Sitting of 15 March 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Territorial Army
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider arranging for the despatch from command or divisional level of a letter of gratitude for past service coupled with regret at the necessity for the termination of their service to each Territorial who has to leave the Territorial Army as a result of the forthcoming amalgamation of Territorial and Yeomanry Units.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this matter. I myself, and other members of the Army Council, have already addressed personal letters to every honorary colonel expressing appreciation of the loyal service given by all ranks affected by the recent reorganisation. I think I should leave it to their discretion to pass this on, as I am sure they would wish to do, to members of their own regiments and units who will be leaving over the next two years. In addition, I have decided to issue a special order of the day for circulation throughout the Territorial Army.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a result of the current amalgamation of T.A. units, a large number of volunteers, some of long standing, must be dismissed from the Territorial Army? Does he further agree that these unfortunate people not only lose the comradeship which they have enjoyed, in some cases for many years, but also social and sporting facilities and perhaps an appreciable part of their income? Would it not be unfortunate if
    1370
    the Territorial Army were to expel so many volunteers without some official letter of expression of regret from either the War Office or other official channels, at a time when the Regular Army is experiencing difficulty in obtaining sufficient volunteer recruits?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot accept all the expressions which my hon. Friend has used in his supplementary question, but it is for these very reasons that I have taken the action I have taken. I hope that that, together with what we have said today, will be widely known throughout the Territorial Army.

    Pensions
    Mr. McKayasked the Secretary of State for War why the pension of an ex-service captain quartermaster fixed in 1945 at £165 per annum has not been increased; and, in view of the increases given to retired police and other civil servants, whether he will take steps to increase the pensions of regular ex-Service men.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): Service pensioners benefit from Pensions Increase Warrants when they reach the age of 60. In common with other public service pensioners, they do not qualify for pensions increase before 60 unless they were invalided or are permanently unfit for full-time employment.
    Mr. McKay: The trouble is that these men will get a gratuity of about £65 when they are 60. That will not be of much value. If increases in pensions can be given to retired police officers, who can retire from their jobs long before reaching the age of 60, I cannot see the justification for not granting these people an increase. There seems to be an inconsistency between one Department and another.
    Mr. Ramsden: Pensions increases of this kind are special measures to relieve hardship, so we limit the payments to those who need them most. According to my information, retired police officers and civil servants do not get pensions increases before they are 60, unless they are permanently unfit for work. I believe that the present policy follows the line that those most in need should have priority.

    Conscription
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for War if he will undertake an inquiry into the economic and social consequences of reintroducing conscription on either a selective or general basis before completing his plans for meeting deficiencies in Army recruiting.
    Mr. Profumo: In considering the various courses of action which might be taken to meet such deficiencies, the Government will take into account their economic and social consequences.
    Mr. Allaun: While expressing gratitude for that Answer, may I ask the Secretary of State if he is aware that the call-up was highly unpopular and that a selective or limited call-up would be even more deeply resented because, for the unfortunate victims, it would be doubly unfair? If the Government cannot meet their commitments with more than 400,000 Regulars, would not the right course be to cut the commitments?
    Mr. Profumo: No, certainly not. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read very carefully what I said to the House in the debate on the Army Estimates last week. There is nothing that I want to add to that.

    Training Methods and Discipline
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he will appoint an independent committee to investigate and report on the training methods applied in the Army, on the methods of obtaining discipline and on the general treatment of the men;
    (2) for how many minutes the men remained standing while the officers were permitted to walk on the morning of Tuesday, 14 February, on the Wellington Barracks square; how many regimental sergeant-majors and sergeant-majors were on parade; and what was the purpose of marching the men quickly after they had been standing for a long time.
    Mr. Profumo: There have of recent years been a number of investigations into training methods and discipline of the Army, including Sir James Grigg's Advisory Committee on Recruiting. Although the House knows my anxiety not to prejudice our recruiting drive by
    1372
    allowing outdated practices to persist, I do not consider that yet another independent investigation is needed at present.
    As regards the specific incident at Wellington Barracks, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I cannot give the exact time for which the men remained standing while the officers paced up and down, but it is usually between five and ten minutes, while the men are being inspected by their company commanders. The whole battalion was on parade, so that there was one regimental sergeant-major, two drill sergeants, and five company sergeant-majors in attendance.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: We will leave the latter part of that reply where it is, because it is secondary compared with the other. Is the Minister aware that it was agreed in this House between the two World Wars that there was need for an investigation of this kind, and a need to put the relationship between officers and other ranks on a more modern basis? Is he aware that Mr. Hore-Belisha, as he then was, was very sympathetic, and that I believe that something would have been done had not the Second World War intervened? Just as we have put Service equipment on a modern basis, has not the time arrived to put the relationship between all these men on a modern basis?
    Mr. Profumo: I hope that the hon. Member will have read what I said in last week's debate about man management, but as this arises from a specific incident that he has seen fit to bring before the House, I must say that the reputation of the Household Brigade both for prowess and for pageantry is proverbial, and I hope that the hon. Member, who is a shareholder in our national pride, will not, at the same time, seek to tamper with the traditional routine which plays a considerable part in maintaining that tradition.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I would not have pressed this matter had not the Minister answered as he has done. Is he aware that I stood there and watched all this; that I saw the men standing there for a long time; and that I saw the officers walk about quite at leisure and the big, fat sergeant-major, with a big, out-of-date moustache—which I think is typical of the out-of-date methods still prevalent in the Army?
    Mr. Profumo: With the greatest respect, I do not think that I have ever heard such twaddle. I think that I must be allowed to defend the people whom the hon. Member is attacking and, if I may say so, what the hon. Gentleman has said is a lousy imputation on—[Interruption.]
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Hughes: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the word "lousy" is a Parliamentary expression?
    Mr. Speaker: At the moment, I am on my feet. I do not think that it is a Parliamentary expression. I think that the Minister should choose, if anything, another and more seemly epithet.
    Mr. Profumo: At your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I naturally would like to choose a more seemly phrase—I can produce a more Parliamentary one but I do not think that I could produce a more seemly one. I think that the imputation that has been made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) about this particular warrant officer is totally undeserved.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a word has been de-clared unparliamentary, is it not the usual custom for the Member to withdraw it?
    Mr. Speaker: I understood the Minister to be withdrawing the epithet, which is what I declared to be unparliamentary. I do not quite understand why the hon. Member did not have the same impression. I thought that he did.
    Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that we did not get the same impression, because the Minister said that he could not find a more seemly word. That hardly seemed to us to be a withdrawal. Although we are used to these synthetic bursts of indignation from the Minister, could he not conduct these matters on a more appropriate plane?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not want speeches on this. The question of fact is whether,
    1374
    aye or no, the Minister withdrew the particular word. I must say that I had the impression that before he said those words the Minister had, in fact, withdrawn the particular epithet—but do let us get on.
    Mr. Profumo: I withdraw the unparliamentary epithet but not what is behind it, because my indignation is not synthetic. This sergeant-major is a first-class man and the hon. Member ought not to try to cast aspersions on him. If the hon. Member knew more about what was happening, he would know that these parades are carried out before the drill season in order that the whole of the Scots Guards, which has a recruiting record as high as any other in the country, should carry out the duties which it has to undertake.
    Mr. Shinwell: Reverting to the question of discipline, I think that the Minister recently observed that when one National Service man was asked whether he would care to volunteer for additional Regular service he said that the trouble was that he objected to being constantly shouted at. Is there not too much of that in the Service?
    Mr. Profumo: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows my views about man management. Man management, or discipline, and "bull" are quite different things, and one cannot really have a mumbling sergeant-major on parade. He naturally has to shout.

    Recruitment (Research Group's Report)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to receive the report on wastage of Army recruits from the Army Operational Research Group.
    Mr. Profumo: In about a year's time. However, I expect an interim report in the late autumn.
    Mr. Mayhew: In a year's time there may be as many as 3,000 men purchasing their discharge from the Army. What is the Minister's view of the reasons for this high rate of wastage, and what proposals is he making to check it?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think that, at the moment, I have anything to add to

    1375
    what I said in the debate last week. This examination that I am having undertaken must take a long time, because it is part of a major examination of the long-term problems of the Army. That is why I held a quick examination, and I told the House last week what we had found and what we are trying to do meantime. We ought now to wail for the full report.
    Mr. Mayhew: When will the interim report be ready? Shall we have a chance to see it?
    Mr. Profumo: I hope that the interim report will be ready in the autumn, and if there is anything significant in it I will, of course, let the House know.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is not the rate of wastage in the Brigade of Guards lower than that in other units, and is it not the fact, therefore, that the offensive remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) are not only stupid but wrong?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Remember how you treat our lads.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that if there is much noise the Chair might be reduced to making "sergeant-major" noises.

    Guardsman Nugent
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether, consequent on the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Carlisle, he has any further information about the case of the late Guardsman Nugent.
    Mr. Ramsden: In the Adjournment debate on 2nd December, my hon. Friend said that Guardsman Nugent's father had had no notification of the inquest upon his son until he read of it in the Press. I replied that there had been a misunderstanding about what actually happened and that Mr. Nugent was notified by the police on 21st March. Following representations by my hon. Friend and Mr. Nugent, I have made further inquiries. It is now clear that the statement I made was wrong. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to say so, and to apologise to him and to Mr. Nugent, and to the House.
    Dr. Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that I am—
    1376
    and, I am sure, my constituent will be —most grateful for the way in which he personally has dealt with this matter? Is he also aware that in looking again at this case after an Adjournment debate has taken place, he is not only maintaining confidence in good government in general, but also maintaining the confidence of parents of Service men that their complaints in regard to their sons in sad incidents like this will be fairly and honestly treated?

    Bagpipes
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of bagpipes used by Scottish regiments is made in Scotland, in the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, respectively.
    Mr. Profumo: Eighty-seven per cent. of the total value of orders placed for bagpipes for Scottish regiments over the last four years came from Scotland. The rest came from elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that that news will be widely welcomed in Scotland? Will he consider increasing the figure to, perhaps, 100 per cent.? It seems but reasonable that the home of the bagpipes and of the music should be capable of manufacturing them in competition with any other part of the British Isles.
    Mr. Profumo: Any monopoly, even a Scottish monopoly in bagpipes, puts the wind up me.

    Cairnryan Military Port
    Mr. Hendryasked the Secretary of State for War what consultations he had with the local authorities before selling Cairnryan military port to Mr. H. G. Pounds.
    Mr. Ramsden: Representatives of the local authorities came to see my predecessor at the War Office before we disposed of the port. My right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) last week that other Government Departments which had an interest were also concerned in our discussions.
    Mr. Hendry: Is it not the case that the undertaking given to Stranraer County Council that it would be consulted before

    1377
    any contract was entered into was not fulfilled'? Will my hon. Friend say why it was not fulfilled? Is it not the case that Mr. Pounds, the purchaser chosen by my hon. Friend, has not put in an appearance in Stranraer for eighteen months with a view to providing the industry and employment promised in the area?
    Mr. Ramsden: In regard to the second part of that supplementary question, my right hon. Friend indicated the other day that inquiries were proceeding. I cannot accept that an undertaking in the terms mentioned by my hon. Friend was given to the local authorities, because tender documents are dealt with confidentially and it would not have been possible to tell local authorities details of the bids received or of those who made them.

    Recruitment (Pamphlets)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how much he intends to spend on the production of pamphlets to aid recruitment to the Army in the next year; and what increase this will represent over the comparable figures for each of the last three years;
    (2) whether he is continuing the use of the pamphlet "Officer" for the purpose of recruiting officers to the Army; and what is the current cost of production of this pamphlet
    Mr. Profumo: Next year I intend to spend £45,000 on the production of pamphlets to aid recruitment. This represents an increase of £1,400 over the current financial year; of £4,400 over 1959–60; and of £2,000 over 1958–59. The magazine "Officer" had its first issue last spring, and the Army's first number will be issued this May and will cost £2,900.
    Mr. Hamilton: How does the right hon. Gentleman assess the efficacy of this method of recruitment, or is it simply a shot in the dark and one does not know how many recruits are obtained for this expenditure? In relation to Question No. 13, has the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence given last year to the Estimates Committee, when it was shown that the cost of a single copy of the "Officer" pamphlet was more than 8s. and that the comparable cost of a pamphlet issued for the Board of Trade to attract industry to under-developed areas was rather less
    1378
    than 2s.? Can the Minister say whether when the "Officer" pamphlet is produced for the Army, the cost will be much less than the 8s. that was stated in evidence to the Estimates Committee?
    Mr. Profumo: I recognise the hon. Member's interest in this subject. In reply to the first part of his supplementary question, it is difficult to quantify the impact of any particular enterprise, but in publicity we have a right, and, indeed, a duty, to try all possible channels in their right proportions. The cost of "Officer" will, I think, be 6s. 8d. I know that by this time the hon. Member will have read the Treasury comments on the Select Committee's Report and that a review will be undertaken.

    Commonwealth Citizens (Enlistment)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent Commonwealth citizens wishing to enlist in the Army can get assistance from Her Majesty's Government in respect of their passage to this country.
    Mr. Profumo: A man can enlist only in a British Army Command. But in countries where we maintain staff who can form a preliminary judgment of a man's suitability, we pay the passage to this country of those who are considered to be suitable for enlistment in the British Army when they get here. In other cases the man must come here at his own expense.
    Mr. Grimond: In these countries in which there is preliminary examination, is it well known that this procedure exists? In particular, is it well known in the West Indies? Secondly, if the Secretary of State, as he obviously does, wants to get recruits for the Army, would he not be well advised to consider whether more assistance could be given to encourage people from the Commonwealth to come and enlist?
    Mr. Profumo: The Question refers to Commonwealth countries, so I do not think that I can deal with the West Indies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I did not know that the hon. Member meant Colonial Territories as compared with Commonwealth Territories. I have answered the Question on the basis that I thought he meant independent

    1379
    countries in the Commonwealth. If he means Colonial Territories, the answer is substantially the same. As far as I am aware, we have not done any particular advertisement in regard to this matter, because every Commonwealth country has its own military manpower problem and we have to look carefully before we attempt to take away people from Commonwealth countries to bolster up our own Armed Forces.
    Mr. Mayhew: What inquiries has the Secretary of State made in, for example, the West Indies about the manpower situation there? We are always told that there is extreme unemployment in many parts of the West Indies. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the best possible forecast of his manpower and recruiting, there will always be a critical shortage in such trades as cooks, drivers, ambulance men, and so on? Why not take positive steps to recruit in places like the West Indies to get men for jobs of this kind?
    Mr. Profumo: I went into this matter, and so did my hon. Friend, in last week's debate and I do not think that I have anything further to add. As the hon. Member has said, it is not simply recruits that we need, but specific types of people who are, if possible, already trained in the trades for which we want them.

    Vickers Machine Gun
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for War for what purposes the Vickers machine gun is still retained in the Army.
    Mr. Profumo: The Vickers machine gun is the standard medium machine gun of infantry battalions. It will remain in service until the issue of the general purpose machine gun, which will come into production in 1961–62.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that when I was first embodied or mobilised, whatever it is called, in 1939, one of the first things that I was assured was that the Vickers machine gun was about to be replaced? Twenty years have passed and the Vickers machine gun is still about to be replaced. Would it not be as well if the Government made up their mind about this weapon? In
    1380
    particular, if they are publishing information about the weapons that are available to the Army, is it not better to talk about the weapons which are in existence and not those which, it is hoped, may come into existence 4, 5, 10 or 15 years hence?
    Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. I have been fairly precise about when the Vickers machine gun will be replaced. If the hon. Member looks at the report of last week's debate, he will see that I was as clear as I could be. If the hon. Member was misled when he was embodied, I am sorry, but it may be because the Vickers machine gun has turned out to be one of the best weapons of its kind in the world.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Electricity Supplies (Airfield Areas)
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the funnel restrictions on development adjacent to aerodromes create increased difficulty and expense to the local electricity authorities in carrying out their duty to provide electricity; and if he will assist financially, or otherwise, the electricity authorities to enable them to give equal service to the residents in such areas.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): It is the established practice in matters of this kind that any extra expense should be borne by the second corner to the area.
    Sir J. Maitland: Is that not a manifest injustice? Here is a situation in which the house came first and then the aerodrome; and because of the aerodrome, the electricity people have to charge more to those who dwell in the original houses. Surely, this is an injustice. Should not my right hon. Friend try to put this injustice right, even though it has been going on for a long time?
    Mr. Amery: I do not think that we could be liable for a financial responsibility where we are not the second comer. If an airfield is held, whether in reserve or on active service, we have to safeguard the runway approaches.

    Dartmoor National Park
    Mr. Haymanasked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements exist in his Department for consultation with the National Parks Commission and the Dartmoor National Park Committee when extra facilities are wanted in that Park outside the militarised zones.
    Mr. J. Amery: We consult whichever of these bodies is appropriate when facilities are needed.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister give a direction to his Department to ensure that this practice is observed?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, indeed. If the hon. Member knows of any instance in which it is not observed, I will be grateful if he will bring it to my attention.

    Kitchen Waste (Sterilisation)
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for Air if the pigs at Melksham Royal Air Force Station which recently contracted foot-and-mouth disease were fed on kitchen waste which included scraps of imported meat; and what measures are taken at Royal Air Force stations to ensure the proper sterilisation of kitchen waste by boiling as required by law.
    Mr. J. Amery: The kitchen waste included scraps of imported meat but I am assured that it had been properly sterilised in accordance with the Diseases of Animals (Waste Foods) Order, 1957.
    Sir A. Hurd: How can that be? If these unhappy pigs contact foot-and-mouth disease when living on this swill, containing scraps of South American meat, they can only have got the infection from the meat. Will my right hon. Friend issue special instructions to all Royal Air Force stations which keep pigs that if they use kitchen waste, especially if it contains scraps of South American meat, it must be thoroughly —underlining "thoroughly"—boiled, as a good example to other people who keep pigs?
    Mr. Amery: I understand that the stuff is boiled in the technical sense of the word. It has not been possible to trace the source of infection in this case. I cannot say for certain that the imported meat was the source of infection, although it may well have been.
    Sir A. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend issue such instructions? Surely, it should be right for the Air Force to give a lead to other people who keep pigs.
    Mr. Amery: We are always glad to give a lead, but I will have to look into the exact considerations that flow from my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Departmental Responsibility
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport what advantage has accrued from the responsibility of his Department for shipbuilding, as well as shipping, as regards savings of money and manpower.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): My Department was made responsible for shipbuilding as well as shipping not to save manpower but because both industries were facing difficult times and their fortunes are closely tied.
    Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Report on shipbuilding points out that this country has become a net importer of ships recently for the first time, at the very moment when our own shipbuilding yards need more orders? Cannot he use his persuasive powers, and perhaps a little financial inducement, to get more orders for British yards and from British ship-owners?
    Mr. Marples: The great point about our shipbuilding yards is that they must be competitive with yards abroad. We have, as my hon. Friend knows, a Sub-Committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee which has made a report on the question of shipbuilding. It is referred to in a later Question.
    Mr. Mellish: Surely the Minister is aware that his Department can be judged only upon results, and that at the moment its results for the British shipbuilding industry can only be said to be absolutely deplorable, and that most of us consider that his Department is just not equipped to do this sort of work?
    Mr. Marples: I entirely disagree with the hon. Member, and I am sure he would expect me to disagree with him.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only have we become a net importer of ships but we have also become a net importer of shipbuilding facilities for the first time in our history, and that these two things coupled together cannot help but cause us serious disquiet about the policy of the Ministry of Transport? In view of the anxieties on these two factors, will my right hon. Friend convey to the Americans the impression, which I think is felt on both sides of the House, that their practice in both shipping and shipbuilding is a considerable disservice to the free world in general and to Britain in particular?
    Mr. Marples: As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the General Council of British Shipping is sending a representative to Washington shortly and my Department has made arrangements, through the Ambassador and various people, for him to make representations directly to the Americans. I hope that that will have effect. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I disagree with my hon. Friend because I think that the shipbuilding industry, which is private enterprise, really ought to be prepared to face up to competition from other private enterprise industries in other countries.
    Mr. Popplewell: Will the right hon. Gentleman please be not quite so flamboyant about this? Does he not realise that the difficulties of shipping and shipbuilding come from outside their control and demand Government action—on flags of discrimination in particular—in order to get our shipping and shipbuilding a fair deal in world trade? Does he not realise that subsidies given by other countries for their shipping and shipbuilding make it impossible for our own people to compete on a fair competitive basis? Does he not realise that it is Government action which is the answer to this?
    Mr. Marples: As far as shipping is concerned, as distinct from shipbuilding, as the hon. Member well knows, the General Council of British Shipping has made certain recommendations which
    1384
    have taken eighteen months to get out and which I am considering with the Council very closely. We have had four or five meetings. I saw the chairman yesterday. He is satisfied with the progress we are making with our joint consultation. The hon. Member may not be, but the industry itself is. With regard to shipbuilding, for the first time for many years a Sub-Committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee has been able to get a joint report from the various interests concerned, that is, the employers and trade unions. That, as I said before, is the subject of a later Question.

    Nuclear Propulsion
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement about the production of a nuclear propulsion reactor for a prototype British merchant vessel.
    Mr. Marples: I cannot yet add to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 1st March.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been a number of reports in the Press that he does not intend to go ahead with this project? Can he say when he will make a statement? Will he bear in mind that there is a strong body of opinion which believes that if we are to attain the technical "know-how" required to build up this new branch of the shipbuilding and engineering industries we must get practical experience at sea?
    Mr. Marples: I cannot start confirming or denying newspaper reports, because the newspapers stated all manner of things and every possible combination and permutation of what might have happened. I cannot deny or confirm them all. I will promise to make a statement absolutely as soon as I possibly can.

    Advisory Sub-Committee's Report
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee which is considering the reasons why new orders for shipping tonnage are not being given to the United Kingdom, including the reason why Norwegian ship-owners have recently allocated their

    1385
    orders to other European countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Transport when he now expects to make a statement on the Report of his Advisory Committee on shipbuilding and ship-repairing matters.
    Mr. Marples: I have now received this Report, and I will make a statement about it as soon as possible.
    Sir B. Janner: In view of the urgency of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to make a statement? How much time will he take about it? Is he aware, for example, that of some 856,200 deadweight tons of shipping for thirty-six ships which Norway has ordered within the last few months, not a single vessel has been ordered here? Will he take into consideration whether that may not be partly due to the fact that we are not prepared to give proper credit terms in respect of shipbuilding orders? Will he consider whether something can be done in that direction?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think that the question of credit terms is always a reason why orders are not placed in this country, because shipping owners in this country have in the recent past placed their orders abroad and there is no question of credit terms in those cases. The point is that the Report of the Sub-Committee—it is only a Report of a Sub-Committee—will go to the main Committee, and I must wait and listen to what the main Committee has to say. It would be very discourteous of me to make a decision before the Report had been referred to the main Committee, because a number of distinguished men in shipping, outside interests and the trade unions, serve on it.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we have had leak after leak in shipping and shipbuilding matters? Is he aware that in the case of almost every committee advising him the delays seem to be abnormal? Will he take a little time away from railways and roads and really get down to doing something about the needs of this very great industry?
    Mr. Marples: It absolutely grieves me to disagree with my hon. Friend. There
    1386
    have been no delays at all on the part of my Ministry. As to the leaks in the Press to which she refers, she will find if she looks at them carefully that—if I may coin a phrase—they cancel each other out.

  ROADS

    London-Yorkshire Motorway
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the delay caused to the extension of the London-Yorkshire Motorway to Doncaster on account of the present procedure for dealing with objections and arranging for the necessary acquisition of land, engineering design and other matters; and whether he will give an undertaking that he will in the very near future take all possible steps to streamline the procedure with a view to expediting construction work.
    Mr. Marples: As stated in reply to the hon. Member on 25th January, we are proceeding with the preparation of the Crick to Doncaster Motorway as fast as we can within the confines of the procedures laid down by Parliament. This is a major engineering project and the detailed design, as well as the land acquisition, must necessarily take some considerable time.
    The statutory procedures were imposed to protect the rights of the public, and could not be modified without legislation. I am by no means convinced that any reduction in these safeguards would accord with the wishes of this House.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that this has been going on for some seven years? Surely in seven years something effective could have been done, and much more speedily, to give facilities for the motorway? Will the right hon. Gentleman state categorically that at the present time there is no intention of starting the next portion of the road building from Yorkshire towards Leicestershire so that the roads shall not converge in Leicestershire and so make the position there even worse than it is at present, and that he will carry on the job quickly?
    Mr. Marples: I will carry on with the job as quickly as the procedures which this House has laid down allow.
    Mr. A. Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman please given an assurance that that section of the M.1 will be completed before 1964 to enable early commencement of the Yorkshire section of the Motorway?
    Mr. Hirst: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Marples: I cannot do that, because priority has been given to the five major projects announced to this House.
    Sir B. Janner: In view of the extremely unsatisfactory reply, I propose to raise this matter on an early occasion on the Adjournment.

    Boothferry Bridge (Traffic Census)
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Transport (1) what conclusion he has reached from the census of traffic over Boothferry Bridge taken in October last;
    (2) whether he will make a statement on the proposal to convert the Hull-Barnsley rail track into a motor road.
    Mr. Coulsonasked the Minister of Transport (1) what conclusions he has reached on the recent census of traffic on Boothferry Bridge; and what action he plans to relieve congestion on this part of a main route between Hull and the West Riding of Yorkshire;
    (2) what conclusions he has reached as to the use of parts of the disused Hull and Barnsley railway line for improving road communications to and from the port of Hull.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The main purpose of the traffic census taken last October near Booth-ferry Bridge was to enable us to determine whether it would be worth while to use the abandoned Barnsley-Hull railway track for a new road between Howden and the Great North Road. The examination of the information obtained has not yet been completed but we hope to be able to reach a conclusion shortly.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister of Transport taking as long over this as he did over improving the road situation? This census was taken last October. What are the factors which are delaying any result which may be obtained from it?
    Mr. Hay: The census was taken last October. We received the informa-
    1388
    tion just before Christmas. To analyse the complicated data which we get from these traffic censuses inevitably takes some time. We have pressed on with this as quickly as we can. We are about to announce our views about it.
    Mr. Coulson: Is my hon. Friend aware that ten months ago, in answer to a Question by me, my right hon. Friend replied that he was at that time making investigations into the possibility of using the disused railway line as a roadway, and that in answer to a further Question, on 9th November last, my right hon. Friend replied that he would look at the matter? Is it not time that some action was taken on this proposal?
    Mr. Hay: That is exactly why we took the traffic census. We wanted to find out whether the proposal to use the abandoned railway line was worth while.

    Road Safety
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport how many resolutions and suggestions have been received by him from the Bristol Road Safety Committee on matters connected with road safety; and what action has been taken to put them into effect.
    Mr. Marples: The only ones I can trace are those adopted by the Bristol Watch Committee and sent to me on 16th February, 1961. The Committee requested me to introduce maximum speed limits and all possible practical control over pedestrians. These matters were already being studied in my Ministry; more investigations and experiments are necessary before final decisions can be taken.
    Mr. Awbery: How many resolutions or suggestions have been received from Bristol Watch Committee and the Road Safety Committee which have been implemented by the Department or even looked at?
    Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member wants to know precisely how many have been implemented—
    Mr. Awbery: Yes I do.
    Mr. Marples: —perhaps he will put a Question on the Paper.
    Mr. Awbery: That is part of my Question today.
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Accident Prevention Committees spend much time in the study of road problems; and if he will give an assurance that their recommendations which are sent to him will be given close attention, with a view to the introduction of early legislation where appropriate.
    Mr. Marples: I can assure the hon. Member that any recommendations sent to me by Accident Prevention Committees receive close attention and consideration, and I am glad to acknowledge the valuable work which these Committee do in the field of road safety.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a general feeling among members of those committees, who spend a large amount of their time considering road problems, that the resolutions and recommendations sent to his Department are pigeonholed? The fact that he says that any recommendation will have consideration now is proof that they are pigeonholed and do not go to him.
    Mr. Marples: In which case I will arrange for a deputation from the committee the hon. Member has referred to in his Question to meet myself or the Parliamentary Secretary and the Director-General, Brigadier Stoney, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and then they will be certain that what the hon. Member implies in his supplementary question is not true.

    Biddulph Road, Stoke-on-Trent (Improvement)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Transport what consideration has been given to the improvement of the main Biddulph Road to Brindley Ford, Stoke-on-Trent, about which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, has written to him.
    Mr. Hay: A limited improvement scheme was submitted to us last year by the Stoke County Borough Council, but owing to the pressure of more urgent schemes, we see no prospect of including it in the programme for the next three years. I understand that the Council is now investigating a more extensive scheme. We will gladly consider this when it is submitted.
    Mrs. Slater: Will the hon. Gentleman consider it very favourably? This is an extremely dangerous road with very heavy traffic on it. Is he aware that it is now a main road and there are two large housing estates nearby, that a large number of children have to cross the road, and that the colliery itself is on a very narrow bend on the road?
    Mr. Hay: I saw a letter which the hon. Lady wrote to my right hon. Friend about this the other day. The other scheme to which I referred in my Answer and which we understand the council is about to put forward would cover that exit from the colliery.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman see whether it is at all possible to expedite this scheme? This is one of the main roads out of the City of Stoke-on-Trent into Biddulph village in my constituency, the inhabitants of which have been asking for this improvement for a number of years.
    Mr. Hay: It does not rest with us to expedite it at the moment because we are awaiting a further and bigger scheme which the county borough council wishes to put forward. When it puts it forward we shall consider it quickly.

    Westfield Lane, Mansfield
    Mr. B. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport if he will reconsider his decision respecting the widening and improvement of Westfield Lane, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire; and if he will give his approval to the highway authority for an earlier commencing date.
    Mr. Hay: This road is used mostly by local as distinct from through traffic. We cannot therefore give its improvement high priority, and I am afraid it will be some years before we can consider making a grant towards the cost.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this lane has become very dangerous as a result of the development that is taking place? Is he aware that the highway authority is so impressed with this that it is not only ready but very anxious to carry out this improvement which I understand will cost only £30,000?
    Mr. Hay: I will take account of what the hon. Member says. My information

    1391
    is that the traffic on this road is almost entirely that which serves the residential area. As far as I know, the highway authority has made no formal application to us for a grant, nor have we invited one. If the authority makes an application we will look into it.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is now a bus route and that two buses cannot pass on the road because it is so narrow? Is he aware that one fatality has already occurred on this stretch of road and that there is some apprehension among the inhabitants of the district that if something is not done to widen it and proper protection provided there may be a repetition of fatalities?
    Mr. Hay: I will look into this matter and will write to the hon. Member.

