changed all that. Instead of thinking of a year or two for the development cycle, and a million or two pounds for the development programme, we must now think in terms of five, or even ten, years for a development programme and certainly in tens of millions and even hundreds of millions of pounds of cost. These changes, together with the vast increase in complexity of modern weapons, have brought about an entirely new situation which we have not yet mastered. We are still relying too greatly on methods which were barely suitable twenty-five years ago and which, in existing circumstances, are preventing us from making anything like the best use of our limited resources.
It is not yet fully appreciated by all those involved in the development of new weapons that the three elements of performance, cost and time scale are inevitably connected together in ways that can be improved only by the skill and judgment of the designers, scientists, engineers and production teams; and in no other way. Efficient financial control is, of course, very necessary as a measure of progress relative to estimate, and as a means of providing valuable statistics on which future estimates can be surely based. It may also sometimes, occasionally, be necessary, from purely financial or political considerations, to make arbitrary decisions against the advice of those directly responsible for a development or production programme. But it must be understood that such action will prevent the achievement of the required performance within the originally estimated time scale and cost.
At the conception of a new weapon to meet an operational requirement, it is normal and, I think, very good practice for design studies to be undertaken by a number of teams. These are presented

831
in the form of a report or a brochure, as it is sometimes called, in which estimates of performance, cost and time scale are set out. If the project is to proceed the team to undertake the work must be chosen without delay, for from that moment the time cycle of development starts. In other words, if the weapon is required to be in service on a certain date with a given performance and cost of development, it will be possible to meet those three requirements only if work goes ahead without delay at the planned rate. If delay does occur, the end date or the required performance will not be met, although it may be possible sometimes—certainly not always—partly to recover the slip in time or performance by increasing expenditure, by, for instance, initiating parallel development programmes for critical items. But it will certainly never be possible to ensure that the originally estimated time scale and performance and the cost are all met, except in the very rare event of a lucky and unexpected technical break-through.
If, on the other hand, development starts without delay but rates of spending are reduced below those planned, then it will be impossible to meet the required performance and time scale, and either one or the other will inevitably suffer. Similarly—and this refers to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill—if, during the course of development, higher performance is demanded, then either cost or time scale, and sometimes both, must be increased. Every day that passes the threat to be met or the defence to be overcome is inexorably changing in line with advances in technical knowledge which are occurring here and amongst our potential enemies. There is, as it were, a carpet of technical advance moving forward in time at a speed which is not under our control, but which is determined by technical progress in the world around us. Like the Red Queen, we have to run fast to stay where we are relative to this moving carpet, and twice as fast to get anywhere.
So, if our new weapons are to be of any value, we must run in the technical race considerably faster than the carpet so that our weapons will have several years of useful life before they become obsolete. If delays occur which are not
832
adequately compensated by improved performance, we shall merely, in the end, produce a weapon which is as useless to-day as the Spitfire would be. Quite apart from the huge waste of money that this entails, the prospects of selling the weapon to N.A.T.O. and other Allies, and so recovering some of the expenditure, will be greatly reduced and probably become non-existent. We cannot expect our Allies to purchase, or take an interest in, the development of weapons with which we are going ahead, when better and more advanced weapons are being developed either in their own country or elsewhere.
I must apologise for this rather detailed description of the situation, but I believe it is important for these issues to be more clearly understood, particularly in view of the recent widely publicised reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the resultant action that has been taken. With the admirable objectives of reducing expenditure and saving money on weapon development, very much tighter control of contracts in this field has been instituted. More careful scrutiny of estimates and of contract conditions, more detailed technical investigations into the feasability of proposals, are all sensible results of this new policy. But much less satisfactory results are long delays in making decisions and in the placing of contracts for even relatively small sums of money.
I cannot tell whether these steps are reducing expenditure, because that depends on the magnitude of the initial proposals. But reduction of expenditure is of no value in itself, if it means less value for the money that is being spent; and certainly these actions are involving waste of money and, of greater importance, waste of scarce technical manpower. The reasons for this are, first, that these delays are ensuring that equipment is ready later than it need be and both its useful life, and therefore value for money spent, is greatly reduced. Secondly, small sums of money spent now can often save quite large sums of money later on; and, thirdly, delays in decisions almost invariably result in technical teams not being employed in the most efficient way.