    Pedestrian Crossings
    Mr. Wadeasked the Minister of Transport what considerations, apart from the number of people regularly crossing a road, are taken into account when authorising the making of a pedestrian crossing.
    Mr. Hay: The site should be one at which pedestrians normally cross. It should be easily visible to a driver and not too near another crossing or stopping place. The number of pedestrians should be sufficient to ensure that the crossing is in fairly constant use. Vehicular traffic should be considerable and persistent.
    Mr. Wade: While I appreciate that there may be objections to an excess of pedestrian crossings, might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that in various towns and villages there are a number of places where crossing the road is a very dangerous adventure and there is no nearby pedestrian crossing? May we have an assurance that in those circumstances authorisation would not be refused merely because statistics did not show a sufficient number already crossing or attempting to cross?
    Mr. Hay: Crossing the road is, I am afraid, a fairly hazardous business almost everywhere in the country with the very high traffic volumes that we have, but we have to be extremely careful not to have a multiplicity of
    1392
    pedestrian crossings. There is no doubt that if we have too many—this has been our experience in the past—they are just not observed by drivers.

    Harrow Road, Wembley (Refuges)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to speed up the provision of refuges in Harrow Road, Wembley, near Sudbury and Harrow Road Station.
    Mr. Hay: A road widening scheme to provide refuges has been deferred until the trolley buses are withdrawn early next year. We are investigating whether any interim measures can be taken.
    Mr. Russell: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, might I ask him to bear in mind that the discussion about whether to have refuges or pedestrian crossings there has been going on for about two years? Will he expedite the matter as much as possible, because it is a difficult road to cross?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir.

  RAILWAYS

    Sites (Development)
    Mr. R. Allanasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to give all facilities to local authorities desiring to build office and housing accommodation over their goods yards, sidings and other properties.
    Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. I raised with you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a point of order about a Question which was couched in terms identical with those of this one, except that that was with particular reference to London. You promised me that you would give your view on that point.
    Mr. Speaker: I have written to the hon. Member about the question he raised with me yesterday. This, manifestly, on the face of it, is a different Question, governed by a different principle.
    Mr. Marples: The answer to the Question is, No, Sir. The British Transport Commission is willing, where railway operations permit, to discuss the

    1393
    leasing of sites to local authorities or other developers, for building purposes.
    Mr. Allan: While accepting that, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will make sure that at local levels applications are not turned down out of hand but are referred to such higher levels as may be in contact with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as I was told yesterday in answer to a Question?
    Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, perhaps he will write to the chairman of the British Transport Commission. I have no doubt that the Commission will look at the case.
    Mr. J. T. Price: But will the right hon. Gentleman resist all attempts to use the Order Paper and the procedures of the House to put pressure on the British Transport Commission to unload valuable development land for the benefit of speculators, because many of us on this side of the House think that that is the sort of racket that is developing?
    Mr. Marples: Any hon. Members opposite who think that that sort of thing is happening are entirely mistaken.
    Mr. John Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many worth-while schemes for building over goods sidings in London and elsewhere have come to nought because the British Transport Commission cannot make up its mind whether or not it wants to use the land? If the Commission cannot use these facilities usefully and economically, should it not make them available, for a financial consideration, to those who can?
    Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend will find that when the reorganisation envisaged in the White Paper and accepted by this Parliament is completed, that sort of consideration will be taken into account.
    Mr. Strauss: Has not the trouble been that the Government have, so far, denied the Commission the right to develop property itself, and that the Commission has been properly chary and unwilling to let valuable land to a private speculator who would make large sums out of it which should accrue to the Commission?
    Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. The restrictions on property were placed on the Commission by the Act passed by the party opposite. We are the Government who are removing those restrictions.

    Merchandise Charges Scheme, 1957
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the British Transport Commission (Railway Merchandise) Charges Scheme, 1957, made under the authority of the Transport Act, 1953, operates harshly on trade and industry in north-east Scotland; if he will arrange for it to be further considered, in order to devise a means of spreading its effects more evenly and and fairly over the whole of Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marples: Subject to the maximum charges fixed by the Scheme the Commission have an unfettered discretion as to the actual charges made to consignors. It is the Government's intention, as stated in paragraph 56 of the recent White Paper, that the railways should be freed from statutory control over their charges, except for fares in the London Passenger Transport Area. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by a review of the present charges scheme.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that he is not addressing himself to the real point of the Question? Is it not part of the pernicious policy of the Government deliberately to break down co-ordination between the various types of transport and is not this causing confusion and expense and jeopardising British trade and industry in their competition with foreigners?
    Mr. Marples: I answered the Question. The word "co-ordination" does not appear in the original Question. As for Aberdeen, this scheme is framed so that the rate per ton mile decreases as distance increases.

    Branch Lines (Closures)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Transport what advice his Department offered to the chairmen of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees during the recent conference with his Department, with regard to the balancing of economies and social amenities when

    1395
    proposals for the closure of branch railway lines were before their committees.
    Mr. Marples: The meeting which the hon. Member presumably has in mind was an informal one, arranged at the request of the Chairman of the Central Committee, to discuss generally the White Paper on the Nationalised Transport Undertakings. The question of Departmental advice having been given does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Boyden: Could not the right hon. Gentleman say what advice has been given to the chairmen on how the economic, social and amenity values of a railway could be balanced against a small loss? Is it not a fact that in the case of the Barnard Castle—Penrith Railway the North-East Committee emphasised that there were strong economic and social arguments for keeping the line open and that it was running at a profit, but the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Central Advisory Committee's recommendation that the line should be practically closed?
    Mr. Marples: I think that these committees should operate without advice from the Minister himself.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Transport what report he has received from the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee regarding the inquiry made by the North-East Transport Users' Consultative Committee concerning the proposed closure of the Barnard Castle to Penrith railway line, with particular regard to the profitability of that line, the local feeling aroused by the proposal and the efforts of the management to operate the line economically.
    Mr. Marples: The Central Transport Consultative Committee has sent me copies of its Minutes recording the consideration which is has given, but not yet completed, on this proposed closure.
    Mr. Boyden: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that by accepting the advice of the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee he has made absolutely ridiculous the subsequent proceedings? In other words, one bite was taken out of the cherry and the Committee then took two or three more bites, making the situation quite untenable. When the official recommendation comes
    1396
    from the Committee, will he look at it from that point of view?
    Mr. Marples: That is a distortion of what happened, and it is not complimentary to the Central Committee. It has not completed its consideration. It will consider the matter further at a meeting on 21st March. I cannot add anything until it has considered the matter further.
    Mr. Short: When the right hon. Gentleman gets the Committee's recommendation, will he bear in mind what I have already told him in a letter, that this is not a branch line but the only cross-Pennine route in the 100-mile stretch from the Tyne Valley southwards? Will he try to halt this contraction of the railway system in the North of England?
    Mr. Marples: When the Central Committee makes its recommendation to the British Transport Commission, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's letter is borne in mind.

    Loudspeaker Announcements (Suburban Stations)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport if, in the interests of reducing noise and annoyance, he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to cease using loudspeakers in suburban stations in residential districts.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. It is a matter for the management of the British Transport Commission.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a station like Twickenham is a very nice one in the middle of a residential area, that 99 per cent. of the passengers who use it are commuters who could find their way to the train blindfold, and that the loudspeakers call out, "This way to Waterloo"? Also, on rugby football days when the crowds are hurrying to the stadium the loudspeakers bawl out, "Hurry along please". Is this not really quite absurd?
    Mr. Marples: I am very well aware of the attractiveness of Twickenham Station and of the inhabitants of Twickenham, but here the British Transport Commission is in a dilemma. If it does not give the information to

    1397
    passengers, it is criticised for the lack of information, and if it does give it, it is criticised on the ground of too much noise. It is really a question of degree and balance, and I will ask the British Transport Commission to see that the loudspeakers give only that degree of noise which is necessary and desirable in the case of Twickenham.
    Mr. Lipton: Has not experience shown that the people going to and from Twickenham are of a pretty low standard of intelligence, and that they do require guidance, whether by loudspeakers or otherwise, or complete chaos would result?
    Mr. Marples: I must not enter into that controversy, but clearly the people of Twickenham have great political sagacity.
    Mr. Slater: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his hon. Friend is asking a little bit too much? Further, would he not agree that his hon. Friend is built for speed, and ought to accept the invitation of the loudspeakers?
    Mr. Marples: Perhaps he will.
    Mr. Gresham Cook: In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of that supplementary question, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  TRANSPORT

    Lorry Drivers (Hours of Work)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied that sufficient powers exist to prevent lorry drivers working excessive hours; and what plans he has for strengthening the law in this regard.
    Mr. Marples: I think that existing powers are adequate for this purpose.
    Mrs. Slater: May I point out that I still represent the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, and not Sedgefield as would appear from the Order Paper? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that some employers bring very heavy pressure to bear on lorry drivers to work excessive hours and, because of that, log books are very often not
    1398
    properly filled up? Is he aware that this is unfair to the lorry drivers and to the people who use the roads because these men who travel for very long hours are a positive danger on the roads?
    Mr. Marples: I think that the penalties and the powers are adequate and the licensing authorities have a last extreme penalty for frequent and wilful breaches of the law. The authority can suspend or revoke the carrier's licence of the owner of the vehicle. If the hon. Lady has a case in mind which she thinks ought to be investigated, I hope that she will send me details.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) was translated in brackets on the Order Paper, but I am sure that it would not deceive her constituents who know her so well.
    Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that the unions are very much concerned about this problem? They do not argue about the penalty so much, but they say that there are not enough inspectors employed by the right hon Gentleman's Department on the roads to follow up offences. Will the right hon. Gentleman please look at the matter again and consult the unions concerned?
    Mr. Marples: The unions came to see me the other day. They made representations on this general subject, but I will certainly ask for their specific views. In 1960, there were 3,500 convictions for offences relating to hours and 8,200 convictions for offences relating to records and, therefore, I think that the enforcements must be reasonably adequate.

    Garages (Tyre Pressure Gauges)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that there is often a considerable variation in the reading of tyre pressure gauges on tyre pumps at public garages; and what action he proposes to take in the interest of road safety to ensure that such gauges give an accurate reading.
    Mr. Marples: I have no evidence of danger arising from this source which would justify me in seeking powers to control the equipment of garages.
    Mr. Johnson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that nowadays when high speeds are possible it is most essential in the interests of road safety to have tyres correctly inflated, and if cars are to be tested for other mechanical defects, ought we not to be quite sure that it is possible to know what tyre pressure one has? I have heard of variations up to 10 lbs in certain cases.
    Mr. Marples: Some variation in tyre pressure is acceptable because manufacturers recommend for individual types a range of pressures varying with the load carried. However, if my hon. Friend has any instance in mind in which he thinks that a garage is defective in respect of its equipment, I shall be delighted to hear from him about it.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that on very fast roads like the M.1, even where the surface is perfect, it is believed that some accidents have been caused by incorrect or too low tyre pressures? Therefore, is it not particularly important that this should be kept in mind and that garages on the M.1 in particular, should have the correct machines for measuring tyre pressures?
    Mr. Marples: I have no reason to think that they have not the correct machines. What is missing in most cases is that the motorist himself has not looked at his tyres to ascertain the pressures.
    Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that neither he nor his two hon. Friends are correct? The pressure inside an air line or air pump, about which they are talking, is incorrect in any event. The pressure that one wants is the pressure inside the tyre, and the only way to ascertain that is by the direct application of a gauge to the tyre valve.
    Mr. Marples: I think that it is incumbent upon the individual motorist to make his own test of his tyres. We really cannot mollycoddle the motorist to this extent; he himself has a duty. A very tragic accident has been reported in the newspapers this morning which indicates that every motorist who travels on the M.1 at high speeds ought to look at his tyres regularly.

    Licences (Renewal)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Transport why renewal notices are issued in respect of driving licences but not in respect of road vehicle excise licences.
    Mr. Hay: The holder of a driving licence has to examine it to ascertain the date of its expiry, and an official reminder warns him of a requirement which he might otherwise overlook. A vehicle excise licence, which is displayed in a conspicuous position on the vehicle, and shows the date of expiry in bold print, is itself a constant reminder.
    Mr. Gower: Has my hon. Friend noted that, judging by the penalties which the courts deem fit to impose, the failure to renew a vehicle licence is regarded as a far more serious matter than the mere failure to renew a driving licence? For that reason, will he change the procedure and issue renewal notices in respect of vehicle licences and abandon them for the comparatively trivial matter of driving licences?
    Mr. Hay: I was not aware that that was the view of the courts.
    Mr. Gower: It is.
    Mr. Hay: If it is, I expect it is because a great deal of money is involved.
    Mr. Gower: Yes.
    Mr. Hay: I cannot agree to change the procedure, because it would involve a great deal of extra work for taxation offices, they are extremely costly to operate, and there are large numbers of motor vehicles which change hands each year. It would be extremely difficult to keep a check on the owners so that the necessary advisory notices could he sent out.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (REORGANISATION)
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the initial steps the Government propose to take in the reorganisation of the British Transport Commission under the proposals recently approved by the House.

1401
In accordance with the new arrangements, Sir Brian Robertson will, with my agreement, retire from the chairmanship of the Commission with effect from 1st June, 1961. The House will, I know, share to the full the Government's warm gratitude to Sir Brian for his outstanding services as Chairman of the Commission since 1953 and for the devotion with which he has carried out his heavy responsibilities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Having regard to the terms of the appointment, the Government intend to take powers in the forthcoming legislation to enable the Commission to pay him, in addition to his superannuation award, a sum of £12,500. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
I have decided to appoint Dr. Richard Beeching as Chairman-designate of the new Railways Board. Dr. Beeching is a Director of Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, and was a member of the Special Advisory Group on the Reorganisation of the Commission. To enable him to take part immediately in the preparatory work which has to be done, I have today appointed him to be a part-time member of the British Transport Commission.
On Sir Brian Robertson's retirement, Dr. Beeching will become a full-time member of the Commission and will also assume the chairmanship until, when the reorganisation comes into effect, he can become the first Chairman of the British Railways Board. I take this opportunity of thanking Imperial Chemical Industries for releasing Dr. Beeching for five years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
I told the House on 30th January last that in view of the special nature of this task of reorganisation it might be necessary, at the start, to bring in a few new people at the top, and that the Government would need to pay regard to the special needs in their search for the best available talent and in considering suitable terms. The Government consider it fortunate that Dr. Beeching is prepared to interrupt his career with the Imperial Chemical Industries for a period of five years to take up this especially challenging task. It would not be right to expect him, in addition, to accept a substantial financial sacrifice, and I have decided, with the agreement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that
1402
Dr. Beeching shall be paid, from 1st June next, his present remuneration, with I.C.I., which is £24,000 a year.
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Strauss: The Minister is, no doubt, not surprised that his extraordinary announcement has been received with amazement and, indeed, shock—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—by hon. Members on both sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how it came about that this announcement first appeared in the Daily Express this morning, before his statement was made to the House?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what grounds he sacked Sir Brian Robertson, whom he and his predecessor have constantly praised for his ability and devotion to his work, and has replaced him by someone who, so far as we know, has no transport experience whatever, and at a salary two and a half times that which was paid to Sir Brian Robertson?
Can he tell us, because he has surprisingly failed to do so, what experience Dr. Beeching has had in managing or organising men? Has he any knowledge whatever of the elementary principles of traffic movement? What qualifications, indeed, has he got, not only for being made a member of the Transport Commission, but also for assuming straight away the very responsible position of Chairman of the Commission.
Could the right hon. Gentleman not find anyone in the railway service today with the knowledge, experience and ability to take on this important task? Does he realise that this appointment of someone from outside industry, with no knowledge, as far as we are aware, of the business of running the railways, will have very serious repercussions on the whole of the railway staff, from top to bottom?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in view of this appointment and the very high salary to be paid to the Chairman of the Commission, it is the Government's policy to pay similar high salaries to the chairmen of other nationalised industries, which are also of great importance, or is this an exception?

1403
Finally, has the right hon. Gentleman made this appointment, and is he paying this very substantial salary, because of the apparent intention of the Government announced in all the Sunday newspapers, that the new Railway Board, under the chairmanship of Dr. Beeching, will have to carry out the very unpopular task of cutting British Railways services by 20 per cent.?
Mr. Marples: If I may answer all those supplementary questions, I will start at the beginning.
On the right hon. Gentleman's first question, I would say that nothing surprises me about the reactions of this House, and especially those of the party opposite. Secondly, there were many "leaks". The Guardian, this morning, said the new chairman would be Sir Ivan Stedeford, the Daily Express said that it would be Dr. Beeching and some time ago the Daily Mail said that it would be somebody else. It is very difficult indeed to find out why the newspapers make all these guesses, but, as far as the Daily Express article is concerned, I intend to make some inquiry.
The third part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, when he said that he was sacked, did a disservice to Sir Brian Robertson. That is not true. The Transport Commission, under the Government's proposals in the White Paper, is to be replaced by another organisation, and, therefore, his job would, in a very short time, come to an end. To facilitate matters, Sir Brian, as always, was kind enough to say that he would wish to retire at a date convenient for the reorganisation, and I am grateful to him.
The right hon. Gentleman's fourth supplementary question asked why I was paying Dr. Beeching a salary two and a half times as much as that of the present Chairman. All I would say to that is that Dr. Beeching is not coming in to get that sum of money, because he is already getting it now, and that if the nationalised industries are to attract the best managerial talent and skill they have got to pay the rate for the job.
Mr. Callaghan: Does this apply all the way through, down to engine drivers?
Mr. Marples: The hon. Member from his sedentary position, asks whether
1404
this applies all the way through to engine drivers. Yes, it does, because it follows the Guillebaud principle by which railwaymen were given wages comparable with outside industry. If railwaymen got that principle awarded to them, why should hon. Members opposite deny it to the managerial side?
The fifth supplementary question put by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) was about Dr. Beeching's career, and whether he was a suitable man for the job. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes a look at Dr. Beeching's career, which is absolutely brilliant. He served an apprenticeship on this Special Advisory Group and has saturated himself with railway matters for the past nine months.
Mr. Shinwell: Resign. Get out.
Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman's sixth supplementary question was whether there would be repercussions. I hope that there will not be, and that we shall try to make a really good show of the railways.
The right hon. Gentleman's seventh question was whether there would be other similar high rates of remuneration. There may be one or two other special appointments, but there will be no change in the Government's general policy on salaries of members of the boards of nationalised industries.
I have tried my best to answer all the supplementary questions.
Mr. Gower Mr. Gower rose—
Mr. Lipton: Thank the right hon. Gentleman for his replies.
Mr. Gower: Is it not vital that an important nationalised industry like British Railways, which must face tremendous problems in the years ahead, should not be deprived of the services of the best talent available because of the financial stringency which has sometimes applied? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that his references in praise of Sir Brian Robertson should command the support of both sides of the House?
Mr. Marples: The country and the House must face the fact that they cannot expect to get managerial talent unless they pay the same rates as the other sections of business. I see no reason why the railways should be placed

1405
at a disadvantage, as compared with other parts of industry, in getting the best managerial skill available.
Mr. Gunter: May I ask the Minister whether his conscience is at ease when he pays his tribute to Sir Brian Robert-son? Whatever he may say, Sir Brian has been dismissed, and it is shameful that a man who has served the nation as soldier and diplomat should have been treated in this manner.
Was not an understanding given us by Sir Brian, when we were in negotiation with him, that he proposed to conduct the affairs of the Commission for another twelve months? Now we understand that in June he is to go. Therefore, does not the Minister understand that some of us, who have fought Sir Brian over the last few years, but who have learned to respect him as a gentleman and as a man of great honour, feel complete contempt for the conduct that he has shown towards Sir Brian?
Mr. Marples Mr. Marples rose—
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Marples: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) should have made that show of indignation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I repeat, show of indignation. Sir Brian has volunteered to do this because he thought that it was in the interests of the reorganisation, and I respect him for it. My conscience is clear, otherwise I would not be able to say this at this Dispatch Box. Sir Brian is responsible for any undertaking he has given, and I am responsible for my undertakings. I am not aware of the undertaking mentioned by the hon. Member. I will look into it closely.
Mr. John Hall: Can my right hon. Friend say how much Dr. Beeching is likely to retain net, after paying tax?
Mr. Marples: I did not want to refer to that, but—
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that supplementary question, may I ask whether it has not always been our rule that particulars are not given in the House of individual liabilities to taxation?
Mr. Speaker: I think that what the hon. Member has in mind is the practice that such particulars are not given by the Inland Revenue. I do not know of a practice extending to being applicable to the question just asked of the Minister of Transport.
Mr. Silverman: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Grimond: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: I am perfectly willing to hear points of order, but not more than one at a time. Mr. Grimond.
Mr. Grimond: With all respect to your Ruling. Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that any member of the Government, other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can give particulars of an individual's Income Tax situation?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that follows from what I said. It was not my intention.
Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you not aware that any Member of this House may go to the Library of the House and work out the Income Tax and Surtax liability for an income of £24,000? It is a simple calculation.
Mr. Speaker: I doubt whether a question asking me what I am aware of in that matter is a point of order.
Mr. Silverman: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Silverman.
Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order—
Mr. C. Pannell: My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne is on his feet.
Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
Mr. S. Silverman: In your original Ruling, Mr. Speaker, you agreed that there was a rule that the Inland Revenue

1407
Department, which must include the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shall not disclose particulars of taxation in an individual case. If that rule had been obeyed, the Minister of Transport would be in no position to answer the supplementary question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). He can only know these particulars if he got them from the Inland Revenue. Therefore, to answer that supplementary question would, I submit, be a breach of the rule.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that follows at this stage. I could understand, if this gentleman had particular commitments which resulted in his receiving certain allowances, or had a vast family, or if there were some other obscure and magical considerations, that the matter might be different. But I do not know what the Minister is purporting to answer, since he has not yet been allowed to answer. I cannot conceive any of these evils attaching to doing a sum, on a prima facie basis, of what remains prima facie from a gross income which is named.
Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. During discussion on the Finance Bill of 1946 or 1947, I endeavoured to raise the question of the financial affairs of the Duke of Westminster. Viscount Crookshank, then Mr. Harry Crookshank, took great exception to this in speaking from this side of the House. It was ruled by Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown that I was unable to raise the question of the Duke of Westminster's tax liabilities.
Should there not be some consideration before that Ruling is overruled, as seems to be happening today? I can understand your Ruling that a hypothetical case can be discussed, because such cases are included in the tax tables every year, but what is being asked for is the tax liability of Dr. Beeching. It is questions about tax liability to which exception is being taken. The only basis on which I was finally allowed to make my speech about the Duke of Westminster was when I was able to demonstrate that the case had been decided in a court of law.
Mr. Speaker: That is all very attractive. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has the advantage of me, because I did not have
1408
the honour to be in the House at the time and, therefore, I do not have these things in mind. I do not propose to over-rule any Ruling about this matter. What I understand to have happened—and I cannot commit myself to verbal accuracy of my recollection of the particular question asked—is that the Minister was asked how much would remain to this gentleman if he had the salary named in the Minister's statement. I cannot think that that is more than doing a sum.
Mr. Shinwell: If the Minister can disclose the amount of Income Tax and Surtax to be paid by any person employed by the Government, will you, Mr. Speaker, permit Questions to be placed on the Order Paper querying the amount of taxation paid by any person employed in the Government service?
Mr. Speaker: I do not desire to rule on a hypothetical situation, which is what that is, but my instinct at the moment is that the answer to the right hon. Gentleman would be, "No".
Mr. John Hall: Further to that point of order. I have placed similar Questions on the Order Paper asking what would be left after taxation on certain salaries paid to public-appointed persons, and there has never been any query about them, Sir.
Mr. Marples: In order not to offend the susceptibilities of any part of the House, perhaps I should say that at present the tax for a married man receiving £24,000 a year would be £17,463 7s. 6d., leaving the married man and his wife with £6,536 12s. 6d.
Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that the only possible comment on his statement is, "What a way to run the railways!"? Can he explain what is meant by his extraordinary announcement that Dr. Beeching is "prepared to interrupt his career"? Are we taking the railways seriously, or are we not? Can we get no one in this country who is prepared to make a career of the railways and to stake his reputation on making them efficient, and to treat the matter with a modicum of seriousness?
Mr. Marples: The hon. Member is not doing himself justice. There are two jobs to be done here—not only running

1409
the railways, but reorganising them on the principles laid down by the House when it agreed to the White Paper proposals.
Mr. Popplewell: Is the Minister aware of the dismay which his statement will cause to everyone engaged in the transport industry? Does he not realise that his statement that £24,000 a year is the price which he is prepared to pay to destroy our railway system is a disgrace? Does he not realise that his statement that Dr. Beeching is to be appointed for only a five-year period falls below even what we expect from the Government? Does he not realise that Dr. Beeching's qualifications show no knowledge of the railway industry or of transport and that his nine months' apprenticeship, which the Minister mentioned, was when he was serving as a member of the Stedeford Committee, the publication of whose findings we are still awaiting? Is not this further evidence of the need for those findings to be published?
Does not the Minister realise that his pledge when presenting the White Paper, that there would be opportunities for railwaymen in the higher branches of the service is now completely nullified, and that everyone engaged in the industry who has some knowledge of it will be disappointed and disheartened by the announcement, and that the morale of everyone connected with the industry will deteriorate still further?
Mr. Marples: I cannot accept the assumptions on which that supplementary question was based. The hon. Member said that it was a disgrace to make the appointment for a five-year period, but the appointments of chairmen of the British Transport Commission, made by either party, have been for five-year periods. Secondly, when the career of Dr. Beeching is closely examined, it will be found that he has had an immense experience of organisation, vast, large-scale organisation, in I.C.I. I am sure that he is the right man for the job and I am sure that it will benefit British Railways in future to have managerial quality of this nature.
Mr. C. Osborne: Is my right, hon. Friend aware that the figure of £24,000 a year gross will undoubtedly shock many railway workers? But will he make it clear, in putting over his policy
1410
to them, that that sum leaves this man with less than £7,000 a year? Will he also make it clear that if, for £7,000 a year, the railways can be reorganised in such a way that the men's jobs are made safer and better, they will get a good bargain and so will the country?
Mr. Marples: I assure my hon Friend that I will try to get over what the net sum is which any man would receive when getting a gross figure of £24,000 a year. I am sorry that the Opposition should have sought to prevent me from stating the net figure. I assure my hon. Friend that if Dr. Beeching can reorganise the railways, he will do a great service for the country.
Mr. G. Brown: It must be apparent to the Leader of the House that what the Minister of Transport has said has come as a great shock to many hon. Members. It must be equally apparent that the announcement raises wide issues which cannot be avoided by reference to Income Tax, because we still do not know what Dr. Beeching's liability to tax will be, or what expense allowance, if any, is involved. The announcement also raises grave issues for the other boards of nationalised industries and the salaries of their chairmen and members, as it does for the members of the Transport Commission. It also raises grave issues about the Commission's future policy.
In view of the Minister's announcement, and the reaction to it, will the Leader of the House find time in which this remarkable statement of the Minister can be properly debated?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The House knows that its time is fully occupied until Easter, but there are undoubtedly opportunities when the matter can be raised by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, or any other hon. Member. I must leave it to hon. Members to find opportunities to raise this matter on the various occasions which will undoubtedly arise before Easter.
Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the Opposition will have opportunities, this is an announcement of Government policy?

1411
This is not a matter of the replacement of one chairman by another, but a whole new attitude and new policy. After all, if the Minister had tried harder, he might have found someone who would get a salary of £48,000 a year. This announcement raises grave issues of policy, and when the Government decide to introduce a new policy it is for them to find time to debate it. The Leader of the House must face his responsibilities and not try to shuffle them off. He must be willing to face the music and provide time for this extraordinary statement to be debated.
Mr. Butler: I have already said that I do not think that the Government will be able to provide time before Easter, but there will be opportunities when the matter can be raised. There is a range of business coming before the House before Easter which will give opportunities for such a debate.
I do not underestimate the importance of the statement made by my right hon. Friend. He has had the particular task of choosing the best man he can, and he has done his best to face what follows from that decision. This, no doubt, has come as a considerable surprise to the House. I therefore expect that there may well be opportunities taken to raise the matter. But I would be wrong to promise a Government day or time which is not at present in my power to afford.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this now. There is no Question before the House.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If hon. Members wish to table a Motion of censure on the Minister of Transport, calling for his resignation, will the Government find time for it to be debated next week?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot make that into a point of order.
Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I did not think that Chat was a point of order, so there cannot be one further to it.
Mr. Shinwell: Then may I put another point of order, Sir? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not going to be deterred by hon. Members opposite. I have been here too long for that. They are a collection of humbugs.
I put this quite seriously, Mr. Speaker. In a matter of this sort, which is of such vital importance, ought not hon. Members on this side to have the opportunity to put questions either to the Minister concerned or to the Leader of the House? Why should we be prevented at this stage?
Mr. Speaker: Because when Ministerial statements are made I think that there is a duty placed on me to exercise my discretion as to the amount of questioning I may permit when there is no Question before the House. I entertain no hope of being able to remain a popular person in discharging that duty, but, none the less, I have to discharge it. The reason why I was not proposing to allow further questions on this matter is that I thought that point had been reached.
Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Speaker: We have not yet reached the point for such an application to be made.
Mr. Speir: I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Monslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister to make a declaration, in relation to this payment of salary, that the same generous treatment will be extended to the employees of the industry when they make wage demands?
Mr. Speaker: That has no appearance of being a point of order. I understand the emotions involved in this, but I wish to renew my expression of hope to the House that we should stop this practice of rising to points of order which are not really points of order.
Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Speir) has given notice that although he welcomes the Minister's statement he will raise the matter at the earliest opportunity. May I ask you whether, as a matter of order, you regard such a Motion, which is not given in the. time-honoured form, as forestalling your decision on any Motion that may be moved—I am not pre-judging that—under Standing Order 9 by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)?
Mr. Speaker: Most certainly not. I regarded the hon. Member's attempted notice as something totally null, void. and ineffective.
Later—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) wanted to address me. I think that the moment has arrived.
Mr. Paget: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask for leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Speaker: May I be allowed, without discourtesy, to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman? The view I take of my duty is that I am precluded from acceding to any such application by paragraph 8 of Standing Order No. 16 this day. That being my view, I should not detain the hon. and learned Gentleman to address me about it.
Mr. Paget: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker. However, I make this submission to you. If you grant my request it cannot be operative today, because of the business today, and tomorrow becomes the first opportunity. The effect of my application, if it be granted, is that it will be operative tomorrow and not today.
Mr. Speaker: Yes. I understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting to me. I think the fair way of indicating it is to say that I do not share his view. But what I say is without prejudice to his trying out his chances tomorrow, if that be convenient, about which I give him no encouragement and speak without prejudice to the interests of either of us.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (PROPRIETARY PREPARATIONS)
The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and I recently asked the Standing Joint Committee on the Classification of Proprietary Preparations, of which Lord Cohen of Birkenhead is Chairman, to consider if it could help doctors in prescribing by giving more guidance on proprietary preparations. The Committee has now reported and the House will wish to know its principal conclusion.
The Committee advises that, while there should continue to be no absolute restriction on the prescribing of any drug which the doctor considers necessary for the treatment of his patient, he need not normally go outside the drugs and preparations described from time to time in the British Pharmacopoeia, the British Pharmaceutical Codex and the British National Formulary, together with the drugs that the Committee classify as N (new drugs of proved value not yet standard), and P (drugs for which there is prima facie evidence of therapeutic value, but where the Committee wants further evidence before firm classification).
The Report goes on to advise that a doctor who prescribes other preparations may be liable to be called on to justify his action if the cost of his prescribing is being formally investigated.
The Report will be published and, in consultation with the medical profession, will be brought to the attention of all doctors.
My right hon. Friend and I are aware that the pharmaceutical industry may be apprehensive of the effect of this advice on its future progress and development, but we are sure that any such apprehension would be ill-founded. Many standard preparations are, and will no doubt continue to be, available only in proprietary form, or cost little more or no more in proprietary than in unbranded form. This, together with categories N and P, and the individual doctor's professional discretion, will continue to provide full scope for the products of the industry's research and development to find their reward.
Mr. K. Robinson: Does the Minister not think that he might have acknowledged that the course recommended by the Cohen Committee is the one consistently advocated over a long period from this side of the House, particularly by Lady Summerskill and other of my hon. Friends?
Does he not agree that substantial savings can be effected in the drug bill by this decision, and might well reach a sum considerably more than that which he will receive by the increased prescription charges? In the light of this, will he not, even at this stage, consider revoking the prescription Regulations?
May I ask one or two questions arising out of the statement? Is any further guidance to be given to doctors to assist them in prescribing British Pharmacopoeia equivalents? Will he say what savings he estimates there will be on the drug bill, provided doctors do, as I am sure they will, conscientiously follow the advice of the Cohen Committee?
Will he also say what further steps he is to take to reduce the cost of these proprietary drugs not covered by the statement, particularly those in the N and P categories? Finally, will he say when the Report will be published?
Mr. Powell: The Report will be published as soon as it can be made available for sale, which, I am advised, is likely to be in the early days of April. I cannot, obviously, at this stage, in any way anticipate what will be the effect on the total cost of the pharmaceutical service of the advice which the Cohen Committee has tendered to my right hon. Friend and myself, and I certainly would assume that the Cohen Committee, in arriving at this advice, has been guided solely by its own knowledge and professional judgment.
The questions which the hon. Gentleman asked about other matters and other steps appear to me to lie outside the scope of this advice and of this Report, but I will gladly deal with them in the debate which we are to have later tonight
Mr. Robinson: In his statement the Minister says that this Report will be published and be brought to the attention of the executive councils and doctors. The Minister has not said that he accepts the Report. Will he make
1416
it quite clear that he accepts the Report, that he welcomes its conclusion, and that his Department will do all it can to see that it is implemented?
Mr. Powell: The Report does not require acceptance. This is advice which is tendered to my right how Friend and myself, and, through us, to the whole of the medical profession, by the Cohen Committee. It is our duty, which we will carry out with the minimum of delay, to bring it to the attention of every member of the medical profession in the National Health Service.
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House also think that this is a great step forward and should result in substantial economies? Does he think that it will also have the effect of reducing the high-pressure advertising which has been such an objectionable feature of this matter in the past?
Mr. Powell: I am sure that this recommendation of the Cohen Committee is a most important one to the profession. I have little doubt that it will be of assistance to doctors and will be welcomed by them in exercising their judgment upon the claims which are put before them.
Mr. Holt: Does the Minister agree that this advice to the medical profession will become really effective and achieve the maximum economy in the Health Service if he follows the suggestion I made in the first of our recent debates on Health Service charges, namely, that any drugs obtained from the lists in these publications should be free and charges retained merely for proprietary brands?
Mr. Powell: That is a matter entirely outside the scope of the Report of the Cohen Committee.
Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after thirty years' experience of the pharmaceutical industry I can unhesitatingly assure him that many of the equivalents in the British Pharmacopoeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex are absolutely therapeutically excellent and good, and could replace many extravagant and much-advertised articles?
Mr. Powell: That is certainly the case.
Mr. G. Brown: Will the Minister think again about his reluctance to say whether he accepts the Report, welcomes it, or urges it on the profession? if, as I gather, he wants it to be effective, presumably he is ready to say so, which must mean that he is ready to endorse it. I ask him to be firm about this.
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the irony of the comparison between the miserable economies he has made for widows and the sick, and the proposal contained in this announcement, has yet occurred to him?
Mr. Powell: I do not know what will be the financial effects of this advice. It certainly does not alter any of the arguments which I have put before the House in the last six weeks.
I want to clear up what may be a point of misunderstanding about the question of endorsing the Report. It would be quite inappropriate and an impertinence on the Government's part to endorse or accept a professional report and professional advice to the medical profession. The duty of my right hon. Friend and myself is to ensure that, the advice having been formulated—as professional advice, we have no reason to endorse it or otherwise; that is not within our field—it is brought fully and effectively to the notice of the medical profession.
Mr. Brown: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in what sense does the proposal come before us? The opening words of the Minister's statement are:
"The Secretary of State for Scotland and I recently asked the Standing Joint Committee on the Classification of Proprietary Preparations … "
to do a job, and that job has been done.
The Minister has conceived it as his duty to bring the Report to the House, but he has declined to tell the House whether he approves or disapproves of it. If it is improper and impertinent, as he says, for him to indicate whether he approves or disapproves of it, on what basis is the House being asked to take cognisance of it?
Mr. Speaker: The basis on which it arises is that the Minister asks my leave to make a statement. He does not require, in the context, my approval of
1418
the terms of the statement. I do not think any other point of order, as distinct from other matters, arises.
Mr. Brown: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but a Government statement must involve some recommendation of policy. It must involve some Ministerial responsibility, as it is called. The Minister says that in this case there is no Ministerial responsibility and that it would be impertinent and improper for him to accept any responsibility. No matter what the Minister said to you, Mr. Speaker, is it not an abuse of the order of the House to take our time up with something which he says it would be improper for him to take any responsibility for?
Mr. Powell: Ministerial responsibility here is to ensure that attention is drawn to this advice and the Report generally and, in particular, is brought to the attention of the medical profession. That is the duty of my right hon. Friend and myself, which we will carry out. I think that both sides of the House have recognised the importance of the advice which it is our duty in this way to bring to the notice of the profession. The job which my right hon. Friend and I asked the Committee to perform was to consider if it could help doctors in prescribing by giving them more guidance on proprietary preparations.
Mr. Brown: The Minister had better be paid the rate for his job.
Sir H. Linstead: It is clear that the advice which my right hon. Friend has received will command very wide support professionally. However, I ask my right hon. Friend to underline one point of professional principle which has always been carefully cherished, namely, the continual right of a prescriber to prescribe for his patient whatever medicament the prescriber thinks the patient requires. I understand that, subject to justification if necessary, that right still remains with the prescriber. Am I right?
Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. That is entirely correct and is re-emphasised in terms in the words of the Committee's Report which I paraphrased to the House.
Mr. K. Robinson: May I ask the Minister this one simple question? Does he hope that the recommendation of the Committee will succeed in its objective?
Mr. Powell: Naturally. My right hon. Friend and I asked the Committee if it could help doctors in prescribing. I hope and believe that the advice which we are transmitting from the Committee to doctors will have that effect.
Mr. G. Brown: So the Minister does endorse it.

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.]

STANDING ORDER No, 95A (STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c. (PROCEDURE))
Mr. Charles Pannell: I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I wished to raise a point of order about something you said yesterday, when you ruled on the question raised about Standing Order No. 95A.
The part I am quoting from is the ultimate paragraph of the first Ruling you made, which appears in column 1202. I do not think that this paragraph in the OFFICIAL REPORT quite accurately reports what you said. To make myself perfectly clear, I should say that I have taken this matter up with the editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The passage reads:
"I cannot find, within the rules of order, an equivalent obligation for them "—
that is, the Government—
"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…''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 1202.]
I took up the point almost immediately after the debate and went into the Library to check, but I think that you interposed some words to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition, although a very important Member, is a private Member. I was interested in that. I am fairly sure that my hearing was right. I did not raise it yesterday, because I wanted to check the authorities on it. If it means anything at all it means that you were suggesting, in this context, that
1420
the Leader of the Opposition is a private Member. I do not think that he is and I am reinforced in that belief by certain Rulings.
The Leader of the Opposition is certainly not a private Member in relation to asking Questions in the House and he never does ask a normal Parliamentary Question. By tradition, he is precluded from that and two Speakers who preceded you have upheld the view that he is a different kind of person. I have looked right through the debates in 1937, when a salary was granted to the Leader of the Opposition and his position was recognised in this House. He cannot be a private Member and it was particularly to defend the rights of the Opposition and to create a place here for the Leader of the Opposition that that was done.
If you read the original debates you will see that an Amendment was moved because it was suggested that he might become the lackey of the Establishment, but that was not the suggestion of Sir John Simon. who underlined that the Leader of the Opposition is not a private Member.
Consequently, I am making the point, without going too deeply into the authorities, that anything which comes from the Leader of the Opposition is not the same as anything coming from a private Member, but must have special weight given to it, and it does not lend itself to the abuse and contempt of the Opposition such as we had from the Government yesterday.
Mr. Speaker: I was very glad that when the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) wrote to me he said he was quite certain that the words in the context in which they were used by me did not suggest any sort of disrespect for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition or his office. They clearly did not. It would be monstrous to suggest it.
My own recollection—I had been for a long time in the Chair and had had many points of order put to me at that time—coincides with that of the hon. Member, that I did say words of the kind that he has suggested, that the Leader of the Opposition is a very important person, in order to make it clear to everyone concerned that I was not

1421
speaking with disrespect of him. I do not speak about this particular right hon. Gentleman, but of the whole office of the Leader of the Opposition. He is a very particular person, having all kinds of peculiar characteristics and privileges, including a salary, and matters of that kind.
In other contexts, of course, he would have to be treated as a special person, but, if the House or the hon. Member cares to look at it, I think that it is perfectly plain what I was doing. I was really pointing out that there are only two kinds of business which come before the House in that context. One is Government business and the other is business raised by private Members in the sense of unofficial Members.
In the context in which I was speaking I believe that my words were quite appropriate and accurate and, although I appreciate greatly the assistance which the hon. Member always gives me, I am quite impenitent about having used them. I believe that they were right and appropriate. I accept every precedent to which the hon. Member has referred and have no doubt that they were completely appropriate to the circumstances to which they applied, and I would myself seek to follow them.

POLITICAL PARTIES (PUBLICATION OF ACCOUNTS)
4.25 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the compulsory publication of accounts by all political parties.
I propose to disappoint the House this afternoon. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be as disappointed as the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low), because I do not propose to make a party political speech. I do not intend to suggest or insinuate that the party opposite is in receipt of certain funds from certain sources. I want to direct the attention of the House to what I regard as the special need, more than ever before, of a Bill of this kind and I direct it against no one particular political party.
I hold the view that the democracy which we enjoy today is the best in the world. I believe that it ought to be stated far more than it is stated that the democracy we have is something which is not easily achieved, but something which has cost the nation a great deal down the years. Not so many years ago we used to have a system of corrupt practices in this House whereby seats were specially bought and there were rotten boroughs. Not too many years ago there was a system when even peerages could be given for various sums of money. Our forefathers lived through that day and age and fought it down so that now we live under a system which generally is considered to be about the best in the world. It is because I want to preserve it, and want as much as anyone in this House to keep something which, I believe, is worth while, that I am introducing this Bill.
I am very worried about present trends as I see our system evolving at the moment. We have to remember that whatever we do today we are making a position which our children will enjoy or suffer tomorrow. I believe that present trends in our democracy are very dangerous. In perhaps five or ten years' time we shall find a situation in which virtually there is only one-party system in this country. I hold the view strongly that the way in which trends are going we shall find the entire Press supporting only one political point of view—
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is not supporting us.
Mr. Mellish: I am making a speech and not trying to be arrogant or offensive.
I say that the time is coming when the entire Press of the country will support one political party. There is a large amount of interference to be found with television, a medium we all respect and understand. I believe that if we value democracy we shall have to concern ourselves about this matter. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not think that such trends would favour them. I put it to them seriously that if we ever reach a stage in which there is only a one-party system it would be a threat to democracy and would not be the sort of thing which the Leader of the House would enjoy. I think that he is a democrat and a good one. I do not think that anyone enjoys Parliamentary life more than he does.
In asking for leave to introduce my Bill I am not intending to have a lot of fun and games with the party opposite. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North can tear up a lot of the notes that he has prepared about political party funds. These trends are coming very fast. We now have a vast propaganda machine which precedes elections of all kinds, General Elections and local elections. Vast sums of money are spent, and I believe that to be bad for Britain as a whole. If we agree, as I think we do, that our democracy is the best in the world, we have to prove it and to prove it to the people outside. My proposed Bill, in effect, says that every political party in the country, the Communist Party, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, should produce adequate accounts showing the sources of their income and their expenditure. I do not think that is anything more than democracy expects.
In 1949, there was a debate on this matter. I have read it and I should like to put on record that one of the interesting features of the debate was that the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, then Mr. Quintin Hogg, the Member for Oxford, said that he thought the only way to deal with the matter was by legislation. I entirely agree with that, and that is why I am seeking to introduce my Bill.
1424
At the end of the day, we must, as political parties in democracy, be prepared to tell our people where our money comes from and how we spend it.
It may be argued that this is an infringement of the rights of individuals who may contribute to political parties. I understand that point of view, but, if our democracy is what we say it is, I can see no reason why anyone—man, woman or organisation—should be ashamed of the party he supports. People should be only too pleased, in a democracy, to acknowledge that they are Conservatives, Liberals or Socialists. There is no reason why they should not. The argument adduced on earlier occasions that it would be wrong to introduce such a Bill as this because people might somehow be victimised does not hold water today. I regard my Bill as necessary today as ever before.
I put this to the Government and to my right hon. and hon. Friends. If my fears prove well founded, if within, say, ten years, the trend is that one political party only is able to survive, no Member of Parliament could be happy about the future, because it is not at all certain that that party would be a party such as the one occupying the Government benches today. Our democracy, for which so many have suffered and fought, could go by default. I ask that there shall be done something which every democratic Briton has a right to expect of all acknowledged political parties, that is to say, that they publish accounts showing full details of the sources of their income. That is the very least that people can expect.
I say frankly to the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North that if we do have to take this matter to a Division, the people of Britain will form a judgment on the fact that this Parliament refuses to do something which I believe to be absolutely right in British democracy.
4.32 p.m.
Sir Toby Low: I oppose the Motion. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) on the spirit in which he moved it. I hope to reply to him in the same spirit, although I must ask the House and the hon. Member to excuse me if I take two or three minutes more than he did. His speech was of admirable length, if I may say so.

1425
This is an extremely important matter. There is no doubt whatever that to many people the idea of compulsory publication of political parties accounts is very attractive and has been for some time. there have been many debates in the House on this and allied subjects. We had one last July. In 1949, we had the debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There have been several during the course of the century, and I think that the first one took place in 1908, several years before either the hon. Member or I were born.
During that period there have been many Governments in office. The party complexion of the House has varied between the three main parties. But the decision on this matter has always been the same: no compulsory publication of party accounts. The same decision has been taken in practically every democratic country outside Britain, with the exception of the United States of America, where it is now recognised that the law is ineffective; it leads in some ways not so much to abuses as to subterfuges, and it can be got round almost completely.
I know very well that compulsory publication is attractive to those who consider these matters in the spirit adopted by the hon. Member, for the simple reason that they think that it is in the public interest that people generally should know what are loosely called the forces behind the parties. There are other people who, from a slightly more selfish point of view, want publication merely so that they may know what the other political parties are doing. Let us forget about the latter for the moment and deal with the more high-minded arguments.
There are real difficulties. First, what is a political party? I think I am right in saying that no political party in this country is a legal entity. The Conservative Party certainly is not. Yet, if legislation imposes the duty of publication. it must impose that duty upon some one person. How can one identify that one person without regulating, incorporating and registering? Once we introduce this feature into our democratic life, where do we end?
I admit that I have one very strong prejudice indeed in these matters. I do not want the State to interfere with
1426
political parties in this country unless there is a definite mischief to be prevented. There is no definite mischief alleged in this case. The definite mischiefs with which we have had to deal in the past few centuries have been mischiefs of corruption and bribery at elections, and they are covered—I think the hon. Member will agree that they are well covered—by the Representation of the People Act as it stands at present.
If hon. Members think that this point about registration and incorporation is just a lawyer's argument, I will put it to them the other way. Once one registers political parties or insists that they be incorporated, what happens to groups of persons wishing to conduct political activities of one kind or another who are not so registered? What does the law do about them? Immediately, there is an attack upon individual political freedom as well as an attack upon the complete freedom we have now to combine for political purposes. I ask hon. Members opposite to reflect further upon what happens within political parties which have to be registered or incorporated. What happens to the expenditure of money inside registered political parties by those persons who are attacking the leadership of the registered political party? Who accounts for the money they spend?
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Whose money is it?
Sir T. Low: Perhaps hon. Members opposite, with their experience in politics, will try to work out what would happen in their case today.
To take the matter further, I ask this question: once one insists upon the incorporation and legislation of all political parties, what happens to a movement like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?
Mr. Herbert Butler: What about the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)?
Sir T. Low: I do not wish to confine this to one side or the other. I am trying to speak in the same spirit as that adopted by the hon. Member for Bermondsey. This is a serious subject on which people can hold serious views one way or the other, and I hope that I shall

1427
be allowed to continue with my rather intricate argument.
What is the position of a movement like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which avowedly has political aims? Who wants to stop campaigns like that being free to organise themselves as they like, apart from any of the established political parties?
Mr. Walter Monslow: The C.N.D. publishes its accounts.
Sir T. Low: I do not believe that that is what hon. Members would want, nor can I believe that the hon. Member for Bermondsey, on working the matter out, in the spirit in which he put the matter to us and wishing to maintain our British democracy, could find it possible to define adequately the revenue and expenditure for which political parties ought to account.
I see that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has just moved to sit beside the hon. Member for Bedmondsey. In the debate we had last July, the right hon. Member made a strong case against what he called the incursion of outside bodies into the party political arena. Would it really be possible to find a system for the compulsory publication of party accounts which, on the one hand, gave a real and fair account of the balance of forces among the parties and, on the other, omitted any reference to that kind of expenditure?
Of course it would not, and, because it would not, and because of the other points which I have made about the definition of a political party, I am driven to the conclusion that if we want meaningful party accounts we have to accept an encroachment upon political liberty in this country which none of us is willing to accept.
Hon. Members: Nonsense.
Mr. E. Shinwell: How much money has the Tory Party got?
Sir T. Low: The intervention of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has imported into the debate exactly the spirit which his hon. Friend, I think wisely, tried to keep out of the debate.
Mr. Shinwell: Humbug.
Sir T. Low: I do not think that the hon. Member for Bermondsey, who is chairman of the London Labour Party, moved this Motion to find out how much the Conservative Party spent. He is as concerned in safeguarding our political democracy as we all are. I know that hon. Members opposite are under the curious illusion that the Labour Party publishes its accounts.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: We publish some of them, do we not?
Sir T. Low: It is because it publishes only some that I want to introduce the next point into my speech.
Mr. Silverman Mr. Silverman rose—
Sir T. Low: I will not give way at the moment.
Mr. Silverman Mr. Silverman rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Sir Toby Low.
Sir T. Low: Why does the Labour Party publish at all? Not because it is in the public interest. It publishes because its rules have demanded it from 1900. That is the sole reason. Its accounts include sums varying between £220,000 and £280,000 a year, but those sums do not show, first, constituency revenue and expenditure—
Mr. Silverman Mr. Silverman rose—
Sir T. Low: —which Mr. Ian Mikardo told us, in 1955, amounted to £1 million.
Mr. Albert Evans: Tell us about the Conservative Party.
Sir T. Low: The accounts do not include two-thirds of the trade unions' political funds—two-thirds which amount to £500,000. They do not include the fund which the Co-operative Party uses for political purposes. Nor do they include any money value, because I do not see how they could, for the immense advantage which hon. Members opposite enjoy by reason of the fact that many trade union branches and many shop stewards' meetings form nuclei of political organisations. They include none of

1429
those things. Yet all of those things are reasonable activities. I would not wish to stop any of them, nor would I wish to have any shown in the accounts—nor would any hon. Member.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I am aware that the Standing Order does not mention any specific limit of time, but it talks about a short speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) introduced the Motion in a six-minute speech. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) has spoken for nearly fifteen minutes. At what point is the Standing Order invoked, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That is a matter of judgment.
Sir T. Low: I am conscious of the importance of being brief. I have been trying to be brief. If the hon. Member will allow me, I will draw to a conclusion very quickly.
I come back to the point at which I began. This demand for the compulsory publication of accounts is attractive to many people but, as I have tried to show, I believe that if it were done it would bring with it consequences of great importance and great damage to our political system.
Mr. Monslow: Why is the right hon. Member hiding the facts?
Sir T. Low: I have tried to find out why so many hon. Members opposite persist in pegging away at this point, when they must know, if they have worked it out, what the consequences would be. We have no meaningful accounts from any political party in this country. It is because we in the Conservative Party know that to publish meaningful accounts would bring all these dangers to our political freedom, and because we do not intend to mislead the people by behaving in a hypocritical manner today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh" —that I ask my hon. Friends to reject the Motion.
We are just as keen as are hon. Members opposite on preserving our Parliamentary and democratic freedom. It is because of that, and because of the other considerations which I have put to the House, that I ask my hon. Friends and the House to reject the Motion.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 223.

Division No. 108.

AYES.

'4.47 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Lawson, George

Awbery, Stan

Forman, J. C.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Lipton, Marcus

Beaney, Alan

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Loughlin, Charles

Blackburn, F.

Gourlay, Harry

MacColl, James

Blyton, William

Grey, Charles

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Boardman, H.

Grimond, J.

McLeavy, Frank

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

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvli (Come Valley)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Bowles, Frank

Hannan, William

Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)

Boyden, James

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Manuel, A. C.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hayman, F. H.

Mapp, Charles

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Healey, Denis

Marsh, Richard

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Mason, Roy

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hilton, A. V.

Mayhew, Chirstopher

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Holman, Percy

Mayhew, Christopher M

Callaghan, James

Holt, Arthur

Mendelson, J J.

Chetwynd, George

Houghton, Douglas

Malian, Bruce

Cliffe, Michael

Howell, Charles A.

Mitchison, G. R.

Collick, Percy

Hoy, James H.

Monslow, Walter

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Moyle, Arthur

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Darling, George

Hunter, A. E.

Oliver, G. H.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Owen, Will

Deer, George

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Paget, R. T.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

Dempsey, James

Danner, Sir Barnett

Pavitt, Laurence

Driberg, Tom

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Peart, Frederick

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Pentland, Norman

Edelman, Maurice

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Poppleweli, Ernest

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Kelley, Richard

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Kenyon, Clifford

Proctor, W. T.

Evans, Albert

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Randall, Harry

Reid, William

Sorensen, R. W.

Wainwright, Edwin

Reynolds, G. W.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Warbey, William

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Spriggs, Leslie

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Steele, Thomas

Wilkins, W. A.

Ross, William

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Willey, Frederick

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Stones, William

Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. it. (Vauxhall)

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

Short, Edward

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

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Swingler, Stephen

Woof, Robert

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Sylvester, George

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Mr. Mellish and

Small, William

Thornton, Ernest

Mr. Charles Panned,

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, 8.)

Timmons, John

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Goodhart, Philip

McMaster, Stanley R.

Aitken, W. T.

Goodhew, Victor

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Allason, James

Cower, Raymond

Madden, Martin

Barlow, Sir John

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Maginnis, John E.

Barter, John

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Maitland, Sir John

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Marmingham-Butler, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Bell, Ronald

Grimston, Sir Robert

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Marten, Nell

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Finn)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Berkeley, Humphry

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Bidgood, John C.

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Mawby, Ray

Bishop, F. P.

Harvle Anderson, Miss

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Black, Sir Cyril

Hastings, Stephen

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

Bossom, Clive

Hay, John

Mills, Stratton

Bourne-Anon, A.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Montgomery, Fergus

Box, Donald

Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hendry, Forbes

Noble, Michael

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Nugent, Sir Richard

Bryan, Paul

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Bullard, Denys

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

Bonus, Wing Commander Erie

Hirst, Geoffrey

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hobson, John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

Holland, Philip

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Hollingworth, John

Partridge, E.

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hopkins, Alan

Peel, John

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Paton, John

Cary, Sir Robert

Hughes Hallett, Vloe-Admiral John

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Channon, H. P. G.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pitman, I. J.

Chataway, Christopher

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pitt, Miss Edith

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pott, Percivall

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Iremonger, T. L.

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Cleaver, Leonard

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Prior, J. M. L.

Cole, Norman

Jackson, John

prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Cooper, A. E.

James, David

proudfoot, Wilfred

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Corfield, F. V.

Jennings, J. C.

Rawlinson, Peter

Coulson, J. M.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Rees-Davies,W. R.

Cunningham, Knox

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Renton, David

Curran, Charles

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Currie, G. B. H.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Robertson, Sir David

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kershaw, Anthony

Roots, William

Dance, James

Kirk, Peter

Russell, Ronald

d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kitson, Timothy

Scott-Hopkins, James

de Ferrantl, Basil

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Sharples, Richard

Dlgby, Simon Wingfield

Leavey, J. A.

Shaw, M.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Leburn, Gilmour

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

du Cann, Edward

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Skeet, T. H. H.

Duthie, Sir William

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Eden, John

Lindsay, Martin

Speir, Rupert

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Elliott,R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)

Litchfield, Capt. John

Stodart, J. A.

Emery, Peter

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Longbottom, Charles

storey, sir Samuel

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Longden, Gilbert

Summers, Sir Spender (Aylesbury)

Farr, John

Loveys, Walter H.

Talbot, John E.

Fell, Anthony

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Finlay, Graeme

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Teeling, William

Fisher, Nigel

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Fraser, lan (Plymouth, Sutton)

MacArthur, lan

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Galbraith, Hon. T. C. D.

McLaren, Martin

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Gammans, Lady

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Gardner, Edward

Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.)

Turner, Colin

Gibson-Watt, David

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Clover, Sir Douglas

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

1432

1433

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Whitelaw, William

Woodnutt, Mark

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Woollam, John

Wall, Patrick

Williams, Paul, (Sunderland, S.)

Worsley, Marcus

Ward, Dame Irene

Wills, Sir Gerald (Brdgwater)

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Watts, James

Wise, A. R.

Sir Henry Studholme and

Webster, David

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Sir James Duncan.

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Woodhouse, C. M.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1960-61; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1961–62, AND ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61; ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1961–62; WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1961–62; AIR ESTIMATES, 1961–62, AND AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960-61; CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESS), 1959–60; ARMY (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES) ESTIMATE (EXCESS), 1959–60
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS
    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1960–61

      CLASS I
      VOTE 13. GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961, for a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund.
      4.56 p.m.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. You will be aware that yesterday we were in Committee of Supply and the Motion to report Progress was moved when I was in the middle of a speech. We were then dealing with the Army Estimates. I should like to ask you, at what stage the discussion on the Army and the Air Force Estimates will be resumed? There is the unprecedented state of affairs that the whole of the Votes on the Army and the Navy Estimates remain to be discussed. In view of the fact that they amount, in all, to over £1,000 million, I should like to know when discussion will be resumed.
      The Chairman: That is not a point of order.
      Mr. William Baxter: Further to that point of order. To whom is the point of order raised by my hon. Friend to be directed?
      The Chairman: I have already pointed out that it was not a point or order.
      Mr. Baxter: On a point of procedure. May I point out this matter of expenditure on the Army and the Air Force has not been discussed by this House as a Committee?
      The Chairman: That is not a point of order. Mr. Mitchison.
      Mr. Charles Loughlin: On a point of order. The point on which we are getting in some confusion is when these Estimates are to be discussed.
      The Chairman: I have already said that is not a point of order.
      Mr. Hughes: As a matter of information, may I ask you, Sir Gordon, when Ifhis discusstion is likely to come on?
      The Chairman: Mr. Mitchison.

      GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY
      4.58 p.m.
      Mr. G. R. Mitchison: This is a Supplementary Estimate for the Government Hospitality Fund. It does not represent all Government hospitality. It is a separate fund designed to provide hospitality for overseas visitors of Ministerial status. As a matter of fact, as the Treasury witness said, it also includes hospitality for delegates from the Inter-Parliamentary Union; but it is for guests of Ministerial status. There are. of course, other sources of Government hospitality, and some years ago, in the summer of 1949, the Select Committee on Estimates reported generally on Government's hospitality, including both this Fund and other sources, in its

      1435
      Ninth Report. Indeed, if one looks in the Estimates for this year, the British Council, for instance, accounts for about £18,000 of official hospitality.
      This Supplementary Estimate is very remarkable from many points of view. First of all, it represents no less than half of what the original Estimate was. The position at present therefore is that the Government Hospitality Fund estimates its out-turn—this is on page 113 of the Report—at £70,000 provided by the original Estimate, £35,000 for which it is asking today and £10,000 brought forward from the previous year. That sum of £115,000 compares, so far as Estimates and Supplementaries are concerned, with £55,000 only in 1956–57 and £70,000 in 1959–60. Therefore, there has been a very marked increase—a matter of doubling the Estimate, or nearly so—in a comparatively short period of about four years. Naturally enough, the Estimates Committee inquired about this.
      I ought to say at once that I feel sure that I am speaking for both sides of the Committee when I say how grateful we are to the Estimates Committee for work it has done on this occasion and for the work it does generally. Further, I hope I am again speaking for everyone when I say that I believe this is the first case of what had to be a rather rapid examination of the Supplementary Estimates by the Estimates Committee; and the Report that it has produced on this occasion, while it is not perhaps as detailed as it would be if the Committee had had rather longer for the work, is certainly a most useful and timely contribution, and one, whatever our views on the merits, that we all appreciate.
      As I say, the Estimates Committee examined the matter. The first question was to find out who was, in fact, responsible for the original Estimates. The Committee then came across a very curious state of affairs. Apparently the Minister of Works but not the Ministry of Works is responsible. The Treasury does not control the expenditure, and nobody except the Secretary of the Fund knows what expenditure is likely in the future. The Treasury prepares the Estimate. A bigger confusion is hardly possible.
      1436
      The Minister of Works owes his very remarkable position to an even more remarkable accident which appears in the evidence. Some time ago when there was neither a Labour nor a Conservative Government in power, there happened to be a Commissioner of the Office of Works —a man who was very suitable for this job in those days in 1908. This curious statement appears in answer to Question 155. It was Mr. Harcourt, known to his intimates, I believe, as "Lulu". Mr. Harcourt apparently just fitted the bill. One does not quite know why, but it is perhaps rather late in the day to inquire. That, at any rate, is why the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works is sitting here today. This is a function which he exercises entirely on his own. His Ministry is not allowed to help him. He sits there and he directs, with the assistance of the Secretary of the Fund, who is now Brigadier McNab, what is going to be done about it. No doubt, Ministerial decisions are followed, but it is a very remarkable arrangement.
      Question 154 in the Minutes of Evidence which appears in the First Report from the Estimates Committee says:
      "So it is the Secretary of the Fund "—
      that is, Brigadier McNab at the moment—
      "dealing direct with the Treasury, but the Minister of Works takes the responsibility for submitting this Estimate to the Treasury?"
      The answer is:
      "And far authorising the expenditure. If, for example. there is a question of a Conference to be held—supposing the Board of Trade are holding a Conference on some matter and want Government Hospitality money used for it, then it is for them to get in touch with the Minister of Works and get his authority."
      The next Question is a very natural one:
      "Could I ask whether Mr. Clarke "—
      that is the name of the Treasury witness—
      "thinks there is any sense in the Minister of Works having any responsibility in the matter at all?"
      The questioner was giving voice to my own comments on the matter. The answer was:
      "Well. I think it is absolutely essential for a Minister to be responsible in this field. because it is eminently a political subject."