My Lords, the Treasury are often blamed for delays of this kind, where the cause is really to be found in lack of policy decisions elsewhere, but I have

833
not the slightest doubt that the system of control at present being used, in which the Treasury play a leading rôle, is the cause of a great many needless and wasteful delays. Perhaps as important, a lack of confidence is growing up between the people who design and make the weapons for the Forces, whether inside or outside the Government Service, and those who make the decisions which all too often cause delay and wasted effort. To determine what is adequate and necessary investigation and what is excessive, and to achieve the right balance between financial control, strict enough to avoid waste but not so tight as to promote waste by introducing excessive delay, are most difficult problems when we are dealing with modern complex weapon systems. But to achieve the best results there is surely no doubt that the first essential is to employ in the best way possible the experience and resources at our disposal; and this, I am convinced, we are not doing at present.
In my humble opinion, the principal reason for this state of affairs is that decisions on highly technical matters are taken by those with little or no technical knowledge, and with no experience of manufacturing problems. I fully appreciate—and this is perhaps something that needs to be said—that before large expenditure on new weapons can be authorised many decisions of high policy, both political and financial, must be taken, and these must be taken at Cabinet level, or very near it. Nevertheless, much work on design studies and similar investigations must be clone in advance to provide information on which these decisions can be taken. While decisions are being taken interim action on the technical side must be authorised to prevent our slipping behind our potential enemies, or indeed behind our Allies if we want our weapons to be acceptable; and once policy decisions are taken, speedy action to convert them into development and production activity is essential. It is at these stages that I believe much time, money and effort could be saved.
To do this there must be much closer relations between the Treasury and all those other Ministries concerned and industry. The very experienced senior technical staff—and there are many of
834
them with great experience—in the Government service must be given much greater authority, within defined, but not too small, financial limits dictated by national policy. The present situation in which many vital decisions are held up by the need to refer them back to the Treasury or elsewhere, whose officials do not come into direct contact with those entrusted with the work, must cease. So often when one is discussing these things people say, "Ah, but that is not possible under the Constitution. You cannot remove the responsibility for these decisions from the accounting officers in the Departments. We must have our system of checks and balances". But surely all these things—and in this country we have the great advantage of an unwritten Constitution—are meant to be used in the service of the country and not as a means of preventing rapid decisions and efficient action being taken.
My Lords, it would not be appropriate to go into further detail to-day, but I suggest that a Committee should be set up to investigate these points. There is an excellent precedent for this in the Committee set up by the Admiralty in 1957 under the chairmanship of Sir Barclay Nihill to advise on the organisation for handling the Admiralty's requirements in materiel. This Committee took evidence from a broad selection of naval officers, civil servants, and industrialists covering the whole field of administration, finance and technical problems. As a result of its recommendations a reorganisation of the relevant departments in the Admiralty took place, which I understand is proving most successful. I am sure that a similar Committee could make a valuable contribution to the problems in the wider field which I have tried to describe.
In conclusion, I should like to make it quite clear that I am not attacking any individual, or the Civil Service as a whole. But I am critical of Her Majesty's Government for allowing such an inefficient organisation as we have at present to continue. We are all in this problem together and we all have the same objective—to provide the Services with the best possible equipment as long as it is necessary. The old idea of industry making vast profits out of

835
the supply of armaments is out of date and as dead as the dodo. On the other hand, there are hundreds of enthusiastic pilots, engineers, scientists, and production teams on the shop floor working long hours to produce this equipment, often at times when many others are digging in their gardens or out on the golf course. To these the delays and vacillations imposed from outside, leading to wasted effort which is perfectly obvious to them, are frustrating in the extreme, for they have more than enough problems and difficulties of their own to overcome.
I must apologise for taking up so much time to put these points before the House. They may seem small, perhaps, in contrast to the issues of nuclear disarmament, the deterrent and all these great issues of policy. But 40 per cent. of our Defence Budget, over £650 million, is, I submit, an important amount of money, and I have taken up the time I have done because I believe that in our present circumstances it is of vital importance that we should obtain full value for money from these vast sums that are being spent to provide equipment for our Armed Services.