      1437
      I suppose that is one point of view.
      "We are dealing here with the entertainment of visiting Ministers, normally by Ministers in this country; so it has to be Ministers."
      Let us see what has happened about it. As to this Estimate, the Treasury witness was naturally asked, "How did you light on this figure?" In answer to Question 127 he said:
      "We put it up in 1959–60 from £55,000 to £70,000 "—
      That was the figure in the preceding year—
      "and we just felt that we could not put it up again."
      That is a very odd way of arriving at an Estimate. I understand what the witness meant, but it is certainly a curious method of doing it.
      In that Report there is reference in paragraph 31 to a similar answer by the same witness when they had arrived at a figure on "the general ground of trying to keep down the level of the Estimate." One understands the desirability of keeping the expenditure down—that is a very right and proper thing to do—but whether the right way of keeping expenditure down is to keep the Estimate so low that it is extremely unlikely ever to meet the requirement, is another matter. That is the point that we have got to consider.
      As I say, the total Estimate was £70,000. We are now asked for an additional £35,00, and we are told that it cost more than was expected. We are also told in the evidence that this was a question of there being more countries to entertain—for instance, additional countries in the Commonwealth, and others —more conferences and visits of all kinds, and it was not a question of any significant rise in price or in the scale of entertainment. I accept that. It was not disputed.
      But when one looks into the matter there are certainly some difficulties. The increase is £35,000, and of that £5,000 is said to be accounted for by the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference. The £16,000 increase is said to be accounted for by three State visits, and the State visits are to be compared with the State visits which occurred in the previous year. On page 116 of the Report one finds what happened in the previous year. There was one State visit by the Shahanshah of Iran, and it cost a matter
      1438
      of over £4,000. In those circumstances, what they originally estimated for the three State visits was apparently £7,000. That seems somewhat inadequate by comparison with the previous year. But when we add the increase and we come to what is contemplated in the out-turn we then discover that for three State visits £23,000 is going to be the cost. That is just about double what the one State visit in the previous year cost. Goodness knows how those figures have been arrived at, or whether, indeed, there has been any serious attempt to estimate at all beyond just sticking to the figures for the previous year.
      If one turns from that to see what happened in the previous year one finds that ten Heads of Governments, including the Ruler of Dubai, were entertained, and there were two Ministerial conferences, one of Commonwealth Finance Ministers and the other the N.A.T.O. Atlantic Congress. Then there were two other Ministers, including the Afghan Minister of Works, and a curious and unnumbered collection of Latin-American Ministers who appear to have paid a visit together. There were five Parliamentary delegations. Really there was quite a lot in the previous year, and one would have thought that this would have covered everything.
      Then when one looks at the cost of all this there are some puzzling figures indeed. The item that has kept fairly steady is the cost of a visit of Commonwealth Finance Ministers. For some curious reason they cost only £4,500. But when we come to Commonwealth Prime Ministers they tot up to £26,000. Are the Finance Ministers naturally more careful of money and do they not spend it in so lavish a way?
      When one goes down the list one sees the various people involved. Among others, there are five Parliamentary delegations. I am not saying that the hospitality is misplaced but only that it is extremely difficult to get any sense out of it. At the bottom of the page, very nearly the last item, to take an instance or two, we see that the Prime Minister of Japan cost £1,200. The Ruler of Dubai cost £917 and the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic £813. But the whole lot of the Latin American Ministers only amounted to £623. They

      1439
      seem to have done rather badly out of the Government's hospitality.
      I am sure that all this is perfectly explicable. I am merely saying that we have not an explanation, or anything like one, in the accounts. One requires an explanation, and rather a full one, before one can understand how any proper estimate can possibly have been made of what was to be incurred under the £70,000.
      Mr. Ellis Smith: Can my hon. and learned Friend say what the wines and cigars cost?
      Mr. Mitchison: I am coming to that. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's sharp eye has noticed a significant difference. In the previous year, wines, spirits, cigars and cigarettes accounted for a considerable expenditure—between £15,000 and £16,000 in that year—but the significant difference in the out-turn this year is that the cigars and spirits have disappeared and that the wines and cigarettes and administrative expenditure amount to a little more than in the previous year when spirits and cigars were included. What has happened about the spirits and cigars? We should like to know about them. The right hon. Gentleman will find the difference between the out-turn indicated on page 113 and the other on page 116. I do not know who got them or how much. That is another matter.
      Mr. Ellis Smith: Who gets invited?
      Mr. Mitchison: I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his own speech in a minute or two.
      There is another thing in the accounts which is particularly puzzling. The total for 1959–60, upon which this was founded, was just short of £72,000. No less than £24,000 of that appears as
      "Other visits of various foreign representatives, missions, etc."
      I hope that it is a Ministerial "etc." It must be to be in the fund. It is surely rather a rude way of describing a Minister to call him an "etcetera." We particularly note the Afghan Minister of Works. With great respect to a friendly foreign Power he is not necessarily always a man of overwhelming importance, but some Ministers get relegated to "etc." and "foreign repre-
      1440
      sentatives. The ruler of Dubai gets a specific mention, but why do not the foreign representatives of Ministerial status, because that is what they must be? As to missions, a whole mission of Ministers, or at least a mission headed by a Minister, appears to have been left out. What does it mean? It is about a third of the total.
      When we come to the out-turn of the year things get worse. The out-turn is going to cost altogether £115,000, the figure I gave first. Over one-third of that, no less than £40,000, is devoted to the somewhat cryptic item
      "Various other functions and visits"
      What does that mean? What are they going to do?
      We are now getting on to the end of the financial year 1960–61 and this Report was ordered to be printed on 1st March. When the Government come here as they are coming now and ask for a Supplementary Estimate which amounts to 50 per cent. of what they asked for originally, and when all that they can say about the system of accounting is what I have read out in evidence—all that we desire to investigate is the arrangement which began with Mr. "Lulu" Harcourt and which culminates with the right hon. Gentleman before me —one does not wonder that the Estimates Committee asked for an inquiry. If ever an inquiry was needed I should think it was now.
      As long ago as the last inquiry people said, "Is this not rather a funny way of doing things?" That is the Ninth Report which I mentioned a little time ago. The Government's answer was "Yes, it is a very funny way, but the odd thing is that it works." Now it does not seem to work. The Government, having estimated at £70,000, have now to come back and ask for an additional £35,000, even though they had £10,000 carried forward from last year. Though the sums involved are not as large as some with which we deal, this really is an administrative arrangement that looks remarkably odd and which clearly is not working at all.
      I appreciate that there are difficulties about this, about foretelling what is going to happen, difficulty in estimating costs to a nicety, but surely something better could be done than simply to take the figure for the previous year because

      1441
      there is nothing else to take and to justify it, in the words of the Committee, by saying that one has done it
      "on the general ground of trying to keep the level of the Estimate down."
      I hope that the Government are going to promise us an inquiry and that they will remember that what they are inquiring into is, in the words of the Treasury witness, a matter of Ministers, if I may put it that way, and that therefore it is one about which they should be particularly scrupulous and particularly ready with sufficient explanations.
      5.18 p.m.
      Sir Spencer Summers: It so happens that I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee which looked into this subject. I wish at the outset to say how much all of us appreciate the remarks which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr., Mitchison) has just made about the operation we undertook. I hope that the selection of this Vote, which we went into in some detail, though not in as much detail as we would have wished had we had more time, and the selection of the other two Votes, which we did not examine in detail, will not be regarded as sufficient in themselves to dispose of the Report.
      There are a number of points of broad principle which cut right across this and other Estimates, but with which I do not think it would be in order for me to deal today. I hope that some way may be found for an opportunity to discuss these general points of principle.
      We recommended an inquiry into the operations of this Fund, and I confess that I find no fault with the arguments which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just advanced in support of the proposition that the facts laid before us warrant an inquiry. I would, indeed, add one more point to those made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. When in answer to a question about why the Estimate was not more accurate in the event, a witness—I am looking at the left-hand column, about two-thirds of the way down, on page 41—said:
      "We do not like increasing the Estimate because, of course, that would make the departments which are really responsible for arranging the visits and so on feel perhaps that there was an easier situation."
      1442
      In other words, if we forecast that more money might be spent the Departments would spend it. That is certainly no satisfactory reason for keeping an estimate below a certain level when the facts available at the time the Estimate was compiled suggest that it should be considerably higher.
      I was also glad that the hon. and learned Member said that he did not seek to challenge the scale upon which hospitality was provided by Her Majesty's Government. It is very important that outsiders, and especially the Press, who may read the report of this debate, should not draw the inference that we are seeking to diminish the scale of hospitality we provide for visitors from overseas. That is quite different from saying that at the time the Estimates are presented provision should be made for a satisfactory scale of hospitality.
      It would be foolish for us, on the one hand, to say that there was no time available in which to report fully on this subject and that an inquiry was therefore desirable, and, on the other, to continue by pointing out all the things that the inquiry might produce as a result of a study of the subject. Nevertheless, there are one or two points that I should like noted for consideration by that inquiry, if it takes place. Like the hon. and learned Member, I hope that the Government will announce that an inquiry into the subject will be instituted.
      Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that I did not challenge the scale of expenditure. On the other hand, I did not say that I accepted it. I simply do not know. All I took note of was that there had been no substantial change—and that went beyond the preceding year, back into previous years.
      Sir S. Summers: We were told definitely that the increases over the years were predominantly due to the increased number of visits which it had been thought proper to arrange.
      There is one point which, although not of very great substance, is not clear to me, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify it, if not now, at some other time. If he could do that he would

      1443
      be rendering a service. I refer to the items which are part and parcel of the cost of providing Government hospitality but are not directly in the Vote. I should like to read an extract from the evidence which makes the position extremely confusing, to say the least. A question was asked about the effect of the figures to which I am now referring, and the answer was:
      "These are purely calculated figures of what the allied services are. They do not represent other expenditure on Government Hospitality; they represent services performed by the other departments for the Government Hospitality Fund"
      That answer seems to be a complete contradiction in terms. I do not want to take up time on it at the moment. I merely allude to it in the hope that we may have some clarification of the matter, because the sums deployed in other Departments are equivalent to almost half the total sum for which porvision is made under the direct heading of Government hospitality.
      I turn now to the constitutional position, to which reference has been already made. It was made quite clear that if the Secretary of the Fund—if that is the right term—feels it necessary to consult somebody to decide whether a request put to him should or should not be carried out, in practice he goes to the Treasury. Before he can implement either his own ideas or ideas reinforced by advice he requires the authority of a Minister, and it is clear that the Treasury is regarded as the Department most likely to give constructive advice, based on precedents, and matters of that kind. Therefore, but for the point about having a referee between Ministers, there would seem no advantage in putting the Minister of Works into this position, especially if fm is to be denied the resources of his Ministry in discharging his rôle.
      A point is reached when, superficially, it may be asked, "Why does not the Treasury do this?" I admit that there may be a need for someone of Ministerial status to stand up to a Department whose Minister wants something arranged through the Fund which is thought unreasonable in the light of other claims made upon it. Why, therefore, should not the Treasury be the Ministry responsible—especially as it is
      1444
      the source of wisdom on the subject and finally presents the accounts to Parliament? I am aware that it has been the expressed view of the Select Committee on more than one occasion—and I believe that this view is shared in the Treasury—that it is not normally desirable for the Treasury, as such, to sponsor expenditure. The Treasury provides the watchdogs and should be the screen through which other requests are passed before being presented to Parliament. Therefore, on the straightforward issue whether a Treasury Minister should be substituted for the Minister of Works, I would say "No".
      Nevertheless, I hope that consideration will be given to adopting a rather different approach to this aspect of the matter, in which the Treasury might play a role less in conflict with the argument to which I have just referred. In cases where there is a universal interest and also an individual interest it is common for a 50–50 basis to be introduced in relation to the provision of money for a specific object. It is not unknown for a Government to say that they will make a grant £ for £, so that if some cause has raised £1 elsewhere it can look to a comparable £1 from Government sources. I have been wondering whether we ought not to introduce an element of self-interest into this Fund by asking Departments to take a share of the outcome of the opportunities they initiate for spending money through the Fund.
      If that were to be the only aspect to be considered it might be next door to impossible ever to arrive at an estimate of the total. There must be some coordinating influence. But we need not violate the principle of Treasury screening if the Treasury were the provider of half the cost and the various Departments, according to what they wished to lay on, provided the other half. If that could be done we should get over the point made in the extract from the evidence which I read earlier, namely, that we had better not put the estimate up because Departments would spend the money if we did.
      If Departments had to provide up to half the cost the risk alluded to would not exist, because the brake of self-interest would apply. I hope, therefore, that the point that I have put, among other matters which are probably the concern of whoever is to be responsible

      1445
      for these matters, will be examined, because the system as it now operates is not satisfactory, and a better result may be derived after a study of the subject.
      5.29 p.m.
      Mr. E. Shinwell: For many months now the group associated with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) have threatened us with a very close analysis—a serious investigation—of the subject of the control of Government expenditure. How often we have been threatened. Naturally, some of us anticipated a lively debate, with tense excitement in this Committee—but just look at it! Where is that party now? Perhaps later we may have some explanation of the absence of the rebellious group —almost an anti-Government group—associated with the noble Lord and some of his hon. Friends—
      Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at the Order Paper? The first item is Government business; the second is our own business.
      Mr. Shinwell: Of course I have looked at the Order Paper, and, if I may say so, that was a most irrelevant and unnecessary interruption. The noble Lord will no doubt have his say later, but I hope that he will then be supported by those hordes whom we expected to meet on this occasion and who were to make such a vicious attack on the Government on the subject of the control of Government expenditure. Of course, they may appear later on—who can tell? On the other hand, they may not—
      Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to speak for long?
      Mr. Shinwell: I may not occupy the attention of the Committee for as long as the noble Lord does, but when I do it is obviously with greater advantage to hon. Members. However, that is not the subject of this debate.
      I know very little about the operations of the Estimates Committee and its various sub-committees, but their efforts deserve the highest commendation. It appears to me that the Estimates Committee and the various sub-committees of the Estimates Committee propose, but it
      1446
      is for this Committee and, subsequently, for the House to dispose, and that very rarely happens. Most of the effort of the Estimates Committee is lost in the course of time simply because very little attention is paid to its reports and observations, not only by the Government but by a very large number of hon. Members—
      Sir S. Summers: Including the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps, but I am now about to dilate on one aspect—
      Sir S. Summers: I made that observation because the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he knew next to nothing about the functions of the Estimates Committee—
      Mr. Loughlin: That is his modesty.
      Mr. Shinwell: I have such faith in the Estimates Committee that I take it for granted. I am ready to admit that the subject before the Committee appears on the surface to be one of hardly any significance, but what are the facts? The fact is that this is a fictitious statement on the subject of Government hospitality. Indeed, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) demonstrated that it was so.
      Almost every Government Department has its hospitality fund. I know that because I have been in Government on several occasions—Labour Governments, of course; at the War Office, at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the old Mines Department, the Ministry of Defence—they all have funds of their own of which they can dispose for the purpose of extending hospitality. If I understood the hon. Member for Aylesbury aright as saying that some advantage would accrue from co-ordination, I would certainly subscribe to the proposal that there should be co-ordination of all Departments in the provision of hospitality extended either to overseas visitors or to people in this country, whoever they may be.
      I am not very much concerned, quite frankly, about the amount proposed to be extended. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will not misunderstand me when I say that I am not very concerned about the expenditure of an

      1447
      additional £35,000, if it is wisely expended. I raise no objection at all to entertainment provided for overseas visitors, no matter where they come from —I think that it is all to the good—'but I do raise some objection to the manner in which hospitality is disposed of to people in this country.
      I am a regular reader of The Times—I am one of the top people—but I also read other periodicals. I gather from The Times and from the Daily Telegraph—from what are called the "Society Notes", which refer to luncheons, dinners and receptions provided out of the various hospitality funds at the disposal of the Government—that many people are invited—
      Mr. Ellis Smith: Including the Whitehall ladies.
      Mr. Shinwell: I want to make it quite clear beyond peradventure that I make no complaint at all that I am not frequently invited to these functions. I utterly detest receptions of any kind. I am not interested in a glass of sherry—my tastes lie in a more spirited direction. As for the opportunity to engage in conversation at such receptions—well, it is hardly possible. No sooner does one engage in conversation with some foreign potentate whom one meets quite fortuitously—and who, if he happened to know whom one was, would step aside—than someone takes him by the arm and that conversation, however important it may be, is interrupted.
      No—receptions are out. I want to say quite clearly to any representative of the Foreign Office or of any other Government Department, "Please don't invite me to any of your receptions." I add that I have no desire to be invited to any of their luncheons—they are usually a very poor show anyhow. Besides, one finds oneself with people on the right wing and on the left wing who are usually utter bores.
      There is a well-known story for which the historian Macaulay is responsible—and this is not entirely irrelevant to the subject of hospitality. Macaulay wrote about being at some dinner in his day, when his neighbour on the left was a stern-visaged old gentleman with mutton-chop whiskers. Macaulay could not get a word from him, no matter how
      1448
      hard he tried, and came to the conclusion, as one does in such circumstances, that the old gentleman was one of those strong, silent men, but obviously very wise. Suddenly the butler placed on the table a tureen of dumplings, and the old gentleman said, "Them's the puddens for me." That is the sort of thing that can happen.
      The fact is that the people one meets at these functions are usually utter bores. I remember an occasion when I had to dine—I think that it was at the Embassy in Washington. On my left was Mrs. Truman, and on my right was the wife of the Bishop of Washington. I engaged in conversation with Mrs. Truman but all she could talk about was her church in Alabama. After a while I thought that the other Lady, being the wife of the Bishop of Washington, would be more interesting. Hon. Members can imagine the nature of that conversation. I gave it up. That is why I do not wish to be invited to any of these functions. So I declare my interest in the matter.
      Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: We have had a most interesting chapter from the right hon. Gentleman's autobiography. Does he remember an occasion at Lancaster House when I was in The chair and he was a guest at lunch and he gave us a most interesting description at some length of his journey to Australia?
      Mr. Shinwell: That is a demonstration of my versatility. I do not see why the hon. Member should complain about that. If at any time I should be invited to give a description of some of my tours, which, I assure the hon. Gentleman, are infrequent, I shall be glad to comply with any request that is made to me.
      I read in the newspapers about the people—not overseas visitors—who are invited to these functions. I raise no objection to their presence and the entertainment provided for them, however lavish, although it ought not to be too lavish. But who are the people who are invited to these functions? Even this morning in The Times, I read a report of one of the functions to which certain people were invited. Usually, they are either plutocratic or autocratic nonentities or highly-placed civil servants object to civil servants having free meals—
      Mr. Ellis Smith: There are a few Privy Councillors
      Mr. Shinwell: That may well be, but I am not one of them. Concerning free meals- make this suggestion to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has a part to play in these affairs-1 recommend luncheon vouchers for them; but they ought not to be in excess of about 5s., otherwise they would be subject to taxation. I would rather give them luncheon vouchers than invite them to these dinners and luncheons when they are not required to be there.
      I would not mind so much if the right people were invited to these functions. Whom do I mean by the "right people"? We talk about this being a democratic country and we heard a great deal earlier this afternoon about this being a democratic assembly. I want people who really matter to be invited to these functions. For example, how is it that so few trade union people are invited? What is wrong with them? Are they untouchables? [Interruption.] There is nothing out of order in that. As far as I know, I am not out of order while we are discussing the kind of people who should be availing themselves of the hospitality which is provided out of this fund. Surely, that cannot be out of order. If the noble Lord has a point to raise—
      Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. I do not want to be a spoilsport, and I have been listening, as the whole Committee has been, with great enjoyment to the right hon. Gentleman's stories. They cannot go on indefinitely, however, can they, Dr. King, because of what Erskine May says on the subject—that is, that provided the increase in the Supplementary Estimate is not a sum equivalent to or greater than the original Estimate, the discussion must be confined to the specific reasons why the increase has taken place, and a general discussion of the policy of the Government on entertainment cannot be undertaken.
      The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has said nothing yet which is not in order.
      Mr. Shinwell: The noble Lord has been barking up the wrong tree. Later, he can declare his interest. I am sure that he would love to have a free meal
      Mr. Ellis Smith: He does not need one.
      Mr. Shinwell: He does not have £24,000 a year. He is not one of the "boys" now about to get a good job. However, I will not say more about that.
      I come now to the real point of substance. I am serious about this. I do not object to these functions if they are made more democratic in their nature, if the right people—perhaps that is not a proper description; if a cross-section of the public is invited. There are people in the professions—medical, legal, teaching, nursing. and so on—and in the trade union movement who should be invited to meet these foreign potentates so that they do not get a wrong idea of what the country is like.
      Very often, what happens is that somebody comes from overseas, he meets the highly-placed civil servants, the generals, the air marshals and the Lords of the Admiralty and what have you, or he meets some highly-placed Members of Parliament, even Privy Councillors, and he gets a wrong idea of what the people are like. It would be very useful from his point of view, it would enhance his knowledge of the country and it would illuminate his intelligence, if he met ordinary people who are representative of the country in industry, in the professions and in the trade union movement. I hope that that will happen in the future.
      Mr. Edward du Cann: I, too, am listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. If it is his point that this is never done at all, it is my understanding that it is very often done. If it is his point that it should be done more, it would be helpful if he could describe what is done now by comparison with 'what he thinks should be done.
      Mr. Shinwell: I am very sorry, but according to the reports I read in the newspapers—as far as I know, they are accurate and complete, furnishing a list of the people who are invited to attend —very seldom are trade union people invited. I am speaking not merely of trade union leaders, but of ordinary people. It might be very useful, if a potentate came from a foreign country—say from India, Russia or the United States, or it may be from Vietnam or some of the

      1451
      African dependencies and republics—if we invited a few miners and a few agricultural workers, just the ordinary people. That is the sort of thing I want to see. If that were done, I would raise no objection. I go further than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering. I would not object to spending more money on the entertainment of overseas visitors if at the same time opportunity were provided for them to meet a cross-section of our population.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): That is an unfair point. When I was at the Ministry of Education and foreign Ministers of Education came to this country, we were careful to see that representatives of all types of schools were invited to meet them. At one luncheon in particular which I recall with a senior member of the Russian Ministry of Education, we had the headmistress of one of the leading London comprehensive schools and the headmaster of a direct grant school. Departments take a great deal more trouble about the matter than the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Shinwell: I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. If I am not fully informed, that is my misfortune. I am rather inclined to think, however, that I am not far wrong. There may be occasional instances when people of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are invited, but I go even further than he has indicated. I would invite, not only the heads of comprehensive schools, the headmasters and so on, but occasionally the less important people.
      It is not altogether relevant. If I relate my experience of Government Departments. I always understood that it was customary for a Minister of Cabinet rank in a Government Department to treat only with high-ranking officials. They were the only people who were allowed to come into one's room and engage in conversation. I put a stop to all that. Had anybody written a memorandum or been associated with a memorandum or a report, I would want them to discuss it will; me. That is the sort of thing I should like to see done.
      I say these things not because I am disturbed that I am not invited—far from it. I hope that what I have said
      1452
      will make it clear beyond any possibility of doubt that if any invitations come in my direction, they will find their way into the wastepaper basket.
      5.50 p.m.
      Sir Richard Nugent: I listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and I felt that he really was making an unfair point when he complained that at these receptions the people are a collection of bores. We are greatly entertained when we listen to the right hon. Gentleman here. Why does he wish to deprive these parties of the pleasure of his wit? We are all well aware that these parties are no sinecures. We go because we are expected to entertain somebody. The people representing our Government are asked there because they are expectd to make overseas visitors feel at home, to entertain them, to inform them of what is going on here in general.
      I am with the right hon. Gentleman in supporting a generous allocation for Government hospitality for overseas visitors, and it is to that I wish to direct my remarks. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's experience of going to receptions of this kind must be the same as mine, and that one goes to them far more to do a job of work than to be entertained, because those receptions are simply a further extension of what one is doing in one's own Department. We are all very well aware of that. The idea that these parties are a sort of private junketings for the pleasure of Ministers at home is really a false image, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has very well made that point now.
      The point I want to make now is not to complain about the increased Supplementary Estimate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) and his colleagues who have given us the benefit of their Report for drawing attention to the weaknesses which there are in the machinery.. Of course, what it really calls attention to is the lack of policy behind the Government Hospitality Fund. The whole thing proceeds completely ad hoc and with the idea of getting away with the lowest amount of expenditure possible. That is a very good principle in terms of saving the taxpayers' money, but in terms of Government hospitality I believe that

      1453
      there is something of very great importance involved.
      We invite Ministers from overseas countries to come here for, I think, two reasons. First of all we wish them to enjoy themselves. We wish to strengthen the bonds of personal friendship between ourselves—our Ministers here—and them, and that means that they must be made to feel welcome, must be made to feel that we are extending to them our resources. That surely is of importance. Secondly, and what is of great importance, I think, is the question of prestige, so that our standards of entertaining here should be at least equivalent to what is done by our neighbours in other parts of the world.
      Anything I have to say is not in any way critical of what is done by the officials who are responsible. They really are the most skilful and dedicated people who manage continually to make bricks if not completely without straw very nearly completely without straw, and anything I have to say is not directed to them, but more to my right hon. Friend to do something on the lines I am about to suggest. My comments are directed to our lack of policy, a sort of traditional lack of policy: we in this country do not feel that this kind of hospitality really matters. Our general attitude is that we ought to get out of it just as cheaply as we can.
      Consider how we are treated when we go to other countries—to France, for instance, which is probably the host country par excellence, where meals, visits to art galleries, and to operas and theatres, visits of every sort and kind, are laid on on the most magnificent scale. Even quite simple things are laid on, but whatever is laid on is always laid on with real warmth and graciousness which leaves an impression on the visitor's mind which one never forgets. One feels that here is a country which has warmth of feeling, and all this is of great value which binds and strengthens bonds of friendship. In Russia one finds that whatever resources they have got are laid on for us, and though one may feel that one is disappearing under floods of caviare and that all the hospitality offered is almost more than one can take, one is left in no doubt whatever that whatever they have is laid on for us.
      1454
      We travel round the different capitals and we find that this matter of Government hospitality is regarded as something of importance, and that they really set out to leave on the minds of visitors the impression that they are warmly welcome and that all the resources of the country they are in are there to entertain them.
      When one turns to what can be done here, we see that £55,000 a year was provided and that it has gone up to £70,000. Really this is parsimonious.
      Mr. Mitchison: Not £70,000 but £105,000 a year.
      Sir R. Nugent: It has gone up in the Supplementary Estimate. I have no complaint about that. It may he that that should be the amount in the Estimate itself, and it may be that it should be more.
      Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington, I have no prospects in this matter of further meals to come or receptions to come; nor, hike him, do I wish to be invited. What I wish to do is to see that we as a country have a record of performance and a prestige which is at least comparable with that of our neighbours.
      I have recollections of receptions of visitors coming here, particularly at international conferences, where Ministers were put to every sort of shift and expedient in order to try to extend the exiguous allowance which was all the Minister of Works would allow them for those functions. That was not his fault. He had only a limited amount a year which he had to divide between the different Departments. I should not like to give all the details of all the things they had to do to try to put on a reasonable show, but I can recollect one of the conferences, it was the Conference of European Ministers of Transport, which took place about two years ago. That Conference moves round from capital to capital in Europe, and there, of course, comparisons are made, and it is mast important from the point of view of the prestige of this country that the receptions, the hospitality which we give here, should be at least comparable with what is put on in other countries. All that could be put at our disposal by the Minister of Works was so small that we could

      1455
      not begin to compare with other countries. We had to make every kind of shift and expedient to fill up the programme.
      We do not make use of the resources we have got. Here in London we have probably the best theatre in the world, but the most we ever offer of it to our guests is occasionally to take them to Covent Garden. They are never taken to the Old Vic, they are never taken to Stratford-on-Avon or any other theatre. A few hundred pounds spent on theatre tickets would make a great impression on our guests from abroad. In other countries they automatically show us the best they have. The first point I would make, therefore, is that we should make our Government hospitality comparable with that of our neighbours.
      The other point I would make briefly is on the question of wives accompanying Ministers when they are travelling abroad. Our general principle here is that when Ministers are invited abroad as guests of another Government the invitations are never for wives. It reminds me of the title of a current film, "Never on Sundays". As far as wives are concerned it is never at all. Our Ministers normally must travel alone. I can remember an incident when I was the guest of a Minister in France.
      Mr. John Eden: On a point of order. I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting him, but would you give your Ruling, Sir William, on whether it is in order in this short debate on Class I, Vote 13 to talk about the expenses incurred by Ministers of this country travelling abroad, accompanied or not, as the case may be, by their wives?
      The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that the hon. Member is correct in his point of order. I do not think that that is covered by the Supplementary Estimate which we are discussing, but I thought that the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), who has the Floor, would soon come back to the Supplementary Estimate. I am sure he will.
      Sir R. Nugent: Thank you, Sir William. I have no wish to trespass either on the time or the rules of order of the Committee. My point is strictly
      1456
      related to expenditure on Government hospitality. The point was that I was advised that I should not take my wife with me even if I paid her travelling expenses because it would create the liability that if a Minister in France was invited back here our Government would have to ask his wife as well. Could anything be more ridiculous than that? What we are trying to do in Government hospitality is to improve relations between countries. [An HON. MEMBER: "What if it is a Moslem country?"] The point is that we are not a Moslem country. Why should we practise a policy in this respect which is really part of the Dark Ages?
      I should like to know from my right hon. Friend whether as a general practice our standards of hospitality here are comparable with those of our neighbours in Europe. Is it not possible, without going into the very considerable length of a personal delegation to the Prime Minister, for Ministers when they are travelling abroad to have their wives with them? The wives play a very valuable part in this business.
      6.3 p.m.
      Mr. F. Blackburn: I shall not take mare than a few minutes because I know that there are other important subjects which must be debated today and that there are several hon. Members who are waiting to debate them. But I am glad of the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) and his Sub-Committee on the able Report which they have been able to produce at such short notice. As one who had some small share in the parentage of the idea that these matters should be submitted to the Estimates Committee, I am naturally interested in the result.
      I think that the Report is very valuable, not perhaps so much from the point of view of what is published in it this year but because of the effect that it may have on Estimates put forward in years to come. From this point of view alone the section on Government hospitality has been well worth while. The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that he hoped that this would not be the limit of discussion on the Report because there are other valuable points right through it.

      1457
      If we had only had this small section on Government hospitality in it, the Report would have been worthwhile because it brings out very clearly two points. First, there is the crazy position we now have in the matter of estimating and the responsibility of the administration for the set-up. The Minister of Works manages the Fund and he is the source from which the expenditure is authorised. The Treasury accounts for the Vote but does not control the expenditure.
      In practice, the Secretary of the Government Hospitality Fund, who is technically an officer of the Treasury, operates the Fund and he consults the Minister of Works as necessary. With the consent of the Minister of Works he makes suggestions for the Estimate and the Treasury lays it before the House of Commons. The Ministry of Works, as distinct from the Minister is not concerned with the matter at all.
      Could we have a crazier set-up than that? If the Minister has to manage the Fund the Ministry of Works should have some say in the Estimate that is presented. It may be that the Minister of Works is not anxious to have the job given to him, but if he has to administer the Fund there should be some say in the Estimate.
      The second point is the question of the Estimate itself. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) read from page 42 of the First Report from the Estimates Committee these words:
      "The reason why we stuck to £70,000 was on the general ground of trying to keep the level of the Estimate down."
      As my hon. and learned Friend rightly said, one does not keep expenditure down merely by keeping the Estimate down.
      We had a very shocking piece of estimating, because it was well known that the year would be one when there would be a larger number of visitors from abroad. There was no point in putting in a figure of £70,000 which was the figure for the year before. Underestimating to the extent of 50 per cent. is something which should not be tolerated in the House of Commons. I hope that one of the effects of this Report will be that more careful atten-
      1458
      tion will be given to estimating. I agree that in a matter of this kind it is not possible to estimate exactly what expenditure will be, but it is surely possible to get to a figure that is nearer the actual amount of expenditure than was the case in this Estimate of £70,000.
      I agree with other hon. Members that it is a great mistake that we should under-estimate or be parsimonious in this matter of Government hospitality. It is important to give a good impression to visitors from abroad. It is always the policy of the British Government to be parsimonious to their own members, but that does not necessarily mean that they must be parsimonious when they entertain visitors from abroad. It is most important that we should give a better impression. There are other important points on these Estimates that must be debated, but I wanted to have the opportunity of congratulating the Estimates Committee and I hope that the experiment which was carried out this year will be continued in future years.
      6.8 p.m.
      Mr. Edward du Cann: I suppose that anybody who made the point that we are spending a great deal of time talking about what is, after all, only a small amount of expenditure of about £120,000 might think that that was a good point. At the same time, the debate is extremely important because, as has been pointed out, this was an occasion when the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee looked at Supplementary Estimates—it had to do a great deal of work in a short space of time—and there are substantial lessons to be drawn from that exercise.
      I should like to reinforce strongly the plea which the Chairman of that Sub-Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), made when he suggested that further time might be given to debate the whole of the report of Sub-Committee G. Those of us who had the honour of serving on that Committee are convinced that there are a number of lessons which might be learned from the exercise. We should like the opportunity to make that point which we believe to be in the interest of the House of Commons as a whole.

      1459
      The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was perfectly right when he said that far too little attention was paid to these matters of expenditure. We think that there are ways in which Estimates are presented to the House of Commons which could well be improved and that the House should have the opportunity to know better the expenditure which it is sanctioning. I strongly hope, therefore, that what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said will be acted upon by the Government in due course.
      I also agree that there is a clear need for hospitality, and for generous hospitality at that. By all means let us not be lavish, but let us be reasonable. I hope that it will not be supposed that in criticising the way in which the Estimates have been prepared I am not cognisant of the need for hospitality. Indeed, I recommend it strongly, but it has been clearly shown that this increase in expenditure could have been very well foreseen because the visits concerned had been planned.
      The Report shows very clearly that a bad mistake was made in the way in which the original Estimate was presented. However small the amount, it is not satisfactory that Parliament should be expected to approve a Supplementary Estimate which is 50 per cent. out on the original Estimate. I do not think that this is an argument in favour of overestimating in advance, but I deplore the way in which this whole matter has been handled. Nevertheless, it has an advantage if it leads to economy and better estimating in the future.
      The point about the Government Hospitality Fund that we have to decide is that if we are to continue to have a fund who should control it. The historical basis under which the Minister of Works is responsible for it has been very well and clearly described by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). It is something which began in 1908, and is perhaps the first example of muddle associated with the whole business. What is even more remarkable is that when one comes to read the evidence in detail it becomes plain that the Treasury is saying, on the one hand, that this is exactly the job for the Minister of Works and yet, on the other hand,
      1460
      the representatives of the Ministry of Works, when questioned, said precisely the opposite. It is clear, in my judgment, however, that the Treasury, as a controlling Department, should not be responsible. Indeed, I have come clearly to the opinion that the best thing to do would be to disband the Fund altogether.
      A suggestion has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that perhaps the Fund could be administered in future on a kind of fifty-fifty basis. I think it would be very much better if we came to the opinion that in these modern days the Fund is unnecessary. It has already been pointed out that various Ministries are responsible for running their own hospitality fund. I suppose that all Ministries are. Besides that, there are bodies, such as the British Council, which do a great deal of useful and helpful entertaining of overseas visitors.
      Incidentally—again in reply to the right hon. Member for Easington, who made a most amusing speech—I was made aware only last night of an occasion during yesterday when trade unionists from the Argentine were being entertained in this House. I am satisfied that there is a much better two-way traffic of people who are not ambassadors and Ministers than the right hon. Gentleman, I think—perhaps not intentionally—represented to the Committee.
      When one turns to the operation of the Fund, it becomes most clear that the present situation is anomalous and can be cured only by the abolition of the Fund. As we understand it, for example, the persons who are entertained under the aegis of the Fund are those of Ministerial status or a party which is led by a Minister. That is plainly absurd. For example, a Minister of a tiny country may not be as important a person from the point of view of Britain, or may not be as important in himself as someone who is not a Minister but comes from a much bigger or a more vital country. To have a Minister as the criterion by which hospitality is judged in relation to the Fund seems to me ludicrous in this modern day and age. If we look at the schedules of the people who have been entertained the point is made extremely clear.
      A further example of muddle in relation to the administration of the Fund

      1461
      is indicated by the employment of the Secretary of the Fund. According to the Civil Estimates for 1961–62—I refer to Class I, Vote 3, Subhead A.1, VIII—we have the item "Government Hospitality" which shows that the salaries of the Secretary and two other executive officers total £5,900. I do not believe that those are the whole administrative costs of running the Government hospitality service. That point was brought out during our examination of witnesses in the Committee. To have a situation where the total costs of the Government Hospitality Fund are shown in different parts of the Estimates seems to be thoroughly misleading and unsatisfactory. The position is very far from being clear to Parliament. The Secretary, no doubt deservedly, has recently had an increase in his salary, upon which I congratulate him, because I am sure he works extremely hard and deserves every penny of it.
      I feel that one point which has emerged very clearly from our examination of the administration of the Fund and other supplementary Estimates in general is that Parliament is continuously faced with what might be called an "open end" position. Remuneration is referred to specifically in a number of paragraphs in the Report of Sub-Committee G. I should like in particular to call the attention of hon. Members to paragraphs 11 and, especially, 12. In paragraph 12 it is said:
      "The major increases in Civil Service remuneration affecting the Estimates in the financial year 1960/61 amount to some £27 million, of which f15 million (or more than half the total) is required to meet…retrospective …pay…awards."
      How on earth can Parliament know the bill with which it will be faced in the future if it is met with Supplementary Estimates to cover retrospective pay awards? I say nothing of the personal position of people who are awaiting those salary awards. In one case which was brought to our attention an award was backdated for three years. Let hon. Members consider the feelings of people employed by the Government who have had to wait three years for an increase in their salary. Let hon. Members consider the position when it is not known at any time how much money will be required in connection with expenditure
      1462
      for a certain Department where such pay claims are outstanding. Let hon. Members also consider the fact that there is no mention in the Supplementary Estimates of the fact that these pay claims are outstanding. Then one begins to see how unsatisfactory a picture in general we are getting in Parliament. With regard to the Government Hospitality Fund, salaries, as I have pointed out, come under a different subhead. That is unsatisfactory in itself.
      Turning to the scale of entertainment, I repeat that I am in favour of generous and reasonable hospitality, but when one examines some of the detailed figures over the years they really begin to make no sense at all. The visit of the Shah of Iran, whom we were delighted to see in the United Kingdom and who as an ally of ours we welcomed especially, cost us £4,300. The visit of the President of the United States cost us £2,300. What is the scale for arranging these matters? In 1957–58 the visit of the Canadian Trade Delegation cost us £8,500; in other words, half the cost of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference of the same year. It seems very curious.
      In 1958-59 the Baghdad Conference cost us £7,377, or nearly seven times the cost of the visit of the Chilean industrialists, more than three times the cost of the visit of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers and nearly seven times the cost, in 1959–60, of the visit of the N.A.T.O. Congress. There seems to be no rhyme or reason about these matters, and I think that we are entitled to ask what the scale is and what the desiderata are. How are these matters calculated? Certainly it is true that the whole subject is riddled with anomalies, and I think that is another reason for ensuring that individual Departments are responsible for their own hospitality.
      The only surprise, in my opinion, is that the Government Hospitality Fund does not contain a token Vote. Many of the Supplementary Estimates contain a token Vote whereby the sum of, perhaps, £10 is put down which purports to represent, and obtains Parliamentary approval for, a very much larger expenditure in the future—sometimes a quarter of a million, half a million or several million pounds. It is a most unsatisfactory way of doing things unless there

      1463
      is clearly stated somewhere in the individual Estimate the total of the eventual expenditure. How can one expect Parliament to know what it has to spend when one has a token Vote of £10 or £100 without the full amount being given somewhere in the Estimates so that the eventual expenditure can be foreseen?
      It is rather surprising, one might perhaps say with some irony, that there are no token Votes in this Estimate, because having regard to the way in which the costs of some visits were estimated—some estimates were wildly under the realised amounts—one would have assumed that it was normal practice to put in a token Vote. Those of us who have served on the Sub-Committee are only too grateful for the fact that this is one of the few Estimates in which token Votes do not appear.
      To sum up, I hope that the Government will agree to an inquiry into the administration of the Fund. In my opinion, it is riddled with anomalies and its control is thoroughly unsatisfactory. If an inquiry is not thought to be appropriate, I hope that my noble Friend will not mind if some of us press for it. Indeed, since we are talking of saving money, perhaps one of the best ways in which that could be done would be if we were to agree to abolish the Fund. I think that would be right, and I hope that in due time we shall have the opportunity to talk again and to talk more generally about the recommendations of the Sub-Committee which met to discuss these Supplementary Estimates.
      There is precious little sense in people doing that work, to which great tribute has most generously been paid this afternoon, if the Report subsequently is simply pigeon-holed. In my opinion, that would be an insult to the House in general and, in particular, to many hon. Members who have taken an interest in this debate this evening.
      6.21 p.m.
      Mr. John Eden: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has touched on a number of points which I had it in mind to mention myself, but since he has covered the ground so successfully, I will not follow fully the lines on which he spoke.
      I want to say at the outset through you, Sir William, to the official Opposition, in
      1464
      the person of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), how much I certainly appreciate the fact that the official channels chose for a debate this afternoon a subject which was one of the matters questioned in the Report of this Select Committee. Although a facade is given on the Order Paper to the effect that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had something to do with the selection of the subject for debate today, I appreciate that this was, in fact, the decision of the official Opposition, who, I am glad to say, quite clearly wanted to draw attention to the Report of the Select Committee on this subject. I am therefore grateful to them for engineering it in that way.
      I cannot say exactly the same thing or express the same sort of gratitude about the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who, quite clearly, is not part of the official channels of the Opposition, at any rate. It was certainly a most pleasant and agreeable speech, but I am glad to say that, in my experience so far of Government hospitality, I have been spared the somewhat dismal experience of seeing him like some wilting butterfly yawning his way from cocktail to cocktail, and I hope that if I am to share with him any sort of hospitality in the future, he will be in as lively and engaging a mood as he has been in entertaining the Committee with his anecdotes this evening.
      Mr. Shinwell: The fact is that I do not drink cocktails at any time. My taste lies in a more spirited direction.
      Mr. Eden: What was significant in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that, in his opening phrases, he devoted a certain number of sentences to making jibes at my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and others of my hon. Friends—
      Mr. Shinwell: No.
      Mr. Eden: —for the part they have played in trying to exercise their proper privilege as private Members in questioning the Government on details of that expenditure. And yet, in his speech, which was full of generalisations and longwinded accounts of his own personal opinions and his own personal feelings in this matter, he gave no indication that he for his part had the slightest concern

      1465
      about this great increase in Government expenditure.
      Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman is now attacking me, so that any commendations I have made of him in what I said previously I now withdraw. The fact of the matter is that I was not complaining either about himself or the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). What I said was that both of them had played some considerable part in threatening to raise the question of the exercise of Parliamentary control over Government expenditure, and we expected a large number of their supporters, when, at the time, there were only three or four here. I understand that now they have summoned up the reinforcements.
      Mr. Eden: What was particularly significant about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that it gave no indication at all whether or not he was concerned about Government expenditure, and, after all, this debate is one of the very few opportunities hon. Members have to question in detail the Departments concerned on the Estimates which they have presented to us for acceptance or rejection.
      I must say that I felt that his speech was an indication of the reason why I should like to depart a little way from what has become the generally accepted practice in leaving the choice of subject for these debates entirely to the Opposition. I think there is good ground indeed for bringing other hon. Members into this select little circle of official channels to have some say in what are the subjects to be discussed and debated.
      The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to myself and some of my hon. Friends who have staged a little exercise in which we have been assisted by a number of his own hon. Friends from the benches generally inhabited by them below the gangway. Although I do not see any single one of them in his place at the moment, I am nevertheless grateful for the fact that their names appear on the Order Paper and they have shown some indication of their appreciation of what we are intending to do; namely, to declare our belief that it is the right and duty of individual back-bench Members to question the expenditure—
      The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope he will remember that we are discussing Government hospitality on a Supplementary Estimate.
      Mr. Eden: I agree, Sir William, that we are discussing Government hospitality under Class I, Vote 13, which is the Vote which has been selected for discussion ostensibly on the decision of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In fact, as we all know, as a result of the practice which has grown up, this is the decision of the official channels of the Opposition. I was regretting by way of preamble to my remarks on Vote 13, that other hon. Members did not have the opportunity of debating the subjects in which they were concerned and interested, or rather that they did not—
      Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is surely quite out of order. I accept with gratitude his thanks for the selection of the subject for debate, but, surely, the subject having been selected, the hon. Gentleman must adhere to it?
      The Deputy-Chairman: What the hon. and learned Member says is quite correct. I was hoping that the hon. Member who has the Floor of the Committee would very soon come back to these Supplementary Estimates.
      Mr. Eden: Certainly, Sir William. I was not aware until I heard your Ruling that I had in fact left the subject under discussion. I was hoping to indicate that other hon. Members might have an opportunity at some further stage—perhaps next year or the year after or when it can be conveniently arranged—to be considered in the selection of these subjects for debate. I think that the most important point about the selection of this particular Vote—
      The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will leave this matter of selection and come back to the Supplementary Estimates. He has had quite a long run on the matter of selection, probably longer than I should have allowed him, and I hope that he will now come back to the points we are debating.
      Mr. Eden: I had actually left that point, and probably the reason why it was not clear to you, Sir William, was

      1467
      that I was not able to complete my sentence. The significance of this particular Vote 13 of the Supplementary Estimates lies in the fact that it shows a 50 per cent. increase over the year, and that is a point which has been made, but not sufficiently emphasised yet in the course of our debate. It is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, dramatic in itself, but it is a very substantial increase. A further point was made during the course of the references to this particular Vote in the Report of the Select Committee; namely, that this increase 'was due to Changes in circumstances, not of a policy nature.
      It is right that we should try, when commenting upon the increase, to examine how or why it has had to take place. The Treasury witness was extremely helpful to the Select Committee, and although some of his observations have been quoted as drawing attention to the fact that the question of Government expenditure on hospitality should be the subject of an inquiry, it should be on record that he went out of his way to assist the Committee in its discussions.
      In this respect, he presented us with a useful innovation by dividing up the various Votes into categories. Class I, Vote 13. falls into category C, which is referred to in paragraph 9 of the Select Committee's Report, from which one assumes that the 50 per cent. increase over the original Estimate is
      "…due to changes in circumstances not of a policy nature;"
      I shall not pursue that matter for long. but even that in itself could be questioned. It might be assumed that it was a policy decision or, as the witness said. a decision "eminently" of a political nature, to bring further visitors into this country, and it might also be assumed that this increase was, to some extent, due to rising cost, which is in category A. Categorisation of these facts is a useful exercise of real assistance by the Treasury, and I hope that the Treasury will take careful note of the recommendations in the Select Committee's Report that further categorisation should be introduced to see how much more accurately it can be done.
      1468
      My final observation on Vote 13 is to quote the words of the Treasury witness on page 41. He said:
      "There is quite a question here, as to what the right policy is: whether the right policy is to attempt to live on a reasonably even keel, and if you find that there are certain things happening which push the cost up, to go for a supplementary; or whether to have a bigger figure and take account of these things in advance."
      Neither of these courses is the right thing to recommend to Departments when preparing their Estimates. Departments should, as far as possible, present this Committee with an accurate estimate, properly worked out.
      One of the troubles about hospitality is that it is so difficult to forecast accurately in advance. It is much more difficult to bring under any form of control. If these observations apply particularly to Vote 13, I hope it will not be assumed that, whilst giving one's appreciation of that fact, one necessarily approves this sort of process being done in other cases. The more accurate the estimating in the first place, the better are the interests of this Committee served.
      6.32 p.m.
      Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) that, whenever possible, it is naturally desirable for a Minister to make as accurate an Estimate as possible. I also agree that in this case it is about as hard as it could be for the Minister to know what he is going to have to spend in any given year.
      The Supplementary Estimate is half as much again as the original Estimate. It seems to be a glaring discrepancy, but I think that this is a case where it is essential to have fluidity, and it is very much better that the Minister should have to ask this Committee for more money than that he should have asked for much more in the first place, and then have exposed himself to the temptation of working out ways of spending it all before the financial year in case he might not get as much again next time.
      Hon. Members have said a lot about the anomalous nature of this set-up, which dates back to 1908. It does, at first sight, seem extremely anomalous, but on the other hand, speaking from

      1469
      much experience of Government hospitality, both as a civil servant getting free meals—to which the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) objected so much—and later, as a Member of she House of Commons, my view is that the Fund works extremely well and that the Government are not really spending a great deal of money. That is what matters.
      I want to return to the question of fluidity. I read the other day that Her Majesty the Queen has invited the President of the Republic of India to visit this country. That is an invitation which I hope the President will accept. It will be a very great occasion, which will do a great deal to improve our relations with that very important member of the Commonwealth.
      That visit is something which presumably comes just as much as a surprise to the Minister of Works as it does to me. It is something which could not be foreseen. It is also very difficult to foretell how long an official visit should last. There has been a lot of talk about the visit of the Afghan Minister of Works, the visits of various Latin American Ministers and the money spent on those visits. But the fact is that some visitors stay longer, and others may have more expensive tastes.
      Mr. Mitchison: It was felt, as far as I can judge, that they had been rather badly done by.
      Sir F. Maclean: That may be because they have simple tastes.
      Mr. Mitchison: Have all Latin American Ministers simple tastes?
      Sir F. Maclean: I have never been there, so perhaps the hon. and learned Member has the advantage over me on that matter.
      I was also a little disturbed at the suggestion that the Fund should be abolished altogether, and that each Department should attend to its own hospitality. Some Departments do this job extremely well. Certainly the Army Council entertains on a very fine scale, and rightly so. But there are a lot of cases where one or two Departments would have to get together, and it would be difficult for them to decide which should undertake any given responsibility. The thing is done very much better under the present set up, which works extremely well.
      1470
      I am glad that no one who has spoken so far in the debate has seriously challenged the scale of expenditure. I should be glad to see that scale increase, because there is no doubt that official hospitality, like private hospitality, serves an extremely useful purpose in that it makes negotiations and contacts easier and friendlier. There is no doubt that other countries do these things extremely well, and it is most important that we should give as good as we get.
      Anyone who has been to the Soviet Union, or any of the other Communist countries, will know how lavish the hospitality of those Governments is. I have never been there, but I imagine that the same is true of China. One knows how many delegations from different countries are to be found wandering about the Soviet Union and being very hospitably treated and forming a very favourable, or more favourable, impression on account of that. Government hospitality is a very important weapon in the cold war, and it has the advantage over other weapons that it is both agreeable to use and to have used against one, which is more than one can say for most weapons.
      We should congratulate not only the Sub-Committee, but my right hon. Friend and his Department on the excellent work which they have done. Within the last year or so we have had some notable visits to this country. There is no doubt that the visit of the President of the French Republic was a great occasion and that it did an enormous amount of good in this country and in France. I hope that my right hon. Friend will go on from strength to strength, and I am sure that we should not begrudge him the very modest sums for which he asks.
      6.41 p.m.
      The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): It would not lie in the mouth of any Minister to complain in any way of a debate of this sort, and I certainly welcome this one very much. I have found it a great help, and the more carefully the Committee goes through Supply the better for the country. It does no Minister any harm to listen to that close examination, and I am extremely grateful to all those hon. Members for the trouble which they have obviously taken to study the matter before the debate. I add my humble words to those tributes

      1471
      already paid to the Estimates Committee for the great service it has rendered in conducting this examination.
      The Estimates Committee complained of our failure to make an accurate shot at this Estimate, but I draw attention to the remark with which it followed that complaint when it said that it appreciated that the Government hospitality Vote was concerned with a matter in which accurate estimating was peculiarly difficult. It is more than just difficult, and the Estimates Committee hit upon the exact phrase—" peculiarly difficult." I presume that by that the Estimates Committee meant what is, in fact, the case—that it is very difficult to get at any sort of criterion by which one can tell whether one will be accurate.
      Before giving the reasons for that, I want to say that the sum of £70,000 was thought to be realistic at the time. Whatever certain answers may have been taken to suggest, it was not a deliberate under-estimate. There was never any question of that, but I see nothing wrong in those concerned with public expenditure trying to keep it as low as is consistent with their duties.
      Mr. Mitchison: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has read the evidence of the Treasury witness who clearly said that the reason why the Treasury stuck to the figure of £70,000 was on the general ground of trying to keep the level of the Estimates down. That was quoted and accepted by the Estimates Committee.
      Lord John Hope: It was a realistic estimate which was formed on what I maintain to be the absolutely correct ground of trying to keep it as low as possible, and realistic.
      What are the reasons why making accurate estimates of this kind is so peculiarly difficult? These estimates have to be made about fifteen months ahead of the incidents or visits concerned, and very much can happen in that time. Not only can there be visits which at the time were altogether unexpected but the details may change considerably as the months go on. That is inevitable. For instance, it may be decided long after the estimate has gone in that there should be a gala perform-
      1472
      ance in connection with a visit, and that might account for another £3,000. It is easy for events to pile up on events when one is trying to plan so far ahead.
      One cannot be certain in every case how long a delegation will stay, or of how many people it will consist. That applies as much to visits of Heads of State as to delegations of a different sort. It is possible not to know whether the visiting Head of State will bring with him eight or ten people, or twenty or thirty, and yet an attempt has to be made to be accurate in the estimate even before one is anywhere near knowing what, in fact, is to happen.
      Mr. Blackburn: While we appreciate all the difficulties which the Minister is pointing out, does not the fact remain that the Government knew that the number of visitors from abroad was to be greater than in the previous year when they had estimated for £70,000?
      Lord John Hope: It is impossible to know by how much.
      Mr. Blackburn: But why use the same figure?
      Lord John Hope: This is an arguable proposition and I do not know which is the right answer—whether it is better to estimate over-high, in the belief that one will at least keep within the figure, risking a surplus, with all that that means, or being realistic within the framework and keeping as low as is reasonable and then asking for a Supplementary Estimate when events have caught one up. That is an arguable matter and what has been said today and what was said in the Report of the Estimates Committee will be carefully considered.
      I ask hon. Members to believe that this is not an easy problem and that the right answer is by no means self-evident. Abuses are possible whichever error is committed. Quite understandably, some hon. Members compared the cost of certain visits with certain others and said that there was no rhyme or reason why the expenditure in one case was so different from what it was in a comparable case, but what looks like a comparable case hardly ever is. For instance, during the debate a comparison was made between the visit of President Eisenhower and that of the Shah of Iran, the

      1473
      expenditure on President Eisenhower's visit being very much lower.
      I will not weary the Committee with a lot of these examples, but this example is interesting. President Eisenhower stayed at the United States Embassy, he was here for a very short time, there was no gala performance at Covent Garden and he stayed at his castle at Culzean in Scotland. In addition he used his own transport, that is, his own car and his own aeroplane. None of those factors obtained with the visit of the Shah.
      The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) compared the cost of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' visit with that of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers. The reason why the visit of the Prime Ministers was so much more expensive than that of the Finance Ministers was that the former comprised a total of 100 people who were here for two or three weeks, whereas in the latter case there were twenty-four people and they were here for six or seven days. One must obviously go into these details before one arrives at a hasty conclusion and says that there is muddle and apparently irreconcilable differences in the expenditure. I am not suggesting that the Committee indulged in that, but it was clear from the debate that hon. Members had not realised, indeed it was not easy to do so, where these differences lay and why.
      Mr. Mitchison: May I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I thought these differences were almost certainly explainable in the way he has indicated. All I said was that we had not the information about them. That is what the Committee said, and for that reason it asked for an inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman can save a lot of time and trouble if he simply says that he will accept the demand for an inquiry.
      Lord John Hope: All I can properly say is that in the ordinary and accepted way the request for an inquiry is being considered. I do not think that a Minister at this Box can accept such a request.
      Mr. Mitchison: Why not?
      Lord John Hope: It has never been done, and I do not propose to do it now.
      Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman knew that this debate was coming
      1474
      on. He has had every opportunity to consult his colleagues. He is the responsible Minister. Surely he ought to be in a position to say whether or not he can accept these recommendations. This is an unprecedented Report. This is the first we have had of its kind.
      Lord John Hope: It is an unprecedented debate. I was anxious to listen to it before making up my mind whether to accept a suggestion from a Report of the Committee.
      Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman's position is quite unprecedented except by his predecessors, including "Lulu" Harcourt who started it all.
      Lord John Hope: The more unprecedented it is, whether in terms of "Lulu" or not, the more reasonable it is for me to be given a minute or two after the debate to think things over. I do not think that the hon, and learned Gentleman will be disappointed at the end of the day by what is done.
      Mr. E. G. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman ought to take his courage in his hands and say that he will accept the recommendation.
      Lord John Hope: I am always prepared to respond to reasonable requests by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), and I will do my best to help.
      The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked about the discrepancy between two entries concerning cigars and spirits. I will let him know the details, but I think I am right in saying that it is different phraseology covering the same items.
      The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) asked if I could clear up this item on allied services. He was good enough to say that he would not press me for an answer now, and I will give him the full details later. However, here again I think I am right in saying that this heading is a fairly constant one and includes overhead charges, including Lancaster House, but I will let him know the full details to his question.
      I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury gave the right answer to the question, should this Fund be administered by a Treasury Minister?

      1475
      The answer he gave is hard to argue against. I am sure he is right that a Treasury Minister would not be the right person. I believe that other hon. Members made the same point. My hon. Friend referred to the various Departments sharing the cost. I wonder whether that would help Government hospitality in terms of efficiency and excellence? I do not believe that it would. Other Departments have their own entertainment bills. When it is a question of the Government entertaining, it is better that it should be centrally controlled. Who should control it is a matter of opinion, but it should be centrally controlled. It is a technique of its own, and we can attain and maintain the right standard only by having the same people doing it all the time.
      Sir S. Summers: My suggestion was not that the Departments should take over the cost of their hospitality but that they should share it. It would still be possible for the Treasury to co-ordinate what is done.
      Lord John Hope: If they share the cost, they would have to take a share in making the arrangements. For one thing it would mean that the wretched Financial Secretary would have to look through dozens of submissions on one small Vote. That would be difficult, and I am not sure that we should get the right result in the end.
      The speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was commented on in a lively and constructive way by many hon. Members, and I do not think that I am called upon to repeat any of those comments. It is not for me to decide who is to be asked to any function. That is decided by the Department concerned.
      Mr. Shinwell: That is what I want to get at. Who is responsible? Who decides who should come and who should not?
      Lord John Hope: The Department concerned. If it is a trade delegation, it is decided by the Board of Trade, and so on. Although it is not my responsibility, the right hon. Gentleman was inaccurate in what he said about the exclusion of trade unionists, but I will let that pass.
      Mr. Shinwell: If I am challenged about my comments, not on the exclusion but on the non-invitation of certain people, I shall have to table Questions to every Department and ask how many trade union leaders and trade union people have been invited to any of these functions. I will specify them and give the Government a great deal of trouble. Will the Minister at least say that he will use his influence with the various Government Departments as regards hospitality extended to people in this country to ensure that a cross-section of the community is invited to these functions, excluding me at all times.
      Lord John Hope: I will do my best to see that Ministers are aware of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and especially of his last request. As regards Questions to Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman can table as many as he likes. They will not concern me.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and other hon. Members paid tribute to the officials who help to run the Hospitality Fund, and particularly to Brigadier Macnab. I add my thanks to, and indeed my admiration for, the staff for what they do in this respect. It is a very difficult job. and I think that they do it extremely well, and always with the greatest Good humour.
      The hon. Member also asked whether we could not make our Government hospitality as good as that of other countries. I think that we do. I always thought, long before I had anything to do with it—so I claim no credit—that the quality of our Government hospitality, by Governments of both parties, has been extremely good in comparison with that of foreign countries. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) said that if the Minister of Works had to administer the Fund he should have something to do with the estimates. The question is, does he have enough to do already in terms of his executive responsibility? I honestly believe that he does. I know that every time a request comes in from a Government Department in respect of an entertainment I try to apply my judgment whether it is a reasonable request. I sometimes enter into correspondence or conversations with the Minister concerned to make sure, and it doer not

      1477
      seem relevant to suggest that I need go beyond that, although as the Minister concerned I must constitutionally bear my share of what is done.
      I have tried to answer the many very interesting questions which have been raised, and any that I have ignored I shall follow up in writing. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) for the support he gave at the end of the debate, and his remarks will be greatly appreciated by all those concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) was pretty tough in his strictures. He is entitled to be, and I do not complain of that, but his conclusion that the Fund should be abolished was needlessly pessimistic. He need have no fears that any investigation would bear out that that was a wise course—I hope not, anyway.
      Mr. du Cann: It was meant to be not pessimistic but economical.
      Lord John Hope: It is possible to be both, and in this case my hon. Friend is worrying too much. I do not want to give the Committee the impression that I think I need simply make an Estimate in the air, so long as I am sure it is high enough. That would be contrary to any sound principle of Government finance. Equally, I agree that I must be careful not to make an Estimate so low that I know quite well that at the end of the day I shall have to ask for a Supplementary Estimate. I will continue to do my best to be realistic, as I and my predecessors have done, bearing in mind not only what the Estimates Committee has said in its most helpful Report but also what the Committee today has said in our very valuable debate.
      Mr. Mitchison: Will the Minister answer a Question in about a week's time asking whether the inquiry recommended by the Committee is acceptable to the Government?
      Lord John Hope: As soon as possible.
      Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry—the noble Lord has not yet quite sat down—but will he indicate when "as soon as possible" will be? Will it be "now" or "very shortly"?
      Lord John Hope: Very shortly.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund.