6.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, at the beginning of this debate noble Lords were given the choice of accepting one of three invitations to express their opinion about the Defence White Paper; and if, as may well happen, we are to go into the Lobby to-morrow we shall not be able to take the easy way out by agreeing with the Motion and the two Amendments, but will have to make up our minds to vote for one or the other. So perhaps I might say a word about the three choices.
First of all, we had the noble Lord, Lord Rea. His Amendment, I think, is very largely based on the proposition that, although we are spending a lot of money, we are not getting value for it. I wonder if he quite realises that the aim of the Government in spending money on defence is, to my mind, the same historic aim as we have followed down the ages—namely, not to spend enormous sums of money and to compete with the greater Powers in the world, whoever they may be at any given time—France and Spain in the time of Queen
836
Elizabeth I; America and Russia in the time of Queen Elizabeth II—but to use our money to provide a marginal intervention. And historically we have asserted that marginal intervention in accordance with the balance of power. That, to my mind, is the object of Her Majesty's Government in these days of Queen Elizabeth II, exactly as it was in the days of the Government's predecessors in the time of Queen Elizabeth I. So I would suggest that one rejects Lord Rea's Motion.
Our next choice is the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. He and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, both made their own points; and although it was quite clear to me that they were united in their lack of confidence in the Government and the White Paper, I began to be less clear as to the exact reason why the Party of the Opposition were showing lack of confidence. It seemed to me that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said that we were spending not enough money, and that more had been spent in the time of the Labour Government. On the other hand, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel did not seem to take quite the same view. Therefore, looking at all these facts, it seems doubtful exactly what we should be voting for if we were to vote for the official Opposition Amendment. So I think my noble friend who introduced the original Motion so clearly and concisely, and so convincingly, may come into his own to-morrow; and I can do no more and no less than add my respectful advice that your Lordships should support the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Having said that, and having explained why I welcome the White Paper, may I come to one or two points that strike me about it? There was a phrase which was used by my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence in the debate in another place which I think is most significant. He said:
"This White Paper is the first to be written against the background of the probability that both sides have now enough nuclear explosives to destroy one another."
That, I feel, is a most significant passage. He then went on to bring in the question of China, which no doubt referred not only to defence but to some

837
higher decisions which Her Majesty's Government are making, have made or are seeking to make. I think that phrase sets the pace for the present White Paper, and it also goes a long way to explain why the 1961 White Paper is not following slavishly the 1957 White Paper, which was the point of criticism, I think, from the Benches opposite. It seems quite clear that the policy outlined in the 1957 White Paper has succeeded to the point where the emphasis can well shift away from the strategic and wholly nuclear type of warfare to what I think is wrongly called the conventional type of warfare, on which, if I may, I will say a word in a moment. In other words, the problem with which we are likely to be faced at any time now is the checking of influence, small in itself, but equally likely to be the prelude to much greater trouble, even the possibility of a Third World War.
We should always be prepared, I think, to learn lessons as they are offered to us. Therefore I hope that if anybody wants to know how not to do a thing like this we should give the most careful study to the performance of the United Nations in the Congo. I feel that there is an extremely good lesson for all of us as to how not to do anything. I think the fundamental error that was made by the United Nations was to suppose that it was possible to make any sensible use of armed forces if at the same time they were given instructions not to fire; or, conversely, if you send armed forces to the scene of trouble you must be prepared, if you are to get full value out of them, to see that, in the last resort, they use the weapons with which they are armed, have instructions to do so, and—last but certainly not least—are placed under commanders of experience, who have seen battle and know what battle is and what battle is not. We can apply some of those lessons which should be learned from the United Nations Organisation—they have been well reported in the Press—to some of the lessons which may confront us when we think of N.A.T.O. Happily, N.A.T.O. has not been put to the test; but the lessons are there, and we ourselves, I think, as the Government White Paper makes perfectly clear, must see to it that we make our full contribution to the demands of N.A.T.O. upon us, or at all events that we make good the contribution which
838
we have accepted both in manpower and in equipment.
So we come to the question of recruiting. The 1957 White Paper was quoted by noble Lords opposite, and I am going to quote it again. Paragraph 48 says that
"It must nevertheless be understood that if voluntary recruiting fails to produce the numbers required, the country will have to face the need for some limited form of compulsory service to bridge the gap."
I hope that that paragraph still stands, because I think it should. Quite likely, my noble friend Lord Carrington was right when he said that this may not be the right time to talk about continuing National Service or to talk about a state of affairs when voluntary recruiting fails. Very well. But that is not to say that it is not the time to think about it. And I hope that the Government are thinking most carefully about it, so that, in the unfortunate event of our recruiting not coming up to the standard required to meet our commitments, we are not left with a period when, in the absence of the right number of recruits, we have no plan and fall down on our international commitments. So if we feel, as I think we all do, in every part of the House, that it is most important to keep our voluntary effort on the right standing, it is incumbent upon us to do all we can to see that it is supported.
We have heard a most encouraging account from my noble friend who moved the original Motion about new incentives given to National Servicemen now in the Army, about that old idea, which in the past has been so much more honoured in the breach than in the observance, of giving the recruit to Her Majesty's Forces a guaranteed career in the Government service, either in or out of uniform—because no one can afford in these days to go into a career, whether as an officer or as an other rank, which does not take him, or maybe her, to the full pension age and the full pension rate. Then my noble friend talked about rewards in civil life. I think that these rewards will largely come automatically as the skill of the people in the Forces increases, and they are able to attract in their own right a better job in the labour market when they leave the Forces.
There is one point which, rather surprisingly, has not been mentioned in the Government White Paper, or in the

839
Army White Paper which we shall discuss later on—that is, the use of the youth organisations and particularly the pre-Service organisations, as aids to recruiting. Surely, their potential value is great at all times, and particularly at a juncture like this. So far, the only mention I have been able to trace is the mention by my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence, I think in a speech in another place where he talked about assistance to youth organisations. I am quite certain that at this time we should aim our sights at the youth organisations of the country, not only on general grounds, as everybody should, but on the specific ground that we look for the contribution which the young need to make to the defence of this country. I hope that that point will not be left out. No doubt we shall have an opportunity to come back to that in the debate on the Army.
Then we come to the question not only of manpower but also of equipment. I am not going to say a great deal on that, because the hour is late and because my noble friend, Lord Caldecote, who has just sat down, has given us a very expert speech, as well he may, since in his daily life, as I know, he is closely concerned with it, and therefore speaks with very great authority. I hope my noble friends in front of me have taken good note of what he said, and I should like to support his suggestion for a Committee on the lines of the Nihill Committee.
I myself will only trouble your Lordships again with a plea which I have made for several years past to abandon these words "nuclear", "conventional", "strategic" and "tactical". I believe they cause more unclear thinking in the defence world than anybody can possibly imagine. Opening the debate on Defence in another place on February 27, my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 635, col. 1203]:
"The weapons themselves are often neither tactical nor strategic; it is only the role in which they are used which makes them one or the other, and we must try to keep that point in mind."
Then we get this question of nuclear and conventional forces, and it really seems to me that the two are rapidly merging together. In the White Paper
840
on the Army, from which I hope it will be in order for me to quote one sentence, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said:
"In the British Army of the Rhine certain weapons began to make their significant contribution to our nuclear potential."
So there we have nuclear weapons and conventional warfare. Where do we go from there? My own feeling is that the more we use these expressions, the less clear will be our thinking; for to my mind the term "conventional warfare" seems to conjure up ideas not of the modern battlefield—which is what we should be thinking about in these debates—but something belonging to days past, some of the campaigns of Marshal Saxe or the rectangular strategy and tactics described in Hamley's Operations of War, a book which few people have ever read and still fewer will read in the future. Let us get away from those ideas and approach the modern strategic problems of the modern battlefield without attaching labels which, in any case, will be out of date, and try to use language which will encourage people to think in terms of the problems with which we are faced and the weapons we are to have.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, seemed to suggest that we could abandon altogether our contribution to the nuclear field. How we could do that and still carry on what I suppose we must still call conventional warfare, if nuclear weapons are to come to the battlefield, I cannot think. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, would agree with me that even if all our nuclear research is primarily for defence purposes, it has a most valuable contribution to make to our general scientific progress, and it would be a great pity if, by taking up the line of unilateral disarmament, we found ourselves losing our most valuable potential and thereby doing damage to our progress in industry and technical matters generally. Those, I think, are all the points with which I felt I need trouble your Lordships to-night.