CLASS II

  VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding 0,205,144, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for sundry grants and services connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service, including subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

  THE CONGO
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Healey: I want to refer to the specific grants, under Subheads C.12 and D.7, which Her Majesty's Government are making to help the United Nations civil and military action in the Congo. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee strongly support the Government's decision to make these grants, but I should like to ask two questions on their size. I understand that the total sum requested by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in respect of United Nations action in the Congo over this year is about £48 million, and that, according to the system by which United Nations costs are distributed among member States, Her Majesty's Government are obligated to make a total contribution of about £3,700.000. My first question is: do Her Majesty's Government propose to pay the other £1,400,000 later this year?
  My second question—which I hope the Lord Privy Seal will answer later—concerns the costs falling on the United Nations additional to those envisaged, owing to the refusal of all the Communist members of the United Nations except Yugoslavia to contribute to the cost of the United Nations operation. I understand that this is likely to mean a shortfall of at least £5 million and that in order to cover these costs last year the

  1479
  United Nations has already had to draw on funds which had been paid and earmarked for other activities. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal can tell us whether Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to make to the United Nations as to the way in which this shortfall should be met, and, if the funds raided from other parts of the United Nations Treasury are to be replaced, how the money is to be obtained.
  Hon. Members on this side of the Committee feel that it is vitally important to keep the United Nations operation in the Congo going; indeed, we want to ensure that it leads to success at the earliest moment. We believe that United Nations intervention in the Congo has already prevented tribal warfare in the State of unimaginable barbarism. The Secretary-General was speaking no more than the truth when he referred to one outbreak of tribal warfare, some months ago, as genocide, which is castigated as one of the major crimes in the United Nations Charter.
  We also believe that the United Nations intervention in the Congo has prevented direct military intervention in the Congolese tribal warfare by external Great Powers. It has prevented the recreation in the Congo of the sort of situation we had about twenty years ago in Spain, and it is difficult to feel sure that if we had had this type of Spanish Civil War situation in the Congo it would not have spread rapidly to other African States.
  I find it very difficult to understand how anybody can oppose the United Nations action in the Congo in principle. The opponents of this United Nations action are an extremely motley crew, composed of the most reactionary and backward factions of every political movement in every country of the world—an extreme mixture spreading from Tory dinosaurs at one end of the spectrum to Communist fanatics at the other, led by an unholy trinity of weird sisters—Salisbury, Salazar and Suslov.
  If the United Nations action in the Congo succeeds, not only will it bring some chance of ordered progress in future to the people living in that country, but it will create a real chance to keep the cold war, at any rate in its most savage form,
  1480
  out of the Continent of Africa for good. Above all, it will mean a tremendous accession of strength and prestige to the United Nations. If the United Nations operations fail, on the other hand, not only will it mean tragedy in the Congo and on the Continent of Africa as a whole, but it may deal a fatal blow to the United Nations itself both as the framework of world order as originally envisaged by those who drafted the Charter in 1944–45 and, as many of us hope, as an embryo of a future world government.
  One must confess that the success of the United Nations operation is still uncertain, but I insist that none of us, on this side of the Committee at any rate, believes that the uncertainty as to whether or not the United Nations action in the Congo will succeed is the fault of the servants of the United Nations itself. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will take the opportunity when he speaks later of disavowing on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the systematic campaign of vilification both against Mr. Hammarskjöld and Mr. Dayal which has brought the Daily Express and lzvestia, the Daily Telegraph and Pravda, into a sinister alliance with one another. I hope we shall have it quite clearly from the Lord Privy Seal that he does not countenance in any way this campaign of abuse and smear which has been carried on for many months now by organs of opinion in Britain as well as other parts of the world.
  I am convinced that, in so far as the United Nations has so far failed to achieve its objectives in the Congo, the fault is not that of its servants. Although they may have made mistakes—we all do—in the extremely difficult and totally unprecedented responsibility which has been thrust upon them there can be no doubt whatever that the main reason why the United Nations action in the Congo has not so far succeeded has been the failure of the Governments in the United Nations to give adequate directives to their servants, a failure which was almost total until the Security Council Resolution of 21st February this year.
  It must be recognised that the United Nations is no more and no less than what the phrase suggests. It is the nations of the world in so far as they are united and, if they are not united to that extent

  1481
  it is unable to operate. Many of us on this side of the Committee feel that we cannot altogether absolve Her Majesty's Government from responsibility for the failure of the United Nations to unite adequately in action in the Congo. When the Congo operation began in July last year it had unanimous support throughout the United Nations except for some of the Communist Governments, but, from the end of August until the end of last year, a number of Afro-Asian Governments progressively lost confidence in the sincerity of the Western Governments in the Congo operation.
  This is a fact which cannot be denied. Whether or not those Afro-Asian Governments were justified in suspecting the sincerity of the Western Governments is a question on which no doubt the Lord Privy Seal will have something to say, but there can be no doubt whatever that the confidence of a large number of Afro-Asian Governments in the purity of the motives of the Western Powers in this operation were progressively undermined in the last few months of last year. Indeed, a special correspondent of the London Times was saying no more than the truth when, in summing up an impressive series of articles about the situation in Africa, he said:
  "Here is the bill which has been presented to us over the Congo—African suspicion of the white man has been increased, possibly irremediably, just at the time when the process of decolonization was working to dispel it."
  That, I believe, is an extremely fair and objective statement of a fact which it is impossible to dispute. I cannot avoid the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government's conduct of their responsibilities during the discussions on United Nations action in the Congo has been one reason for this psychological suspicion, which I deplore just as much as the Lord Privy Seal must deplore it himself.
  It seems that the key is, as suggested by the correspondent of The Times, that the behaviour of British representatives in the United Nations on this issue seems to have been determined much more by the Salisbury wing of the Conservative Party than by that wing of the Conservative Party which is represented by the Colonial Secretary, because again and again—and I propose to prove this—Her Majesty's Government in this Congo affair, indeed on so many issues concern-
  1482
  ing Africa which has arisen at the United Nations, have put the privileges of white minorities in Africa before the rights of the black majorities. That is the central issue of dispute between the two warring factions of the Conservative Party at present.
  We have such examples as the Prime Minister ringing up President Eisenhower to persuade him to vote against his convictions on the anti-Colonial resolution put to the United Nations Assembly in December. We have the pusillanimous conduct of Her Majesty's Government in discussions on the future of South-West Africa—conduct which has been repeated twice in the last few months after the Commonwealth Under-Secretary had given a pledge that in future Her Majesty's Government policy on this issue in the United Nations would be changed.
  We have had an extraordinary reluctance by Her Majesty's Government to support any United Nations action on Angola, although in fact it is clear to everyone that at present Angola, owing to the blunders and blindness of the Portuguese Government, is racing fast to the same precipice over which the Congo has already fallen.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the United Nations has jurisdiction over Angola?
  Mr. Healey: I believe that the United Nations has both the right and the duty to concern itself with the fate of human beings and their deprival of human rights in any country in the world.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir H. Legge-Bourke): Order. I am afraid Angola does not come under this Vote.
  Mr. Healey: Angola does not come directly under this Vote, Sir Harry, but I am discussing the background of Her Majesty's conduct which has prejudiced the success of the United Nations operation to which these events have contributed. It seems to me that if one is allowed to discuss Her Majesty's conduct over the Congo one must be able to discuss the situation created by the Government which made its action fail.
  Mr. Ede: Surely my hon. Friend means Her Majesty's Government's conduct.
  Mr. Healey: I am sorry, Her Majesty's Government's conduct, of course.
  The Temporary Chairman: I allowed the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to refer to Angola in passing, but it seemed that there were going to be several questions and answers on that and we must get back to the Vote.
  Mr. Healey: I am very glad to do so, Sir Harry. I was proposing in any case to say no more than I did about Angola, and I still maintain the truth and relevance of what I have said, because the conduct over Angola is part of the background against which the Afro-Asian representatives in the United Nations judge the motives of Her Majesty's Government and other Western Governments in their actions on the Congo.
  I believe that the motives of Her Majesty's Government, for example, in pushing Lumumba out in the Congo and pushing Kasavubu in were innocent. I believe they thought they had completely sound reasons for pushing in that direction, but the plain fact is that any chance of persuading the Africans of the purity of Western motives in the Congo was ruined by the suspicions created by Her Majesty's Government in their behaviour on other African issues in the United Nations at the same time and even more by the failure of Her Majesty's Government to exert any sustained pressure—indeed, so far as we know, any pressure at all—against Belgian sabotage of United Nations action in the Congo.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Will the hon. Member agree that, if Africans in the Congo are trying to judge the credentials, as it were, of Her Majesty's Government, they are much more likely to be impressed by what Her Majesty's Government have done in territories for which we are responsible, such as Nigeria or Tanganyika, than by what we may or may not have done in territories such as those to which he has referred, where we are not responsible?
  Mr. Healey: The hon. Member is oil the point. I was not talking about the attitude of Africans in the Congo towards our behaviour. I was discussing the attitude of other African Governments in the United Nations towards our policy in the Congo. I do not think that what I have said can be disputed
  1484
  The point has been made again and again by representatives of those African Governments themselves, such as Mr Nkrumah.
  The plain fact is that the general policy which we tried to follow in the Congo during the second half of last year was hopelessly compromised in the eyes of many African Governments by the fact that, throughout the summer, hundreds of officers and men from the Belgian Army were pouring into Katanga, that the opponents of Mr. Lumumba were allowed to recruit in Belgium and elsewhere mercenaries and thugs to serve their political ends, and even as late as, I think, 16th February this year three jet planes which were allocated to Belgium by the United States were flown through Malta to Elizabethville in order to reinforce the Belgian-sponsored forces in the Congo.
  These and other facts have been reported to the United Nations in detail by Mr. Dayal, the Secretary-General's representative in the Congo. We have raised these matters again and again in the House of Commons. We have tried to find out whether Her Majesty's Government support these complaints by the United Nations, and we have been met, from the Lord Privy Seal and from the Joint Under-Secretary of State, by stonewalling almost identical with the sort of stonewalling we had from the present Home Secretary during the period of so-called non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War.
  Mr. Fell: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to mislead the Committee. Will he explain what he means by "Belgian-sponsored forces"?
  Mr. Healey: If the hon. Member does not know that the Katanga Government was initially sponsored and is still supported by the Belgian Union Minière, his ignorance of the situation there is even greater than I thought it was.
  Mr. Fell: All right. The fact is, of course that they are supported in exactly the way as they were supported before, that is to say, from the taxes coming from the Union Minière.
  Mr. Healey: The hon. Member has made my point so much more clearly than I could have made it myself that I think further comment is unnecessary.

  1485
  I come now to some direct questions. I understand that Mr. HammarskjÖld, acting on behalf of the United Nations, has during the past few months sent four Notes to the Belgian Government requesting certain actions and complaining of certain other actions. Have Her Majesty's Government supported these Notes at any time'? We had an example even this week in the House. The Lord Privy Seal was asked about recruiting activities indulged in on behalf of the Katanga Government by the assistant Belgian military attaché in London, and the right hon. Gentleman pretended that he knew nothing whatever about it.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Really!
  Mr. Healey: The Lord Privy Seal denied that the assistant military attaché in the Belgian Embassy concerned had had anything to do with recruiting military personnel for Katanga, although a reporter of a well known and reputable British newspaper himself had interviewed the assistant military attaché and had been given the address in Belgium to which he should present himself if he wished to volunteer for the Katanga forces.
  Mr. John Eden: On a point of order, Sir Harry. How far is it in order, in a discussion on Class II, Vote 2, to indulge in the vilification of nationals of one of our close allies highly respected as such?
  The Temporary Chairman: I have been listening very closely to what has been said. So far, I think that nothing, has been out of order, but I ask the hon. Member to try to come back to Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities under this Vote.
  Mr. Healey: I have never left Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities, Sir Harry. I am trying patiently, in the face of repeated and often irrelevant interruptions from the other side, to explain precisely why Her Majesty's Government's policy in the past has rendered the action of the United Nations—to which we contribute under this Vote the substantial sum of £2,300,000—inoperative. It seems to me that it is perfectly relevant and, indeed, highly necessary that it should be said.
  1486
  I believe that Her Majesty's Government have perfectly sincere motives for trying to protect the Belgian Government on this issue, but I ask them to realise that continued conduct of this kind by any Western Government will throw the whole of Africa into the hands of the Russians. We have a duty to support United Nations action here, even though 13elgium is our ally, just as—I know that some hon. Members opposite will disagree with this—the United States Government had a duty to support United Nations action over Suez in 1956 even though that meant adopting policies contrary to those of some of her allies. As a loyal supporter of the United Nations, which I believe the Lord Privy Seal to be, the right hon. Gentleman must not, like Pontius Pilate, throw off all responsibility for giving assistance to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in trying to have carried out resolutions voted for by Her Majesty's Government and passed by the United Nations.
  The result—this is why I have spent so much time on this matter—was that by the end of last year it had become clear even to Her Majesty's Government—it was certainly clear to the United States Government—that the only way to restore Afro-Asian confidence in the purity of Western motives in the Congo operation was to try to bring Mr. Lumumba back somehow into the Congolese Government. We all know that Mr. Stevenson, the American representative at the United Nations, from the first moment when he took office was working hard in order to contrive this end. Again, when we raised this matter in the House, Her Majesty's Government dragged their feet. We raised it again and again, and I remember well that when in a question I referred to Mr. Lumumba as a personality, whatever his character, of unique importance in the Congo, almost every hon. and right hon. Member on the Tory back benches laughed and sneered. Within a week, Mr. Lumumba was dead—if he had not been done to death in some Katanga prison even before we discussed the matter.
  Since then, even hon. Members opposite, I think, have had to accept that Mr. Lumumba's death has been seen by most of the world as a political murder as foul as the murder of Imre Nagy in

  1487
  a Russian prison under other auspices. The tragedy of the whole story is that many people in Africa and Asia sincerely believe—wrongly in my view—that the West is responsible for Mr. Lumumba's murder.
  Mr. Gower: Does not the hon. Member agree that in a country like the Congo, which was, perhaps, inadequately prepared for democracy and in which there was a battle for power between different elements, a tragedy of that kind was the result of circumstances in the country? Does he suggest that this country, through the United Nations, should try to decide the issue of such an internal battle?
  Mr. Healey: I do not want to go into this in detail because it would take me even further away from matters directly relevant to this Vote. Of course the situation in the Congo was such that murders of this type were liable to take place, but this does not absolve anyone who was responsible for these murders from the crime which they committed in committing them. I agree that the situation was abnormal. So was the situation in Hungary in October, 1956, but that in no way diminishes the guilt of those who committed crimes.
  However, the fact is that even in the moment when Afro-Asian passions were most excited by the murder of Mr. Lumumba, disaster was averted and the situation saved by what I consider to be the great political triumph of the Resolution passed in the Security Council on the night of 21st February—a Resolution which was supported by all members of the Security Council, including the British Government, except for the interesting duo of the Soviet Union and France. We all owe an immense debt of gratitude to the Afro-Asian countries which sponsored this Resolution, not least to Colonel Nasser, since the United Arab Republic played such a leading part in obtaining the support of African and Asian countries which had previously been quite unwilling, for reasons of their suspicions of the West, to support wholeheartedly any United Nations action.
  We can also be very proud of the part which the Commonwealth is playing in
  1488
  this new situation in trying to improve the development of affairs in the Congo, and particularly of Mr. Nehru for supplying this week nearly 5,000 troops to the military forces under United Nations command in the Congo, even though this means almost a revolution in a major aspect of Indian policy. We should also be particularly grateful to Ghana for the role which she has played in building up political support in Africa for a common United Nations policy in the Congo. In many respects it is a great tragedy that Her Majesty's Government did not earlier accept President Nkrumah's advice on some of these issues.
  I do not wish to discuss in any detail the internal political affairs of the Congo, and that is why I did not go further into the questions raised by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) a moment ago. The one thing of which I am convinced, in the light of the experience of the last nine months, is that the Western Powers must keep their hands completely out of this question. As the Resolution of 21st February insists, this question must be left to a decision of the Congolese people themselves, taken after the recall of the Congolese Parliament, and in so far as external Powers can make a useful intervention into questions of the Congo's internal policy, I believe that those external Powers must be African Powers. One of the mistakes which we have made in the last nine months is to play far too active and public a role in trying to decide these questions as Western Powers. That criticism applies both to Britain and to the United States.
  I believe that the Resolution of 21st February provides the first adequate basis which the United Nations has had for effective action in the Congo and I ask the Lord Privy Seal in his reply to express his support and endorsement of that Resolution in the most unqualified terms possible.
  As I sit down, I should like to insist again that the fact that the African countries have agreed to give the United Nations the right, if necessary and as a last resort, to use force inside an African State in order to avert civil war is a tremendous concession, particularly for the countries which are neighbours of the Congo, some of which may possibly fear difficulties in their own countries

  1489
  which would invite a similar United Nations' intervention.
  I insist that the Government recognise that this aspect of the Resolution of 21st February, which gives the United Nations Force the right in certain circumstances to intervene in the Congo, can be read only in conjunction with the other passage in that Resolution, which insists that all Belgian military and paramilitary personnel and all political advisers in the Congo who are not responsible to the United Nations should be evacuated as early as possible. I should like the Lord Privy Seal, when he replies, to tell the House what the Government are doing, if anything, to see that this part of the Resolution is being carried out by the Governments concerned, including the Belgian Government, because even though Her Majesty's Government's tenderness towards the Belgians throughout this unhappy affair has been inspired, I believe, by the most pure of motives—namely, the desire to protect an ally who is in a difficult and tragic situation—in my opinion it shows a wrong sense of political priorities to give this factor in British policy priority over the need to win and hold the confidence of the African and Asian countries, without whose continued and enthusiastic support the United Nation's action in the Congo cannot succeed.
  7.36 p.m.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: This debate is useful for the number of reasons. In the first stage, it has enabled the Committee to listen to a lecture from the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) of almost unbelievable naivety, if I may say so. In the second place, it provides an opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to enlighten the Committee in his reply on certain aspects of this extremely tangled story of the task of the United Nations Force in the Congo.
  Thirdly, I believe that it might act as a healthy reminder to those on both sides of the Committee who are a little apt to say, whenever there is some international problem, dispute or upheaval, "Leave it to the United Nations", without pausing to consider what kind of a burden they wish to place on the United Nations or bothering to find out whether the United
  1490
  Nations, by its very machinery, its very rules and its very complexity, is capable of dealing with that kind of eventuality.
  I am with the hon. Member for Leeds, East to this extent: I am not one of those who is against the United Nations. But it is wrong for any hon. Member, irrespective of the side of the Committee on which he sits, to try to impose a load on the machinery of the United Nations which that machinery is not designed to carry and then subsequently to criticise the United Nations for failing to carry this load.
  I agree that the principle of having a United Nations Force in the Congo was quite right. It was there, as I understand it, in the first place to hold the ring and, in the second place, to restore a measure of law and order in that enormous area in the middle of Africa where law and order has completely broken down. That was the object of the exercise, and I am wholly in favour of that objective. If the United Nations had not attempted to fill the vacuum, other people from a number of very undesirable sources might well have filled it with the kind of results which the hon. Member for Leeds, East described earlier in his speech.
  But if a force is supposed to restore law and order in an enormous territory where law and order has broken down, there are a certain number of essentials which it must fulfil if the operation is to be a success and if its instructions are to be carried out. In the first place, surely, however the force is composed, it must be large enough to do the job, its orders must be clear and, what is more, they must be absolutely practical. In the second place, the force must have a common language, by which I mean a language which all members of the force can understand. In the third place, it must have a common policy. In the fourth place, it must have some common loyalty. Lastly, it must have some administrative experience. Frankly, I do not see how a United Nations Force could conceivably carry out the task which it was asked to carry out unless it had some control over the administration of some of the territory in which it was placed.
  By its own rules, and being hamstrung by them, it happened that the United

  1491
  Nations Force lacked all those five essentials. Let me say at once that I have the utmost sympathy with and, in many ways, admiration for what the United Nations Force has been trying to do. I can think of no worse position than to be a U.N.O. officer, an N.C.O., or a private soldier for that matter, in the Congo during the last three or four months, trying to carry out the sort of orders which have been issued to the Force from the United Nations Assembly thousands of miles away. I can conceive of no more dreadful nightmare.
  The United Nations Force was told, for very well-meaning reasons, that it had to be impartial. One can be impartial if one deals quite impartially with whatever disturbance arises from whatever quarter. That seems to me to be the right interpretation of impartiality. But one cannot be impartial and exercise authority if one interprets impartiality as meaning that one sits back with arms folded while men and women, Africans and Europeans, are beaten up, shot up, murdered and raped in front of one's eyes. That cannot be the right interpretation of impartiality.
  I do not think that it is possible to exercise authority or to restore law and order if one interprets impartiality or neutrality, whichever word one likes to use, in the sense that one sits back with arms folded and does nothing while atrocities are committed in front of one's eyes.
  Mr. Healey: This is a very interesting argument, with which I have great sympathy. It means, I think, that the hon. Member totally rejects the interpretation of the Resolution of 21st February which was given by Sir Patrick Dean, the representative of Her Majesty's Government in the Assembly, in which he tried to restrict freedom of action even under this Resolution in such a way that only in the case of outright civil war, and as a last resort, would there be any right for the United Nations Force to take any action in the Congo whatever.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: This brings out the difficulty I am trying to describe. Is it fair to put the United Nations Force in the position in which it was placed in the Congo, with the sort of orders which it was being given,
  1492
  and expect it to maintain law and order? If it is not fair, then it ought never to have been sent to carry out that kind of operation. I am quite certain that neither the hon. Gentleman nor myself could carry out these instructions in that way.
  My own view is that those who demonstrated outside the Belgian Embassy in London, and outside Belgian Embassies elsewhere, against the alleged complicity of the Belgians in the murder of Mr. Lumumba—and as far as I am aware there is no proof whatever that the Belgians had anything whatever to do with it—might have given a more convincing proof of their sincerity if in the week that followed there had been similar demonstrations in Trafalgar Square and in other capitals of the world protesting against the failure of the United Nations Force to prevent atrocities occurring within a few feet of United Nations troops.
  Atrocity, as the hon. Member said, is atrocity, whether committed by African against European, European against African, or African against African. Whoever commits it against whomsoever, it is an atrocity. I think that it does not entirely redound to the credit of the United Nations as a whole that United Nations troops have been placed in the position, by the very complexity and difficulties of their orders, of having to stand by with arms folded. Can the hon. Gentleman conceive what it must be like to stand by with arms folded, or with a rifle on the ground, while men, women and children are being beaten up as close to him as the hon. Gentleman is to me? I think that is an appalling position in which to put the United Nations Force. I am not criticising those who carry out the orders; all I am saying is that the orders in fact made the task quite impossible.
  Mr. Gilbert Longden: I do not understand my hon. Friend when he talks about the orders. I have seen the orders, and I know that every soldier, as he lands in the Congo, has orders put into his hands which clearly state that he is to intervene to protect life and property where an attack is made by black upon white or vice versa. The force has not carried out those orders in every case, but it is

  1493
  not fair to blame the United Nations orders, which were clear in that respect.
  Sir C. Mott-Radcliffe: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for putting this matter more clearly than I thought it was. If, indeed, those were the orders, I have perhaps been rather over-sympathetic to the conduct of the United Nations troops. If they were not carrying out the orders which my hon. Friend says were given, that puts a somewhat different interpretation on what I have been trying to say.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will split up the Vote which we are discussing and tell us under what subheads the various sums are allocated. I imagine that within the total sum the Government provided funds in cash, food and medical supplies and corn. I do not know if they provided equipment for the United Nations Force, but I know that they provided seed corn. I should like to know what sort of commodities were provided for within the total sum. I am sure that would be of interest to the Committee.
  I must point out that the Government were perfectly right to make that contribution. They were absolutely right to send the goods for which they were asked. But the value of medical supplies, of the seed corn, of food or of any equipment is written down by at least half unless those who handle the medical supplies, distribute the food or drill the seed are guaranteed a minimum amount of physical security. It is not enough to drop goods on the ground in the middle of an airstrip or at a port in the Congo or anywhere else, unless they can be moved safely from A to B and unless some physical security can be given to the men, or women for that matter, who are moving the goods from A to B, because without that security they lose half their value.
  The object of the intervention of the United Nations Force in the Congo was, as the hon. Gentleman said, in case there was a vacuum which would not remain a vacuum very long, because other people might step in. The U.A.R. and the Soviet Union might have stepped in and a terrible civil war on all sorts of very undesirable lines might have occurred.
  1494
  I imagine that the object of the exercise is to continue to hold the ring until such time as a Government—it may be a coalition Government, or a group of people sufficiently agreed—can take over and exercise efficient authority and enjoy sufficient popular support, if that is possible, in the Congo. I do not think that the story ends there. Supposing all this does happen and a Government is produced in the Congo which commands a modicum of popular support and shows signs of getting to grips with the minimum requirements for restoring law and order—what then? Does anyone really think that that Government could function without an immense amount of administrative and technical assistance and advice from someone else? If so. from whom?
  The question that we have to ask ourselves today is one which the hon. Gentleman studiously avoided. Does he think that U.N.O. can function in the Congo, not on a day-to-day basis, not on a hand-to-mouth basis, but on a long-term basis? Does he think that U.N.O. can function collectively, as the trustee powers used to function individually in the past? That is the question which arises from this debate. It is no good discussing the nature of the United Nations Force and burying our heads in the sand without considering what might come after. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will give some indication this evening of the way in which the mind of Her Majesty's Government is working.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: It seems to me shameful that the Government have not found time for a full debate on an issue so important as this and that we should have to squeeze it into part of a Supply day. However, since that is the situation, I, for one, will speak briefly.
  The United Nations operation in the Congo has been severely criticised already and I agree that it has been in many respects deplorably ineffective, but I think that we should not entirely overlook the better side of that operation. I personally have nothing but praise, having seen it on the spot as recently as January, for the relief and the technical work done there by the

  1495
  United Nations civil people. They really have done a terrific job, and although there were delays in getting the famine relief food there, certainly by January, when another hon. Member and I were able to see it, the supplies were going out pretty well and the death-roll was being dramatically reduced. It is only right to say that, since we are all, from various points of view, being so critical tonight.
  Since I, for one, like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), shall have some hard things to say about some of the Belgians in the Congo, I should like also to pay tribute to the nursing sisters—the Belgian nuns—whom I saw at various hospitals tending wretchedly ill and under-nourished children, nuns who had stuck to their posts in those hospitals when, rather regrettably, a large number of the Belgian doctors left in a hurry last summer.
  The forces, too, although they have been to some extent handicapped in practice by their directive, whatever may be said by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), have done, within the strict limits of that directive, a pretty good job. I am thinking particularly of the Ghana contingent under the very able command of General Alexander, officered by both Ghanaian and English officers. I am thinking also of Nigerian police, Indonesian paratroopers, Scandinavians, and all the rest of them. It has not been an easy task for them, and I do not think it ought to go out from even a secondary debate in this House that there was nothing except criticism of the United Nations operation.
  Next, however, I must express the horror that most of us, surely, felt at the murder of Patrice Lumumba and at the really disgusting, frivolous and almost gloating cartoons and comments that appeared about it here and there in the British Press. As I think the hon. Member opposite nearly said, I do not know that the murder of a Prime Minister is necessarily more culpable than any other murder, but the murder of a prisoner, as Lumumba almost certainly was at the time of his death, always seems peculiarly revolting. It is tragically ironical, too, that Lumumba was killed while theoretically under the protection and almost actually
  1496
  in the presence of the United Nations forces whom he had invited into his country to restore and to preserve law and order. To preserve law and order—but that murder was an affront to the very principle of legality.
  There is no doubt whatever that at the time of his death Mr. Lumumba was the only legal Prime Minister of the Congo and that his true successor, as, I suppose one must call him, acting Prime Minister, is Mr. Gizenga. I say that there is no doubt about this at all, and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will not cast any doubt upon it tonight, because if he does it will simply show that he has not read, as I am sure he must have done, the Loi Fondamentale of the Congo passed by the Belgian Parliament in May of last year. I hope that by now Her Majesty's Government have realised, in the light of the strict provisions of that law, and in particular Articles 43 and 44, how wrong they were in agreeing, no doubt under pressure from the Eisenhower administration, that President Kasavubu had any right at all to dismiss the Prime Minister without invoking the procedure laid down in the Articles to which I have referred in that law.
  Of course, Kasavubu is and was the legitimate President of the Congo, but he has no more right to act as an arbitrary ruler than has the King of the Belgians, on whose status and powers those of the Congolese President were modelled so closely. It is rather interesting to contrast the present Government's attitude to Kasavubu with the diametrically opposite position taken up vis-à-vis the King and Government of the Belgians, by an earlier and greater Tory Prime Minister, in 1940. He was, of course, fortified by the sound advice of a number of colleagues in the Cabinet who were members of the Labour Party. His recognition of the Belgian Government in exile, despite the attitude of the King, was constitutionally correct and was agreed to by the United States, the Soviet Union and France—and also, incidentally, by Chiang Kai-shek.
  I stress what may seem to be a legalistic argument because it is highly relevant to the events of the past few days. It is clear that the pretensions of the Congolese politicians who met in Madagascar, and any confederation that they may be proposing, have no constitutional

  1497
  validity, and I hope very much that the Lord Privy Seal will tell us tonight that Her Majesty's Government are aware of this point. This is, of course, quite apart from the more substantial criticisms that such a set-up would tend to impoverish most of the Congo Republic in favour of the two richest provinces—those in which the Belgians are, naturally, interested—and would tend also to-wards what President Nkrumah has called the Balkanisation of Africa. Indeed, these Madagascar plotters are in effect simply rebels and pirates, and to grant them any recognition at all, other than the recognition of Kasavubu's limited status as constitutional Head of State, is actually to intervene in the internal politics of the Congo. If we do that, we are intervening in favour of an illegal rebellion against the legally constituted Government.
  The most flagrant intervention, as has already been said, is that of the Belgians. I do not refer to those Belgian civilians who may be doing useful non-political work, as technicians and professional men—for some of those who went away last summer are now back again. I refer to the ruthless and avaricious Union Minière, whose stooge Tshombe is; and still more to the hundreds of Belgian officers and senior N.C.O.s who are running his piratical armed forces for him and training his mercenaries in the use of arms supplied from Belgium—[An Hon. MEMBER "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. The hon. Member merely parades his ignorance yet again when he interrupts. The public announcements of the Belgian Government on this matter—perhaps this will please the hon. Member better—have been very welcome. They have condemned the service in the Congo of large numbers of Belgian officers and men. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman tonight that Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the Belgian Government, urging them to implement these words in action and to recall these officers, as they can well do in the case of those—of whom there are many, as I know—whose names are still on the Belgian Army list. Her Majesty's Government have surely some right to make such representations: the Belgians are our allies in N.A.T.O., and, after all, Britain has engaged in two world wars
  1498
  partly in defence of the independence of Belgium.
  I have only one or two other points to make, and I shall make them briefly—I should have liked to have made many more. I hope that the Foreign Office has sent new instructions to the British Embassy in Leopoldville. I do not like to censure officials on the spot If they do anything that seems to me to be wrong—anything with which, rightly or wrongly, I do not agree—I assume that they are carrying out instructions from home, and I attack the Minister—who, I am sure, would not dodge responsibility for anything that is done in the name of the British Government.
  I must, however, say that it is quite deplorable that some of the foreign missions in Leopoldville, and most notably the British and American missions, have conducted a bitter personal vendetta against Mr. Dayal, the United Nations Secretary-General's personal representative in the Congo and a man who has been doing as good a job as any man could do—hampered as he was until lately by the inhibiting mandate already mentioned, which was the basic cause of the failure, in so far as it has failed, of the United Nations operation.
  That vendetta has been echoed in a silly and inaccurate smear campaign against Mr. Dayal in some British and American newspapers. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will tonight express the confidence of Her Majesty's Government in Mr. Dayal; if he does not do so, we shall draw our own conclusions.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can also say something about that extraordinary and possibly significant recent incident in which four American naval vessels were involved—particularly disturbing, coming, as it did, soon after the delivery of those jet planes to which reference has already been made. Hon. Members will recall seeing reports of the incident. It was on 6th March that the State Department in Washington announced that four naval vessels on a good-will trip to South Africa had suddenly been ordered to steam North to the Congo. Next day, the same State Department spokesman announced that the ships had been ordered to turn about and continue their cruise; while, also on the