The noble Baroness, Lady Swan-borough, will talk on civil defence to-morrow. I would only say I am rather doubtful whether civil defence has, in this White Paper, quite as much of a "new look" as it will need to have. Perhaps we shall hear more on that

841
subject, and possibly on reflection it may seem to Her Majesty's Government that home defence has gone somewhat "into the doldrums" and that a little more could be said about it and rather more attention given to that problem. Of all the problems which have changed since the end of the last war in 1945, there is, I suppose, no subject in which there has been greater change, actual or potential, than home defence generally and civil defence in particular.
Once again would make a plea for the study of anti-sabotage as part of the study of civil defence, because I believe that that is one of the greatest threats to civil affairs in this country if, unhappily, we should be faced with a situation of that kind. Those are the few points I wish to raise on the White Paper. Having raised them, may I return to what I said at the start: that I hope the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will be accepted to- morrow?
6.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, we have had, as we always expect, a lucid and well-reasoned speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. He asked how anybody could show lack of confidence in the Government's White Paper. I should have thought that anybody who had listened to the speeches this afternoon, and not all of them from this side of the House, would have no difficulty in understanding our point of view and the reason why my noble Leader has put down a Motion of no-confidence in the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government.
We maintain—and my noble Leader could not have put it plainer—that for all the expense the Government are now incurring, the actual effective forces at the disposal of the Government are less than those that were available to the Government in 1951; and there has been no answer. Perhaps we shall hear to-morrow, from the noble and learned Viscount who is to wind up, something that will shake our view, but so far we see no reason to withdraw this Amendment which we have put down.
I would start my criticism of this White Paper on a matter of detail, in relation to its presentation. There is
842
certainly an innovation here; I notice that the Defence memoranda are launching out into the world of strip cartoons. By whom is this Paper meant to be read? Surely it is a Paper presented to Parliament; and I think your Lordships will agree that we are more or less literate. We do not need to have rather crude drawings to emphasise the points. We can grasp that £413 million is to be the cost of the Royal Navy without seeing a picture of a carrier enclosed in a kind of money-bag, with a larger money-bag for the Army and a still larger one for the R.A.F.; and a tiny little money-bag for the Ministry of Defence with, inside it, something which is quite undecipherable. I hope the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Defence, will think again and not resort to experiment, or, if he does, will at least get the drawings done by a professional and make it a good strip cartoon, instead of a bad one.
Another thing at which I would protest—and this is nothing new—is the abnormal reticence of the Government on the disposition of the troops. Excessive preoccupation with security is normally, between wars, thrown overboard, and public and Parliament are told in the official Service lists where the troops and the ships are deployed, and so on. But this time we see in the map on page 4 these little symbols showing where Army, Navy and Air Force units are deployed, with no indication of the numbers in each place. That is, to my mind, merely a protective device on the part of the departmental Ministers to protect themselves from criticism in this country. Nobody can seriously believe that, by withholding that information from the public, enemy agents are in the least incommoded. Any amateur sleuth in any of the great ports of the world will have no difficulty in finding out not only the number of units but the identity of the units and probably the name of the commanding officer as well. It really is rather childish. It would assist Parliament and the country to know how defence is being managed by the Government if a little more information were given.
The Minister of Defence in another place quite rightly put in the forefront of his speech the paragraphs about disarmament. He said that Her Majesty's

843
Government hoped that 1961 will see the conclusion of a nuclear test agreement. We all hope that this is so, and we rejoice that the Government really go so far as to say they hope that an agreement will be come to this year. He went on to qualify that by reminding us of the risks of disarmament. He says that a nuclear test agreement would be a great move towards a broader measure of disarmament; but he points out that there is no known method of detecting hidden nuclear tests, plus the problem of clandestine manufacture, and all the rest. My Lords, of course there is a risk if we enter into an agreement on disarmament. But we have to balance that risk against the risk of continuing the arms race and the state of tension in which we now are.
I think your Lordships would agree with me that the most remarkable speech of the afternoon was that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who not only talked of disarmament from intimate knowledge and participation in some of the work but also lifted our debate on to another plane, where we could see some hope in the future of real disarmament and something really happening to relieve the appalling state in which we live now.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave us a clear, lucid, forceful exposition of his case. I would not say that he convinced us. The sentence which I should like to take up and query is a sentence earlier on, where he said, I think, that our contribution to all phases, the whole spectrum, of defence would:
"maintain and foster the spread of our way of life."
I feel a little uneasy if that is regarded as one of the objectives of our defence policy. Do we really want to spread our way of life by the possession of Armed Forces? Surely our Forces are for defence against aggression, and I do not like—and I think many people in this country would not like—the idea that it was in the minds of Her Majesty's Government that they wanted, actively and positively, to spread our way of life about the world.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I would answer the noble Earl there. I think that my noble friend really meant almost exactly the opposite of what the
844
noble Earl fears. When he said that the object of our defence policy was to maintain and spread our way of life, I understood him to mean precisely what the noble Earl is trying to say: that defence policy, in its wider sense, really depends on an adequate foreign policy and an adequate economic policy which will maintain and foster our way of life. In the narrower sense, defence policy, in the sense of maintaining weapons and deploying forces, must be seen in the context of that wider policy. I think that the very last thing he was trying to say was that weapons or armed forces maintain and foster our way of life. I think he would be in entire agreement, were he here, with what the noble Earl is saying.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount and I am very glad to have that explanation. I am sorry if I misunderstood what was said; but I think those words, if they go out from here, might also be misunderstood by other people.
To continue dealing with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I was glad to hear that the Government are optimistic on the manpower situation. We hope that their optimism is justified. He mentioned that the advertising on television has been showing good results. If that is so, that is all to the good and we are all in favour of it. But I should just like to ask this: how are all these advertisements commissioned for the television programmes? Will Her Majesty's Government have to pay? Will an advertisement be an ordinary "commercial" on the Independent network and paid for on commercial lines, or have the Government power to require from the Independent Television Authority the display of advertisements for such a purpose? Any advertisement through the British Broadcasting Corporation would not, of course, be paid for. I think we should perhaps hear what the process is and what the method of payment, if any, is for such advertisements.
As to the question of how we should stimulate voluntary recruiting, that problem has occupied many people over many years. Pay has been raised, quite rightly, to what I think everyone agrees is a very reasonable standard which compares quite favourably with that in

845
civil life. But, my Lords, money is not the only thing that attracts people to the Services. There is resettlement, of course, and we are glad to hear that that is going well, and of the arrangements so that men can feel they have a career in the Services and can get a good job in civil life at the end of it. But, more than that, I think a young man being advised by his parents, or a young man making up his own mind for himself, will want to feel that he is going into a worth-while job. Your Lordships will recall the old Cromwellian saying—I am not sure exactly how it goes:
"Men should make some conscience of what they do."
That is what we want to aim at. I think the Army still has to work off some of the load of mistrust arising from those many cases of men being allowed to lead useless, wasted lives—being unemployed, or doing useless jobs. There was so much of that, particularly in the National Service time, and many Regulars have had similar experiences. I think the Army still has to remember that danger, and see that its organisation, right down, unit and sub-unit, really gives a man a job and a life that he feels is worth while. I am sure the Government are right not to contemplate any lowering of educational standards. The present-day Services, of course, need many more men with a high education and a high technical skill, but not every man can become a tradesman, and there are many men with something less than a high standard of education who can be useful men in their jobs.
My Lords, part of the manpower problem is mobility. I do not think we are altogether convinced that the provisions for moving troops quickly from point to point are all that they should be, or that we are making the maximum use of our manpower by having the ability to move men very quickly from one point to another. If men are to be really mobile, they have to be trained and equipped so as to be versatile and adaptable. They may have to serve in a jungle campaign one month and in an Arctic climate the next. They may have to have armoured vehicles and mechanised transport in one theatre and pack transport in another.
846
Above all, they have to be highly adaptable, and the means must be at hand to move them quickly. I think we should like to hear even more on that from subsequent Government speakers.
Then there is a point I should like to raise on paragraph 13 of the White Paper, which refers to the C.E.N.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. Alliances. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, cleared up one matter of doubt, I think, over the availability of N.A.T.O. Forces for other theatres. Incidentally, he used the curious expression "declared". He said that certain Naval forces are "declared" to N.A.T.O. I do not quite know the exact significance of that. It looks as if the card-table notation has become catching to noble Lords on the other side. But perhaps he can clear this up and make it clear, above all, that the forces are not being counted twice or three times over. In other words, when we read the statement in paragraph 13:
"Our conventional forces are now organised to provide military contributions to the three .. Alliances …".
are they the same forces that can be used at will in the Middle East or the Far East, or are there separate forces earmarked for those different theatres?