  1499
  second day, a Navy Department spokesman in Washington said that the turnaround of the ships was ordered because
  "…their presence is not required by the United Nations in Congo waters."
  The odd thing is that the State Department spokesman also said that the United Nations had never requested the ships in the first place, and that they had been, so to speak, ordered or asked for by the American ambassador, Mr. Timberlake, on his own initiative. Is not that a very odd way for an ambassador to behave? That is all I ask.
  Finally, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take full account of the concrete and sensible proposals made, particularly in his speech at the United Nations last week, by President Nkrumah. I need not detail them here—the Lord Privy Seal must be familiar with them. I will only say that, despite what has been said recently about differences of emphasis between the Ghana Government and the Governments of other African States, I believe that, in their view of what ought to be done in the Congo, the Governments of Ghana and of Nigeria are very close together. These views must be taken seriously: they are African views. Especially after what has happened today at Lancaster House, I do not think that any member of Her Majesty's Government will under-estimate the importance of that.
  8.5 p.m.
  Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: With much of what the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has said, especially in praise of the United Nations, I will concur and will readily do the like, but I was sorry that he chose to imply criticism of the officials who represent us abroad. I spent a week there at the time when the hon. Member was there, and I would very much like to say to the Committee that not only at Leopoldville but at Elizabethville I think that we are very well represented at all levels.
  It is, if I may say so, a mistake to base strictures on the servants of this country abroad, much of which, I am afraid, with great respect to the hon. Member, is based on rather malicious tittle tattle and gossip—
  Mr. Driberg: Since the hon. Gentleman has said that, he will forgive me for saying that I have absolute proof for what I said, but that I was careful in my speech to say that I was not censuring the men on the spot but attacking the Minister, who is, after all, responsible for them; they act under his instructions.
  Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: That, I am very glad to hear. If the hon. Member has proof, he will no doubt forward it to the Lord Privy Seal and continue his attacks on that Minister, but it was the hon. Gentleman who introduced the attack on the people on the spot.
  Where I agreed with the hon. Gentleman very strongly was in his praise of the United Nations effort. One tends to find oneself criticising when one is there. I do not think that that is unnatural or necessarily harmful, but when history comes to be recorded I think we will all appreciate that, on balance, the United Nations effort in the Congo is, without exception, the most important and the most successful thing that the United Nations has yet done. It is based very largely on the fortuitous fact that Dr. Bunche happened to find himself In Leopoldville for the independence celebrations. If I might say so, never has so much been built on so small and so personal a foundation.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), whose speech was quite admirable, except when he found it necessary to be a party politician, quite rightly said that the United Nations had stopped both a major civil war—"tribal warfare was the term he used—and a major war between the great Powers.
  Where there is very much praise we should also be quite frank and try to look for the flaws in the organisation to see where they can be improved for future occasions—because I have no doubt that this kind of operation will have to be carried out again. I cannot think that it could be anything but good to the United Nations' cause if we employed our time in doing that, and not being too sensitive on its behalf of any criticism there may be.
  I think we are all agreed, in the first place, that the original mandate from the Security Council was vague and impossible to carry out. When I was there. The

  1501
  United Nations troops were derided for their ineffectiveness. The fact that they were apparently so powerless to intervene alienated a great deal of the sympathy that they would have earned otherwise. They got the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, they were accused of being ineffective. On the other hand, the rival factions in the Congo tended to accuse them of being partisan.
  The fact is also that the United Nations forces have been a great success as a whole. There can seldom have been an army of occupation, if one can use that word in inverted commas in this case, which has earned so much praise from the people in the country. I mention not only the Ghanaian troops under General Alexander, but the Nigerian troops under General Foster and the Malayan troops, who were particularly conspicuous for their behaviour and turn-out. Without being too invidious, I mention particularly the Commonwealth troops that were to the fore in the praise they received on all sides. Nevertheless, leaving out the armed forces, one cannot entirely overlook the fact that there have been, to put it mildly, certain clashes of personality.
  Nobody who has met Mr. Dayal, as the hon. Member for Barking and I have done, could be anything but impressed by his sincerity of purpose and his dedication to his task. He is a great and able administrator who is helped by a loyal and selfless staff. Although it is fair to say that at many levels relations between the United Nations and the Congolese have on occasion been bad, there is no point in recrimination and there probably have been faults on both sides.
  The Congolese authorities have been weak, uncertain of their status and probably touchy or difficult. Overnight, they find themselves with these enormous tasks to carry out, and they are none of them exactly subtle and sophisticated or experienced politicians. It may be a small point to mention, but it is not unimportant, that when Mr. Kasavubu—wrongly, in my view—called for the recall of Mr. Dayal and threatened no longer to co-operate with the United Nations, he received what seemed to me an unnecessarily patronising and rather tart reply from Mr. Hammarskj öld. It may have been justified, but I think that it
  1502
  was a pity and that it is some of the actions of that kind which have rather prejudiced the atmosphere. I hope, however, that with the present slight brightening in the situation, the Congolese authorities will be able to have a fresh start.
  We ought to look very carefully at the new mandate from the Security Council, to which the hon. Member for Leeds, East referred. As I understand, the United Nations is charged, first, to remove all Belgian and foreign military and political advisers. Secondly, the Congolese armed units and personnel are to be reorganised and brought under discipline and control. Even if the United Nations is allowed to use force, we should be under no illusions about what this commitment may mean.
  So far, spread over a country two-thirds the size of India, the United Nations has, with the Indians, some 20,000 troops. The Congolese Army in its various factions has about 20,000. If any of those forces or any of the tribesmen show resistance to these policies, it will need not 20,000 but very many more thousands of troops to enforce the mandate. We could see guerrilla warfare on a scale which so far the Congo has been spared, and the logistic problems of supplying a force which is not at warfare are nothing to the problems which the United Nations would then have to face. I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will say whether there have been any indications from the United Nations about how it expects to carry out the mandate.
  What I am also unhappy about is the tendency that because the Congolese State may be weak and divided, the United Nations Force may, want lo impose its will on the various regimes. Advice yes, but enforcement may be very difficult.
  Concerning the other point of the mandate—the removal of the Belgian and foreign military and political advisers—I hope that the Belgian Government will co-operate in this. I have seen the correspondence that has taken place between the Secretary-General and the Belgian Government. It was something of a revelation to me to realise that many of those Belgian military personnel are there under that same loi fondamentale that the hon. Member

  1503
  for Barking quoted which is the sanction for Mr. Lumumba's authority. If that applies in one case, it must, presumably, apply in the other case.
  I am not so happy about the removal of the other advisers. I am not certain what is meant by the term "political advisers", but certainly I hope that it does not extend to any of the technical personnel, whether they are under the United Nations or not. I will come to that point again later.
  Mr. Fell: In his argument about the recall of Belgian personnel serving in the Congo—I ask this only to elicit information—is my hon. Friend saying that the Belgians should try to recall even personnel whom President Tshombe, for example, himself wants to have in Katanga?
  Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: If they are there seconded from the Belgian Army, the Belgian Government has the right to do it. I agree with my hon. Friend that when dealing with those recruited by the legal Congolese Government, which includes President Tshombe, the elected President of the Province—not of the autonomous State—and when those legal authorities say, "We want to employ those people", it is for the United Nations to sort it out with the Congolese Government. I am talking only about the action in regard to the Belgian Government and its own seconded personnel.
  I am not so worried about the military personnel. What is important concerning them is to say that when the Belgians and the other foreigners go, the United Nations must be able to produce people to take their place if they are so required. That is the important thing concerning the civilian personnel. We must realise that the Belgian staff—administrative, economic and technical—is now once again very considerable in numbers. I cannot think that any kind of an economy or civilisation in the Congo has any hope of being carried on without a large number of Belgian personnel. They already outnumber the United Nations people by ten to one or more. The United Nations staff is limited by the fact that so many of them are French-speaking. They have to be recruited from French-speaking States. I sincerely hope
  1504
  that some of the United Nations people on the spot will get over their dislike of the Belgians being there at all, because I cannot see their being eliminated in the near future.
  I should like to say a few words about the political situation, and particularly about the murder of Mr. Lumumba. The crime of his death is one that will lie on the consciences of the Congolese leaders until the are prepared to prove to the world that they are innocent. He who takes the sword will perish by the sword, but I sometimes find it odd that those who did not for one moment disapprove of Her Majesty's Government recognising the new Government of Iraq within a few days of political murder taking place now feel that we should take a different attitude. Political murder always brings its own retribution in the long run.
  I do not share for a moment the view of the hon. Member for Barking. If anything comes out of the Tananarive Conference it will be, I hope, a realisation and a move towards a new political constitution which will recognise that the Congo as such is not yet a nation. The Congolese must go through the period that Nigeria went through for ten years before independence. I cannot see that in that vast empty land anything but a political federation or preferably a confederation can really be worth while. I feel that that must be the ultimate solution for the tribal feuds and stresses that undoubtedly exist.
  Mr. Driberg: Does the hon. Member recall that at the Round Table Conference in Brussels there was nobody more strongly for a unitary state and against federation than Mr. Tshombe?
  Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Many odd things came out of the Round Table Conference. The first thing to remember is that the Belgians then wanted a strong unitary Government, and that was not the least of the major mistakes that they made. They also supported Mr. Lumumba and were against Mr. Kasavubu, but I do not think that we should go back to the extraordinary record of the incredible inconsistencies that have pursued the country in the past year. The fact is that the Belgians wanted unitary Government, and how wrong they were. If they had faced up to what we faced up to in Nigeria, I

  1505
  believe that there would be an entirely different situation in the Congo today and the Belgian presence and authority there would be quite different from what it is today.
  Let us face the fact quite bluntly. I do not think that Belgium has the least chance of being a real power in the Congo for many generations. The Belgians will never be forgiven for what has happened. But the time has not yet come to give a true assessment of Belgian effort in the Congo. We look at all the black patches now and the mistakes, but history is best written after a delay and I feel that in years to come people will realise that there was a great deal to the credit of Belgium. If the economy of the country can survive the incredible events of the last year, it will be because the Belgians have developed it so very well and soundly.
  The hon. Member for Barking has distracted me and made me go on longer than I intended, but like anybody else who has been in the Congo I find myself fascinated by the drama that is being played out there. I feel that it is one of the most tragic situations that has ever happened in our history. I end as I began by saying that the United Nations effort has been a good one on the whole.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Wade: Before I refer to some of the figures in the Supplementary Estimates—and one of the objects of the debate is to examine the figures—I want to make it clear that I wish to see the United Nations operation succeed. The situation obviously would have been very much worse if the United Nations Force had not been sent to the Congo. There has been a great temptation on the part of nations to back the Secretary-General when he appeared to be doing something in their own interest and to criticise him when he appeared to be acting contrary to their own interest. We should make clear that the Secretary-General should be backed throughout.
  It is of the utmost importance that this operation should succeed. It is an extremely difficult task that is being undertaken. I agree with other hon. Members who have pointed out that the mandate was not sufficiently clear at the outset. Furthermore, various Congo leaders themselves kept changing their
  1506
  attitude to the United Nations, and that goes for Patrice Lumumba who at one time welcomed the United Nations and then was extremely hostile. It applies, as I have said, to other Congo leaders but it does not help matters when other nations have acted in like manner.
  Also the task has been made more difficult by free-lance volunteers, however they have been recruited, and it is clear that if there had been no United Nations Force there at all the flow of volunteers to the Congo would have been very much greater and there is little doubt that we should have had not only a civil war but an international war. Therefore, in any examination or possible criticism of the figures, I am not for one moment criticising the intentions of the Government in making these payments or the principle of the United Nations operation.
  As I understand it, under Subhead C.2 the revised Estimate for the United Nations Emergency Force is £590,000, under C.12, for the United Nations Force in the Congo, it is £1,345,715. and under D.7, for United Nations Civil Assistance to the Congo, it is £1,086,429. There is a footnote which applies to all three items, and it reads:
  "Expenditure out of these subscriptions and grants in aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Any balance of the sums issued which may remain unexpended at 31st March. 1961 will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer."
  I should like to know the exact meaning of the footnote. If there is some money unexpended at 31st March, 1961, will it be carried forward to the following year? What exactly is meant by the expression, "will not be accounted for in detail"? Are we entitled to inquire how the money is expended? For example, have we any breakdown of the expenditure? I think that we should agree willingly to most of the expenditure, but it has been suggested that among the items expended are somewhat substantial sums for rent of premises, more substantial than is really necessary. Are we entitled to inquire into that, and if so, has the Lord Privy Seal an answer?
  Again, do we know the proportion that is required to pay what I think is commonly known as "the Congo bonus"; that is, the extra sum for service in the Congo? As I understand it, each Government which sends units to the Congo

  1507
  pays its soldiers the salary which they would require at home, but there is also an extra sum for Congo service paid by the United Nations, and I presume that it is that which makes up the major item. I also understand that there is a great disparity between the amounts charged by different nations. I am told that it costs the United Nations ten times more to maintain a Swedish soldier in the Congo than a Canadian because there is less differential between home pay and overseas pay in the Canadian Army. I am not for one moment criticising the Canadians. I am merely asking whether that is so. It seems to indicate that it would be preferable if the United Nations had a permanent force, or at any rate the nucleus of a permanent force. It would not only be preferable for political reasons but might even be more economical.
  Turning to the Civil Assistance grant, it has also been alleged that a number of civilian technicians have been flown out to the Congo and that on arrival they have found that the tasks which they were expected to fulfil were being carried out by Belgians who had returned, and that they have been drawing salaries while waiting for assignments and have, in fact, had very little to do. Again, I am not criticising the operations as a whole, but I should be interested to know what truth there is in that and whether it indicates some lack of co-operation between the United Nations and the Belgian Government or the various provincial Governments. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give us some information. We are entitled to satisfy ourselves that these various sums have been spent to the best advantage.
  I think that the general lesson is that it would be very much better if there were a permanent force and a permanent technical body which would be available for emergencies such as those which have occurred in the Congo. In the meantime, so far as the Force is concerned, I think there is much to be said for sending manpower from countries as far afield as possible rather than those nearest the scene of the trouble. I can understand the pressure which has been brought to bear by the African nations that there should be a force there composed only of African contingents. However, I am glad to hear—I hope it is correct—that
  1508
  they are no longer pressing that point of view. Personally, I think there is much to be said, for example, for Irish, Swedish and Indian personnel rather than those from territories neighbouring the Congo. If we can make a comparison with civilian police, when serious trouble is expected there is much to be said for bringing in extra police from some other part of the country, police who cannot be regarded as in any way biased. Similarly, as a general principle. I think that so long as there are to be independent national contingents there is much to be said for those contingents coming from nations which are not bordering on the territory where the trouble has arisen.
  In conclusion, I wish to make it clear that it is of the utmost importance that this venture in the Congo should succeed. It is probable that other situations may arise, though I hope not so grave as in the Congo; but if the United Nations Force fails, it may be the beginning of the end of the United Nations itself.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: I came here this afternoon hoping to make a short speech asking some questions on Class II, Vote 2—Foreign Office Grants and Services. It had not occurred to me that the discussion would lead off with a most extraordinarily wide-ranging speech on the history of the United Nations in the Congo by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), but it has developed into this wide debate. Although I wanted to confine myself to certain questions to my right hon. Friend, I shall, nevertheless, feel obliged to say something about the extraordinary views that have been expressed both by the hon. Gentleman who started the debate and by the right hon. Member for an Essex constituency.
  Mr. Driberg: Not right hon.
  Mr. Fell: I am sure that I was not guilty of insulting the hon. Member by calling him right hon.
  Mr. Driberg: The hon. Member did.
  Mr. Fell: I am very sorry for that defection. I would never hope to have to do that.
  May I ask one or two questions of my right hon. Friend on this Vote in

  1509
  regard to the United Nations Emergency Force. This is a relic of Suez. It will be noted that this additional sum required is nearly 50 per cent. on top of the original Estimate. This Force has been in position for some time now, and one would think that by now the Government would know roughly what the commitment was to be for the Force. Or has there been some extraordinary situation arising that I know nothing about which has meant a much greater cost for the United Nations Emergency Force? Could my right hon. Friend tell me something about that? It seems an awful lot of money.
  I wonder if, when considering this Force and the indebtedness of the British Government, it has ever been argued by the British Government that, in fact, we ought not to be paying for this Force at all, because the United Nations force is there because certain members of the United Nations did their best to stop the British Government from carrying out an operation which would have made quite unnecessary—
  The Temporary Chairman (Dr. King): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it was agreed last week that we should confine our debate on this item of the Vote tonight to the Congo. I hope the hon. Member will be able to do that.
  Mr. Fell: I am sorry, Dr. King. I am completely unaware that it was to be completely confined to the Congo, for Class II, Vote 2, surely covers all the items listed therein.
  The Temporary Chairman: It will be within the memory of the hon. Gentleman that the Leader of the House, in announcing the business for today, announced what Votes would be taken and that we should debate this particular Vote only in so far as it affects the Congo.
  Mr. Fell: Yes, Dr. King, but that places me in a difficulty. Is the situation, then, that though it is stated on the Order Paper that certain Votes are to be discussed, and the first one was Government hospitality, and that was allowed to be discussed, and I heard it in full, and the second one is Class II, Vote 2.—Foreign Office Grants and Services. I do not quite understand why there is this restriction to the Congo,
  1510
  though this may be due to my ignorance of procedure.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member puts me in a difficulty. It was agreed through the usual channels that the debate tonight should be confined to the Congo, so far as this Vote is concerned, but the hon. Gentleman is seeking to assert the right of any hon. Member to tear up whatever agreement exists and speak to whatever is in the Vote.
  Mr. Fell: I am terribly interested in agreements through the usual channels. I do not want to spend very much time on matters affecting the Congo—
  Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman is going on to discuss Suez, Dr. King, will other hon. Members be allowed to answer him, because some of us will have quite a lot to say about Suez?
  Mr. Fell: No, I am not.
  The Temporary Chairman: I hope the hon. Gentleman will take note of what I have said. The Leader of the House announced last Thursday the subjects of today's debates and announced not only the Votes but also the items in those Votes which had been chosen by Her Majesty's Opposition. It is the right of the Opposition to name the topics on which this debate takes place. I hope the hon. Gentleman will observe that and will keep to the Question.
  Mr. Fell: With the greatest respect, Dr. King, are we not dealing with Class II, Vote 2, which is for Foreign Office grants and services? Surely it is not possible to limit me in discussing any of the subjects under this Vote? Am I not entitled to discuss one or the other?
  The Temporary Chairman: It is indeed possible to limit the hon. Member. We have to reconcile the right of every hon. Member to raise any question whatsoever mentioned in the Estimate under discussion with the right of the Opposition to choose what subject shall be discussed on this particular Vote. I ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the subject of the Congo.
  Mr. Fell: I find this terribly difficult. You are being very fair to me, but I can see that you are in difficulty yourself, because, on the one hand, you say that

  1511
  I am at liberty to discuss any of these subjects in this Vote, and, on the other hand, you ask me to confine myself to a subject which the Opposition have chosen for me to speak about. I do not like that very much.
  The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry that the hon. Member bandies words with the Chair. I have tried to help him, and I always sympathise with the difficulty of any hon. Member who has a point of view to express. I now have to rule that he must confine himself to the matter which has been selected for this debate.
  Mr. Fell: I am sorry, Dr. King. I am not trying to bandy words with the Chair. I put down four Motions on the Order Paper, affecting four matters in this Vote, and I wanted to speak about them. I am in the difficulty that I do not want to talk at length on any of these matters but that I did want to refer to them. You have ruled that, because the Opposition have chosen a debate about the Congo, I am not allowed to talk or to ask questions about North Atlantic Council civilian agencies.
  The Temporary Chairman: The position is exactly as the hon. Member has just stated it. The Motions which he put on the Order Paper have not been selected.
  Mr. Fell: I realise that. Thank you, Dr. King. I am a wiser and unhappier man than I was five minutes ago. In that case I will come to the question of the Congo. I want to ask one or two questions. in the first place, we should know more about how our money is being spent, how much other members of the United Nations are paying and also who those members are who should be paying but have defaulted, or who have so far not honoured their obligations. In other words, are we in the position, or are we to be in the position, of having to bear an unfair part of the burden?
  An astonishing description of the efforts of the United Nations in the Congo was given by President Kennedy in his State of the Union Message when he spoke of the "heroic" efforts of the United Nations in the Congo. First, there has been nothing very heroic about the action of the United Nations in the
  1512
  Congo. Secondly, there has been nothing very efficient about the action of the United Nations' action in the Congo. Thirdly, there has been no success about the action of the United Nations in the Congo. Fourthly, I question very strongly whether our Government ought not to protest at having to pay, for instance, for that part of the operation in which United Nations forces went into Katanga Province when President Tshombe did not want them there and when there was no major disturbance of any sort in Katanga at that time.
  Under the terms of the United Nations Resolution, there was no need for United Nations troops to go into Katanga and yet, I presume, that has cost us a lot of money. The one province in the Congo completely able to do without United Nations troops is Katanga.
  Mr. William Warbey: Has the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) forgotten that part of the Security Council Resolution which requires that the perpetrators of the crime of the murder of Mr. Lumumba shall be brought to justice? Since those people are in Katanga and are closely connected with the Tshombe regime, how is the United Nations to carry out that part of the Security Council's decision unless its forces enter Katanga?
  Mr. Fell: I wish that the hon. Member would make his own speech and weep his own crocodile tears for Lumumba. I would be more impressed by his great sorrow for the death of Lumumba—which I regret as an assassination, as I would regret any other assassination—if the hon. Member would also weep tears for the priests killed and the nuns raped and the forty-five murdered the other day. I do not want to take up too much time, but I have been astonished by some of the things which have been said today.
  Is it clear under whose command the Indian Brigade is to be? Is it definitely to be completely under United Nations command and, if not, what is its status to be in the Congo? I take it that it will be under the command of the United Nations, but I do not believe that we have been specifically told so.
  My right hon. Friend has been requested to state that the British Government back Mr. Dayal to the hilt.
  Mr. Driberg: Have confidence in him.
  Mr. Fell: Have confidence in him. Today Mr. Dayal is reported as saying that he wants full diplomatic support by us, in particular to ensure that Belgian military and para-military personnel and Belgian advisers in government offices are withdrawn. Anybody who thinks that the withdrawal of the Belgian civilians and military staff who are being used by President Tshombe and by the people in Leopoldville will do a service to the Africans in the Congo ought to start thinking again, because the only part of the Congo which has been reasonably peaceful from the beginning of the trouble is Katanga Province. President Tshombe is the only person who from the outset realised that if he was to keep the peace and be successful in running Katanga Province he would have to use those who had some experience of administration in the Congo, and the only people who have that experience are the Belgians.
  I therefore ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that in paying these large sums towards the maintenance of these forces in the Congo we shall resist any move to carry out the last Resolution so far as it affects the withdrawal of Belgian personnel employed by President Tshombe, or their doing any sort of good job to help rehabilitate the Congo, because I believe that real disaster will come if all the Belgians are withdrawn.
  So much nonsense is talked about this. I do not understand the mentality of people who call my right hon. Friend Pontius Pilate and yet are themselves more like Judas Iscariot. I do not understand the mentality of British people who can never say anything good about Britain and can never do anything except attack their friends. Belgium is one of our great allies, and she was one of the few nations who tried to stand by us a bit at the time of Suez. We run out on our friends. We blame the Belgians for everything that happened in the Congo and yet if we were honest we would realise that had Belgium not withdrawn from the Congo when she did and drawn us into the position in which we now find ourselves of having to pay all this money, within a year the world would have been screaming at Belgium, "Get out of the Congo". The matter would have been referred to the United Nations, very likely by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There would have been the
  1514
  usual fuss and screaming about it. Belgium would have been asked, "Why do you not get out of the Congo?". Yet when she does everybody says "Rats".
  I believe that there is also something to be said about the whole concept of U.N.O. and what we are paying to support it. I believe that the concept of U.N.O. is basically wrong. It has been proved to be wrong throughout its history, and it does nothing but harm to the future peace of the world. There has been a lot of talk about the wonders of U.N.O. and semi-support from many of my hon. Friends who do not basically support U.N.O. Some do and some do not, but this ought to be said. We are paying a lot of money to keep this lead-beat failure of an organisation going. It is dead-beat in the context of maintaining peace as it is trying to do in the Congo for the reason stated from this side of the Committee on a number of occasions, that one cannot have a force which has no loyalties, no principles, no common language and nothing to keep it going. We cannot have an effective force if it is an amorphous mass, as is the present United Nations force.
  I respect those people who are logical enough to say that we must have a permanent armed force of the United Nations, but a permanent armed force means a very big and competent force. It means a force with a United Nations loyalty and not a British, American, Russian or some other loyalty. It means a force that will ultimately have to be armed with hydrogen bombs and all the nuclear weapons. Although I respect the logic of that view I am not willing to see my country put money into an organisation which could put my country into a position where it can be dictated to by an international organisation which has no basic principles and no friendly feeling for my country, and which can dictate to the whole world. I am not willing to take a risk that, at some stage, the head of the United Nations, armed with a force superior to all the other forces of the world, would become an evil dictator. If that happened we would all be at the mercy of the monster we had created.
  If we are not going to be logical and call for that, we must be logical and say that the only possibility for the future of the United Nations is its extinction—for then we would not lean on the

  1515
  United Nations as an escape from our problems; then we would not witness the stupidity of nations going to the talking shop and saying, "What we must do when we get there is to fight it"; then we would not have the stupidity of talk about the mainland Government of China being invited to join the United Nations when she has no intention of subscribing to the Charter. The Charter of the United Nations has been completely torn up.
  The Temporary-Chairman: The hon. Member is going very wide of the Vote under discussion. I must ask him to keep in order.
  Mr. Fell: I am sorry to have gone wide of the Vote, Dr. King, but we are being asked to subscribe a lot of money for this operation, and I am sure that we will have to pay a lot more. I am deeply concerned that we should not build up this monster, which will ruin us. It is so easy for people to say, "You cannot grumble about the presence of the United Nations Forces in the Congo." It is easy for people to ask me, "What would you have done if the United Nations had not gone in?" The answer is that if there had been no United Nations the position would have been completely different. As there was a United Nations it was probably impossible to escape its being invited to go in. The question is a nonsense while there is a United Nations. I want there to be no United Nations. If there had been no such organisation, in a situation like that in the Congo one or more of the colonial Powers, with experience of Africa, would have gone in, and the real problem of the Congo would probably never have developed. We would have seen that people who know something about colonial administration would have gone in there to see that there was law and order and to see that the health of the nation was not wrecked as it is being wrecked now through lack of medical supplies and lack of doctors.
  We think too much in this matter in terms of the wonderful United Nations. We think too much in terms of the heroic efforts of the United Nations. We think too much in terms of the murder of a little dictator like Lumumba. We think too little in terms of human beings.
  1516
  We think too little in terms of hundreds of thousands of Africans who are dying in the Congo as a result of our bungling and the complete failure of the United Nations to bring about any semblance of law and order in that territory. The truth is that the money we are paying to the United Nations would have been better spent supporting President Tshombe and the Prime Ministers who met at the recent conference and decided at least to try to get on with the business of making the Congo into a working federation.
  We would have been better advised to do that than to be spending this money on the Congo. As I see it, it is an open sum of money which is being spent. Five thousand Indian troops are coming in and all these things have to be paid for. Who has to pay for them? We are to be asked to spend very large sums. I would not expect my right hon. Friend to take up the point about my attack on the United Nations. I think it would be unfair to ask him to do that, but I ask him to consider very carefully the implications of our getting rid of, of our being a party to driving out the Belgians from the Congo for, after all, they are the only people who know anything about the administration of the Congo.
  9.2 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): As some hon. Members have commented in the course of the debate, this is a substantial Supplementary Estimate which we are discussing. By its size it indicates the scope of the operations of the United Nations in the Congo. It must be, financially certainly, the biggest operation which the United Nations has carried out under its own auspices and, from the point of view of technical assistance, a very large one indeed.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have asked a number of questions and I hope to be able to deal with them all in the course of my remarks this evening.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Answer the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).
  Mr. Heath: I shall try to answer them in detail as far as I can. I shall endeavour to answer the questions which