I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, on an admirable speech; and, as in the case of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I hope the Government will take good note of it. Any of your Lordships who have been in the Services will know the frustration caused by waiting for financial sanction, and the appalling delays and consequences—and very often the appalling waste and loss—caused by the present-day methods of financial control.
My Lords, I think the points on which there is fairly wide agreement are two in number—and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is not here, I can use the term "nuclear", perhaps, with a clear conscience. The first point on which I think everyone is agreed is that tactical atomic weapons, or tactical nuclear weapons, cannot he used without the certainty of their escalating very quickly into strategic nuclear weapon and global nuclear war. That, I think, everybody is agreed on. From that it follows, it seems to me, that the control

847
of these tactical atomic weapons must be kept at a high level. It really is not fair to saddle a brigadier or a commander—someone of that sort of rank—with the responsibility of using an atomic weapon in the knowledge, in the certain knowledge, that it will mean world-wide war and enormous destruction.
Some system must be devised in N.A.T.O. to ensure that control is kept properly centralised. If noble Lords say that that will deprive the forward troops of the protection they would otherwise get from using atomic weapons in defence, then I think the answer is that the front-line soldiers have always had to bear the brunt of an attack, and in all armies and in all regiments the tradition has come down that, on occasions, those troops have to be sacrificed in order to ensure the security of other troops. Indeed, the whole idea of an army is that it fights to protect its homeland and its people; and I think that, when the risks are as high as in this case, it is justifiable that the decision to use these weapons should be kept well back, with a senior commander.
LORD BIRDWOOD: Does the noble Lord imply that, if those weapons were in fact used against him, a commanding officer of a brigade would not retaliate with the use of such means as were at his disposal?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, troops have always been exposed to enemy action. It takes time for artillery support to come down and protect the forward troops, and I think the same principle applies here.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, but surely he is not suggesting that at any previous time a soldier, who has a heavy weapon in his hands, has been told "No, you must not use that"?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, he does not have the weapon in his hands. The forward troops have never had heavy weapons in their hands.
848
The other point about which I think there is a good deal of agreement is on the uselessness of this country's continuing to maintain the independent strategic nuclear deterrent. In the first place, it is a breach of the principle of interdependence, which the Minister has quoted with approval. If every contributor to collective security proceeded to arm itself with the full range of weapons, from the strategic weapon downwards, it would, in the first place, be impossible physically and economically; and in the second place it would be wasteful. Surely, in all our alliances in various wars we have agreed with our allies that only one ally would provide one type of weapon or force which it was specially well equipped to produce, and that other allies would produce other weapons; and that, by reason of the alliance, they would combine to produce a force with all arms or weapons. In the last war, we did not think it wrong or disgraceful to shelter behind the power of American forces and the American Air Force. Why should we now think it wrong to shelter—that is the word generally used, but I would prefer to say to be part of an Alliance in which America provides the strategic weapon and we provide weapons that are more within our power and range?
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, put up an "Aunt Sally" for the pleasure of knocking it down, when he alleged that my Party proposed to abolish all the V-bombers we have now. I do not think that has ever been generally accepted in our Party, or in any other. What we say is that we should not continue to attempt to be in the class of Powers owning and using the H-bomb—the independent strategic nuclear deterrent. Her Majesty's Government, having heard all these arguments, will, I hope, think again, because there is a paragraph in the White Paper that gives us hope that they may change their view. Paragraph 28 says:
"— we must be ready to scrap anything that has served its purpose, become outmoded, or whose ultimate cost may prove to be beyond our resources."
That paragraph seems to me very sound sense, and we hope that Her Majesty's Government will bear it in mind. Sub-

849
ject to that, we remain at this hour unconvinced that the Government are producing an effective defence policy under their present arrangements.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

BERKSHIRE AND BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILS (WINDSOR-ETON BRIDGE &c.) BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the order made on the 15th February discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.