  1517
  my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) put to me about other Votes—questions which were ruled out of order by your predecessor, Sir Gordon—by writing to my hon. Friend in due course.
  Before I come to those details, I think it would be right for me to make one or two general comments on the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who opened the discussion on this Supplementary Estimate. The First thing I say is that Her Majesty's Government have willingly and, I believe, speedily, answered every call made on them by the United Nations which lay within their power since the United Nations operation began in the Congo in July last year. I do not believe that can be denied. We have dome in fact on any basis much more than our share. Of that we do not complain in the least, but I see the hon. Member is shaking his head—
  Mr. Healey: Nodding.
  Mr. Heath:—nodding his head in agreement. That was not the tenor of the remarks he made—
  Mr. Healey: Financially.
  Mr. Heath: Financially or in any other way we have supported the United Nations and supported the Secretary-General and his representatives and staff in the Congo itself. The hon. Member, in a speech which I must say contained quite an amount of material of a smear character without any scrap of truth and also a speech which was remarkable for its over-simplification, said a number of things which I must challenge. He said that the African members of the United Nations had grave doubts about our policy and our motives. The hon. Member then discussed several extraneous matters, which were finally ruled out of order, about Angola and South-West Africa, saying that these had been the basis of the doubts which the other African countries had.
  I can only assume that he brought in these other matters because he was not prepared to challenge our record in the United Nations on the Congo itself. Our views on these other very difficult and complicated matters have always been expressed by our permanent representative there, and they are well known. If any African has any doubt about our
  1518
  policy, he can see it in operation for himself in our dependent territories and the way they are moving to independence and now taking their full part, which we appreciate, in the work of the United Nations. Anyone can see this for himself. The Africans should not have any doubt about our motives or policy.
  The hon. Gentleman's over-simplification went further. One of the sad features of African representation at the United Nations has been the divisions within the United Nations in the course of these difficulties over the Congo. There are several examples I can give. There was the division among the Africans themselves about support for the United Nations Force. A large number of them maintain it—and we are delighted that they do—while others have withdrawn their support. Some African countries have recognised the Stanleyville régime and others recognise the régime in Leopoldville itself. Some voted for seating Mr. Kasavubu and some voted against him. It has been a remarkable feature of debates at the United Nations during this difficult period that African representation itself has been divided, and the reason for this is certainly not British policy.
  Another extraordinary statement by the hon. Gentleman was—I noted his words—that the British Government pushed Mr. Lumumba out and pushed Mr. Kasavubu in.
  Mr. Healey: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to that, will he say whether he contests the truth of the statement by The Times correspondent that there has developed, since the Congo operation, widespread distrust of Western motives? I think it cannot be denied. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that, he must take the trouble to look into the reasons why the distrust has developed. If he does, he will find that the evidence I adduced was relevant and correct.
  Mr. Heath: To begin with, Western motives do not necessarily mean British motives, and I do not accept that British motives are involved. Secondly, the fact that a small number of African countries withdraw their support does not mean that they do so because of doubt about Western motives. In some cases, it may well be because the policy

  1519
  which they want to see carried out in the Congo is not being followed by the United Nations as a whole.
  The hon. Member said that the British Government had pushed Mr. Lumumba out and pushed Mr. Kasavubu in. At no point did Her Majesty's Government intervene in the internal affairs of the Congo. Mr. Lumumba was dismissed by Mr. Kasavubu as Head of State.
  Mr. Driberg: He had no right to do so.
  Mr. Heath: In reply to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), there seems little doubt that under Article 22 of the Loi Fondamentale, which I have here—not Articles 43 and 44 which the hon. Gentleman mentioned; I am sure it was a slip of the tongue—the President has the right to dismiss the Prime Minister. Therefore, in our view—and it is the advice we have received—he was entitled to do that.
  I find it difficult to understand what the hon. Member for Leeds, East meant when he said that the British Government pushed Mr. Lumumba out and pushed Mr. Kasavubu in.
  Mr. Healey: If the right hon. Gentleman finds it difficult, may I explain? The Loi Fondamentale on this issue is directly parallel with the Belgian Constitution. When the King of Belgium, who occupies a position similar to that occupied by Mr. Kasavubu in the Congo, dismissed the Belgian Government during the last world war, the British Government, rightly in my view, took the view that he had no constitutional right to do so without the authority of the Belgian Parliament. I believe that exactly the same is true in the Congo, and it is because Her Majesty's Government took on this issue a view different from the one they took previously on a precisely similar issue that the suspicion is in my mind that Her Majesty's Government were supporting a move to get rid of Mr. Lumumba and to seat Mr. Kasavubu. It certainly had that effect on United Nations representation.
  Mr. Heath: These are difficult constitutional matters and I find that even those people who have been in the Congo will not say dogmatically, "The position is so-and-so". I am not pre-
  1520
  pared to say that it is exactly parallel with the Belgian constitution, because I understand that there are differences, but even if I accept the hon. Member's constitutional interpretation, it remains untrue to say that the British Government took this action. Moreover, we were one of a majority of countries which seated President Kasavubu in the United Nations in the circumstances of the time.
  Mr. Driberg Mr. Driberg rose—
  Mr. Heath: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have a lot to say and time will not permit me to give way.
  Mr. Driberg: But the right hon. Gentleman accused me of having made a mistake. There was no mistake. I referred to Articles 43 and 44, which contain some of the conditions which restrict the President's actions in naming and dismissing the Prime Minister under Article 22. Evidently the right hon. Gentler, an has not himself studied this law: he has been imperfectly briefed by constitutional advisers who are less competent than mine.
  Mr. Heath: I do not think that the hon. Member has any justification for saying that. He did not mention Article 22. Let us leave that aside, however. I have explained why the British Government took the action they did and that they had nothing to do with the events which the hon. Member described.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, East at no time mentioned the action which we took in promoting the Resolution in the Security Council which called for the Congolese to take no measures contrary to recognised rules of law and order. That Resolution was vetoed in the Security Council and failed by only one vote to get the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly itself. If the hon. Member is suspicious of British policy he should at least consider the constructive action which we took in the Security Council and in the Assembly.
  May I give some information about the details of the Vote? The Secretary-General found himself left with a balance of 45 million dollars from his original estimate to be shared; and this was after 10.3 pillion dollars of airlift costs had been waived and, in addition, the American Government had made a voluntary contribution of 31 million to 4 million

  1521
  dollars. Our contribution to the military forces is calculated on the basis of the assessment for the normal United Nations budget—7·78 per cent.; and that amounts to just over 3¾ million dollars, which is the sum provided for in this Estimate. We have waived the airlift costs of 550,000 dollars and we have made a contribution to the voluntary fund, for which provision is made in D.7, of 3 million dollars. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. MottRadclyffe) asked about the contribution for seed corn. That is £5,000. We are asking for authority in the Estimates to make these payments.
  I was also asked about the deficit which will arise. It is not yet possible to say what it will be, because we shall not know until the end of March, but the United Nations Controller of Finance is preparing proposals to deal with this, and these will be presented to the United Nations Committee. We shall give them all the support that we feel able to give. There are binding obligations on members to contribute their assessment—there can be no doubt about that—although some members have indicated that they will be unwilling to pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth asked about the contributions of other countries. Fourteen countries have undertaken to contribute but, as the list is rather long, I had better send my hon. Friend the details in a letter shortly.
  Mr. Driberg: Where is the hon. Member for Yarmouth?
  Mr. Heath: I should also indicate to the Committee that various estimates have been prepared for 1961. There is an indication that for military operations our contribution will amount to just over 10½ million dollars. We have promised a further 2 million dollars for the civil fund, making a total of just over 12½ million dollars for 1961. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) asked about the points in the footnote. The details are not accountable, because they are accountable through the United Nations budget. We have our representative there to watch the detailed accounting.
  I was asked about the footnote concerning the carry-over. The amount as far as we are concerned will be paid to
  1522
  the United Nations, but if the United Nations has a balance on 31st March that will be carried over without accountability to our own Treasury. We shall, in fact, have paid over the total amount included in the Estimates. I hope that answers the points of detail about the financial side of the operation.
  Mr. H. Hynd: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to say anything more by way of comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell)? I think that it would be a great pity if by implication it went out from the House of Commons that the majority of Members felt about the United Nations in the same way as does the hon. Member for Yarmouth.
  Mr. Heath: I have a number of other things to say to the Committee and I will deal with that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor made a number of comments about the Force. His thinking led to the conclusion that some form of small permanent force was desirable for the United Nations. This is not the time to debate that issue. We do not accept—I do not think that we have ever accepted—the view which he expressed about the limitations on the Force in maintaining law and order. We do not accept that the United Nations Force must allow atrocities to take place under its eyes. One of its functions in the Resolution from the United Nations is to help in keeping law and order. We believe that the United Nations Force is entitled to do that in the circumstances which my hon. Friend mentioned.
  We have a great deal of information about the details of the Force. There are ten different countries at the moment providing combatant forces. There are rather more than another ten helping to contribute to the international staff of the supreme commander. They have communications which are provided by the Canadian detachment. The United Nations air detachment for providing transport facilities is partly on charter and, I understand, is partly provided by the United States. They have also a number of regional organisations with international staff, but the individual contingents are kept separate and, therefore, some of the language difficulties are removed. I believe that the fundamental difficulties to which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor

  1523
  referred can be solved in the Congo only by co-operation between the United Nations Force and the Congolese authorities.
  I now turn to more general things and away from the details of the Supplementary Estimate. Perhaps I should now come to some of the matters raised by hon. Members, some of which have been of great interest. The hon. Member for Barking and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) have been to the Congo in recent weeks. Our responsibility in the Congo has been limited to our share in sustaining the effort of the United Nations and also in trying to ensure the safety of our nationals, either through local authorities or through the United Nations. We have had no desire of any kind to intervene in the affairs of the Congo. Our only interest has been in its development, in the maintenance of its independence, and in allowing the Congo to have its individual liberty and law and order restored and to be able to make progress.
  We have borne a very heavy share of the cost of the operations in the Congo, and I think that the Committee is right, even in a comparatively short debate, to examine carefully how these operations have been carried out. The hon. Member for Barking said, very frankly, that after eight months the effort had not succeeded in the way that we all hoped that it would. The country is still divided. There is Stanleyville divided from Leopoldville and the other provinces. There are armed forces opposing each other, although there is comparatively little shooting. There is almost no administration in Orientale and Kivu where there have been terrible brutalities and violations of human decencies.
  Also, we must regretfully admit that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate from personal experience indicated, there has been a lack of confidence at times between the Congolese and the United Nations, leading unfortunately even to clashes in the lower Congo in recent weeks. The hon. Gentleman asked me to deny that we countenance in any way the campaign against the Secretary-General or his representative in the Congo or any other United
  1524
  Nations servant. Of course, we do not countenance that for a moment.
  The hon. Member for Barking asked me about the British representation in Leopoldville and asked that different instructions should be sent to the Ambassador because the British Government had been carrying out a vendetta against Mr. Dayal. That is absolutely untrue. It is completely without foundation. There has been no vendetta from the British Government or its representatives against Mr. Dayal, and we have complete confidence in the Ambassador in Leopoldville and in the work which he is doing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be so kind as to send me a little later, perhaps in a letter, proof of the vendetta which he alleges is being carried out.
  Mr. Driberg: It is perfectly true.
  Mr. Heath: Mr. Dayal is the Secretary-General's representative in the Congo and we give the Secretary-General full support in all the arrangements which he makes for carrying out the United Nations operation there. I had a most interesting conversation this week with Mr. Dayal and I was very grateful to him for seeing me and telling me about what was going on in the Congo and his views upon it. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, he is a loyal and dedicated servant of the United Nations. But, as has been commented not only in this Committee but also in the Press, it is also true that Mr. Dayal has become the centre of some controversy in the Congo, and we regret it. What we have done and always will do is to work for better relations between the Congolese and the members of the United Nations who are representing the Secretary-General in the Congo. That will be our policy.
  If I may digress for a moment, I have been asked about the American ships and their presence in the Congo waters. A statement was made about this by the American Secretary of State at a Press conference where he described what had happened. The ships had been visiting West African waters on a good will tour. They were then heading south, and the American Ambassador in Leopoldville, so he said, feared that, with the tension growing there, there would be danger to American lives, and therefore after normal consultation the

  1525
  ships were turned back, but when it was found to be unnecessary they continued their course south.
  I was asked about the passage of aircraft. That is another example of the difficulties of handling these problems. When the aircraft staged in Malta, they were said to be going to Johanesburg, and that was accepted in good faith. But as soon as it was found that this proved not to be the case, I understand that the French and Belgian Governments together stopped the movement of any further aircraft because the true circumstances were then revealed. This illustrates the difficulty of dealing with these matters and particularly the difficulties which will arise from carrying out the Resolution of 21st February.
  Mr. Healey Mr. Healey rose—
  Mr. Heath: I cannot give way again. I have so much to say.
  There has been this criticism of the United Nations operation. But let us look at the credit side. It has undoubtedly deterred intervention from outside; that has been a major purpose and it has prevented the Congo becoming an arena for the cold war. It has also provided a ground force which, with reinforcements, will be about 18,000 strong to help in keeping the peace. Although it has not always succeeded, it has, by interposing itself in Northern Katanga, prevented bloodshed there. Thirdly, the United Nations has provided considerable technical assistance in the administration of the Congo and in helping to organise its economy.
  Mr. Fell Mr. Fell rose—
  Mr. Heath: I am sorry; I cannot give way now. The purpose is to sustain the United Nations in this effort and to support the Secretary-General.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth holds his views sincerely and extremely strongly, but I must tell the Committee frankly that they are in complete contradiction to the views of Her Majesty's Government and of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. I think that by what I have said this evening I have made that quite plain—
  Mr. Fell Mr. Fell rose—
  Mr. Heath: I am sorry, no.
  The problem of carrying out the United Nations mandate is a very diffi
  1526
  cult one. If there had been time, it would have been fruitful for the Committee to have followed the trail of the United Nations Resolutions. As it is, I can do so only very briefly, but I want to emphasise the principles that emerged from them.
  First there was the Resolution of 14th July. That did two things. First, it called for the withdrawal of Belgian troops—and that has been a feature of other Resolutions. Secondly, it said that action should be taken in consultation with the Congolese Government and that the United Nations should provide military assistance. It is that feature of the Resolutions that has governed the actions and attitude of the United Nations throughout all the Congo operations. Those were the two important principles that were then established, and they have always been supported by Her Majesty's Government.
  The Resolution of 22nd July asked all States to refrain from actions that might
  "…impede the restoration and the exercise by the Government of the Congo of its Authority."
  Again, the Resolution of 9th August reaffirmed
  "…that the United Nations forces in the Congo will not be a party to, or in any way intervene in or be used to influence the outcome of any internal conflict."
  That was also touched on in the last Resolution, that of 21st February.
  There is this fundamental point that the United Nations is there to assist, and to work in co-operation with the Government of the Congo. I am emphasising this because there have been misconceptions about the last Resolution which have led to a heightening of tension in the Congo for fear that the United Nations intended to impose itself on the Congo and, possibly, even to impose some form of trusteeship.
  In our view, it would be quite improper for the United Nations to try to do that. It would be extremely dangerous for it to try to do that, because it would lead to great bloodshed. The Congo and the Congolese have now attained their independence. They value their independence, and we believe that the United Nations should help them to keep their independence.
  In the last minute or two remaining to me, perhaps I might comment on

  1527
  one or two questions asked about the Belgian position. First, there is no doubt about the value of the Belgian technical assistance in the Congo today. Next, let me describe what the Belgian Government have done about the military personnel. We have, of course, been in contact with the Belgian Government, as one of our allies, throughout. Those men who were left, at the request of the United Nations, at the two bases of Kamina and Kitona have been withdrawn, and will be back in Belgium—or, at any rate, will have left the bases—by 15th March; that is, today.
  There is nother group, which is dependent on the Congolese authorities. These are, first, the former members of the Force Publique, who were placed at the disposal of the Congolese under Article 250 of the Loi Fondamentale. The Belgian Government have asked the United Nations to relieve these personnel as soon as possible so that they can return to Belgium. Secondly, there are a few officers and N.C.O.s who arrived after 1st July Those are being recalled by the Belgians.
  Thirdly, the Belgian Government have expressed disapproval of Belgian mercenaries in these forces. The Belgian Government of course, have no power to force their return unless they have still to complete national service, in which case the Belgian Government are enforcing their return. Lastly, the Belgian Government have drawn the attention of the whole nation to the existing state of the law: in other words, to the 1951 Penal Code under which it is an offence against the law to carry out such recruiting in Belgium. The Belgian Government are enforcing that Code. I think that that deals with the points that have been made about Belgian military personnel in the Congo today.
  Finally. there is the future. We believe that progress can be made in the Congo in three directions. First, it can be made by sustaining the United Nations effort. Here, I should like to add my words of welcome to the Indian Brigade which is being sent there. We warmly welcome it. Its despatch represents a considerable sacrifice by India. We also welcome, of course, the additional battalion being sent from Malaya. We regret the
  1528
  Sudanese withdrawal, but we are quite certain—
  It being half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,205,144, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961, for sundry grants and services connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service, including subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.
  Mr. Stephen Swingler: On a point of order—
  The Chairman: There cannot be a point of order at this stage. I am bound to put the Resolutions forthwith.
  Mr. Swingler: May I raise a point of order about the putting of the Question?
  The Chairman: There cannot be a point of order. I am bound by Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply) forthwith to put the Questions.
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts outstanding in such Estimates for the Army and the Air Services for the coming financial year as have been put down on at least one previous day for consideration on an allotted day, and the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days and of all outstanding Excess Votes be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Statements of Excess.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1961–62
  That a sum, not exceeding £246,940,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for expenditure in respect of Army Services, viz.:—

  Vote

  £

  1.

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  133,170,000

  2.

  Reserve Forces. Territorial Army and Cadet Forces

  19,680,000

  8.

  Works, Buildings and Lands

  46,100,000

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  8,520,000

  10.

  Non-effective Services

  39,470,000

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  100

  £246,940,100

  Question put:—

  Division No. 109.]

  AYES

  [9.31 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Noble, Michael

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Allason, James

  Green, Alan

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Bartow, Sir John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Partridge, E.

  Barter, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Peel, John

  Bell, Ronald

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Pichthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Hay, John

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Bishop, F. P.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Pott, Percivall

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Box, Donald

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Brewis, John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter

  Hobson, John

  Ramsden, James

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Bryan, Paul

  Holland Philip

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Bullard, Denys

  Hollingworth, John

  Renton, David

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Holt, Arthur

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Burden, F. A.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Roots, William

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Sharples, Richard

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Shaw, M.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Jennings, J. C.

  Shepherd, William

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Speir, Rupert

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  K irk, Peter

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Kitson, Timothy

  Stodart, J. A.

  Cole, Norman

  Lambton, Viscount

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col, J. K

  Leavey, J. A.

  Sturdholme, Sir Henry

  Cordle, John

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Teeling, William

  Corfield, F. V.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Contain, A. P.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Coulson, J. M.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Critchley, Julian

  Longbottem, Charles

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Longden, Gilbert

  Turner, Colin

  Curran, Charles

  Loveys, Walter H.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Vane, W. M. F.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  MacArthur, Ian

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Deedes, W. F.

  McLaren, Martin

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  de Ferranti, Basil

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Wade, Donald

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Doughty, Charles

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Wail, Patrick

  du Cann, Edward

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Duncan, Sir James

  Maddan, Martin

  Watts, James

  Duthie, Sir William

  Maginnis, John E.

  Webster, David

  Eden, John

  Maltland, Sir John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  whitelaw, William

  Elliott,R. W (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Emery, Peter

  Marshall, Douglas

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Marten, Neil

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Farr, John

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Wise, A. R.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mawby, Ray

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Foster, John

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

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

  Woollam, John

  Gammans, Lady

  Mills, Stratton

  Worsley, Marcus

  Gardner, Edward

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Mr. Gibson-Watt and

  Goodhew, Victor

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Mr. Chichester-Clark.

  Gower, Raymond

  Heave, Airey

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mr. Emrys Hughes and

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Mr. Baxter.

  The Committee divided: Ayes 209, Noes 3.

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1961, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

  SCHEDULE

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  Vote

  £

  £

  1.

  Pay, &c., of the Army

  …

  …

  …

  2,900,000

  200,000

  4.

  Civilians

  …

  …

  …

  3,250,000

  600,000

  5.

  Movements

  …

  …

  …

  650,000

  350,000

  6.

  Supplies, &c.

  …

  …

  …

  Cr. 300,000

  *—300,000

  7.

  Stores

  …

  …

  …

  Cr. 4,000,000

  800,000

  8.

  Works, Buildings and Lands

  …

  …

  …

  1,230,000

  *—280,000

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  …

  …

  800,000

  200,000

  10.

  Non-Effective Services

  …

  …

  …

  970,000

  80,000

  Total, Army (Supplementary), 1960–61

  …

  …

  …

  £

  5,500,000

  1,650,000

  * Deficit.

  Question put and agreed to.

  ARMY
  Royal Ordnance Factories Estimate, 1961‒62
  That a sum, not exceeding £6.200,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories. which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1962.
  Question put and agreed to.

  ARMY
  War Office Purchasing (Repayment) Services Estimate, 1961–62
  That a sum, not exceeding £100. be granted to Her Majesty, for expenditure incurred by the War Office on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service, and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1962.
  Question put and agreed to.

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1961–62
  That a sum, not exceeding £387,960,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for expenditure in respect of Air Services. viz.:—

  Vote

  £

  1.

  Pay, &c., of the Air Force

  119,400,000

  2.

  Reserve and Auxiliary Services

  769,900

  7.

  Aircraft and Stores

  224,700,000

  8.

  Works and Lands

  38,900,000

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  4,190,000

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  100

  £387,960.000

  Question put:—
  Mr. Swingler: On a point of order, Sir Gordon, about your putting the next Question. You will have noticed that on the Order Paper there are a number of Motions in the names of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to reduce certain Civil Estimates Votes. I should like to ask you, before the Question is put, whether, as there has been no discussion and no opportunity has been given for any discussion on the Motions, you will put the Questions on the Civil Estimates in such a way that hon. Members who wish to test the opinion of the Committee on these Motions will be able to challenge the appropriate Vote.
  The Chairman: By Standing Order No. 16 I am allowed only to put the totals.
  Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. Will you tell the Committee whether it is laid down in Standing Order No. 16 that the Supplementary Civil Estimates must be put en bloc? Am I not right in thinking that in Standing Order—
  The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman.
  The Committee proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Swingler(seated and covered): Further to the point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it not true that Standing

  1533
  Order No. 16 lays down that when the Guillotine falls the Question on Civil Estimates and Service Estimates shall be put severally from the Chair but that it does not state whether the Questions should be put for the whole of the Estimates in one block or whether the classes of Estimates can be put separately? I am asking you, Sir Gordon, whether as the hon. Members who tabled the Motions have been debarred from discussing them, they will have an opportunity to test the opinion of the Committee on the individual Votes. Is that possible?
  The Chairman: I cannot do that. I have to put the totals.
  Mr. Swingler: I shall raise the matter later, Sir Gordon.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin(seated and covered): On a point of order. Is it your Ruling, Sir Gordon, that you are unable to deal with the point of order raised by my hon. Friend now? Do I gather that you are ruling that you are unable to deal with it until you have actually put the Question on the Civil Estimates?
  The Chairman: I did not rule that I was unable to deal with it. I dealt with it.
  Mr. Parkin: In that case, Sir Gordon, may I ask you to clarify your Ruling? Is it not true that the Guillotine, while removing the right to speak, does not remove the right to vote on any Question put to the House or the Committee?
  The Chairman: Of course, the hon. Member has a right to vote.
  Mr. Parkin: In that case, and further to your Ruling, may I have your guid
  ance, Sir Gordon? How is it possible to vote against a section of the Estimates of Civil Departments against which one wishes to make a protest?
  The Chairman: The hon. Member can only vote for or against the Question as put.
  Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order. Is it your Ruling that an hon. Member who wishes to challenge an individual item of the Civil Supplementary Estimates is compelled by your Ruling to vote against the whole of the expenditure in the Civil Estimates?
  The Chairman: It does not depend on my Ruling at all. It depends on Standing Order No. 16.
  Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order. Is it not true that Standing Order No. 16 does not lay down that the Chairman cannot put individual items to the Committee, and that there is nothing in Standing Order No. 16 that would prevent the Chairman from putting the classes of Votes to the Committee where hon. Members have given notice that they wished to challenge some of these Votes?
  The Chairman: I have explained to the hon. Member that Standing Order No. 16 says that I must put the total.
  Mr. Swingler: May I give you notice, Sir Gordon, that I shall raise this point again, because I cannot find in Standing Order No. 16 any such words? Therefore, I wish to give notice that I will raise this after the Division.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 208, Noes 2.

  Duthie, Sir William

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Eden, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Ramsden, James

  Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Emery, Peter

  Leavey, J. A.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Farr, John

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Renton, David

  Finlay, Graeme

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Longbottom, Charies

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roots, William

  Gammans, Lady

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gardner, Edward

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Shaw, M.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Shepherd, William

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  MacArthur, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Goodhart, Philip

  McLaren, Martin

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Goodhew, Victor

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Gower, Raymond

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Speir, Rupert

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Stodart, J. A.

  Green. Alan

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maddan, Martin

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Studhoime, Sir Henry

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Teeling, William

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hay, John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Heald, R. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Marshall, Douglas

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Marten, Neil

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Matthews, Gorgon (Meriden)

  Turner, Colin

  Hendry, Forbes

  Mawby, Ray

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mills, Stratton

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Hobson, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wade, Donald

  Hocking, Philip N.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Holland, Philip

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Wall, Patrick

  Hollingworth, John

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Holt, Arthur

  Nerve, Airey

  Webster, David

  Hopkins, Alan

  Noble, Michael

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Orr, Capt. L P. S.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Partridge, E.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Pearson, Francs (Clitheroe)

  Wise, A. R.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Peel, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Irvine, Bryant Gorman (Rye)

  Piokthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Jennings, J. C.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Woollam, John

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Worsley, Marcus

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pott, percivall

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Mr. Whitelaw.

  NOES

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Mr. Emrys Hughes and—

  Mr. Baxter.

  AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000,000. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

  SCHEDULE

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  Vote

  £

  £

  1.

  Pay, &c., of the Air Force

  …

  …

  …

  2,800,000

  —

  3.

  Air Ministry

  …

  …

  …

  630,000

  *—80,000

  4.

  Civilians at Outstations

  …

  …

  …

  3,500,000

  *—460,000

  5.

  Movements

  …

  …

  …

  1,160,000

  630,000

  6.

  Supplies

  …

  …

  …

  Cr. 1,300,000

  *—100,000

  7.

  Aircraft and Stores

  …

  …

  …

  500,000

  1,250,000

  8.

  Works and Lands

  …

  …

  …

  Cr. 2,130,000

  *—2,870,000

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  …

  …

  900,000

  *—550,000

  10.

  Non-Effective Services

  …

  …

  …

  Cr. 60,000

  —

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  …

  …

  …

  —

  *—300,000

  Total, Air (Supplementary), 1960–61

  …

  …

  …

  £

  6,000,000

  *—2,480,000

  * Deficit.

  Question put and agreed to.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS. SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1960–61
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £71,674,496, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge that will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961. for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—

  CIVIL ESTIMATES
  CLASS I

  £

  1.

  House of Lords

  10,687

  2.

  House of Commons

  39,485

  4.

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  145,000

  5.

  Privy Council Office

  10

  7.

  Charity Commission

  12,600

  8.

  Civil Service Commission

  9,030

  9.

  Crown Estate Office

  8,732

  10.

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  98,000

  11.

  Friendly Societies Registry

  8,410

  12.

  Government Actuary

  10

  16.

  National Savings Committee

  20,000

  17.

  Public Record Office

  19,037

  19.

  Royal Commissions, etc.

  21,000

  21B.

  Civil Service Remuneration

  825,733

  22.

  Scottish Home Department

  72,700

  23.

  Scottish Record Office

  4,645

  CLASS II

  1. Foreign Service

  1,219,600

  4. Commonwealth Relations Office

  98,680

  5. Commonwealth Services

  7,205,550

  7. Colonial Office

  65,620

  8 Colonial Services

  2,503,455

  CLASS III

  £

  1.

  Home Office

  110,435

  3.

  Police, England and Wales

  3,691,130

  5.

  Child Care, England and Wales

  110,000

  6.

  Carlisle State Management District

  10

  7.

  Supreme Count of-Judicature, &c.

  40,058

  8.

  County Courts

  154,677

  11.

  Public Trustee

  10

  12.

  Law Charges

  48,000

  14.

  Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)

  10

  15.

  Police, Scotland

  648,380

  18.

  State Management Districts, Scotland

  10

  19.

  Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland

  60, 000

  20.

  Department of the Registers of Scotland

  10

  21.

  Supreme Court of Judicature. &c., Northern Ireland

  12,295

  CLASS IV

  1.

  Ministry of Education

  10

  2.

  British Museum

  8,000

  3.

  British Museum (Natural History)

  7,250

  4.

  Imperial War Museum

  835

  5.

  London Museum

  3,280

  6.

  National Gallery

  3,000

  7.

  Tate Gallery

  21,494

  8.

  National Maritime Museum

  9,1 1 9

  9.

  National Portrait Gallery

  2,400

  10.

  Wallace Collection

  1,800

  11.

  Grants for Science and the Arts

  3,000

  15.

  National Galleries. Scotland

  31,755

  16.

  National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland

  2,780

  17.

  National Library, Scotland

  8,761

  CLASS V

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Housing and Local Government

  2,261,450

  3.

  Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues England and Wales

  496,000

  4.

  Ministry of Health

  776,225

  5.

  National Health Service, England and Wales

  4,471,815

  6.

  Medical Research Council

  204,000

  8.

  War Damage Commission

  48,305

  9.

  Department of Health for Scotland

  53,500

  10.

  National Health Service, Scotland

  10

  12.

  Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues. Scotland

  40,000

  CLASS VI

  1. Board of Trade

  503,500

  2. Board of Trade (Assistance to Industry and Trading Services)

  10

  3. Board of Trade (Former Strategic Stocks)

  92,500

  6. Export Credits

  10

  8. Ministry of Labour

  1,111,500

  CLASS VII

  1. Ministry of Works

  2,100,000

  3. Public Buildings. etc.. United Kingdom

  1,215,000

  4. Public Buildings Overseas

  325.000

  6. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  8,000

  9. Stationery and Printing

  950,010

  CLASS VIII

  1. Ministry of Agriculture, fisheries and Food

  1,861,300

  2. Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies

  4,869,000

  CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESS), 1959–60

  That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grant Supreme Court of Judicature, &c., for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1960.

  Class and Vote

  Excess of Expenditure over Estimate

  Appropriations in Aid

  Excess Vote

  Class III

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  8. Supreme Court of Judicature, &C.

  3,554

  8

  1

  3,544

  8

  1

  10

  0

  0

  Total, Civil (Excess)

  10

  0

  0

  Question pat and agreed to.

  ARMY (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (EXCESS), 1959–60
  That sum, not exceeding £118,248 15s. 2d. be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grants for the service of the Army (Royal Ordnance Factories) for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1060.

  Vote

  Surplus of Estimate over Expenditure

  Deficiency of Appropriations in Aid

  Excess Vote

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £;

  s.

  d.

  Royal Ordnance Factories

  359,540

  15

  3

  477,789

  10

  5

  118,248

  15

  2

  Total, Army (Royal Ordnance Factories) (Excess)

  118,248

  15

  2

  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.

  £

  3.

  Agricultural and Food Services

  3,855,890

  5.

  Fishery Grants and Services

  2,100,000

  6.

  Surveys of Great Britain, etc.

  1,037,000

  7.

  Agricultural Research Council

  335,000

  10.

  Forestry Commission

  80,000

  11.

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  800,000

  CLASS IX

  1. Ministry of Transport

  507,700

  3. Transport (Shipping and Special Services)

  10

  4. Ministry of Power

  108,290

  6. Office of the Minister for Science

  3,000

  8. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

  234,968

  CLASS X

  2. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

  10

  3. War Pensions, etc.

  90,000

  4. National Insurance and Family Allowances

  500,000

  5. National Assistance Board

  4,707,000

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS

  1. Customs and Excise

  …

  2,026,000

  2. Inland Revenue

  …

  1,459,000

  3. Post Office

  …

  15,027,000

  £;71,674,496

  Question put:—
  The Committee proceeded to a Division:—
  Mr. CHICHESTER-CLARK AND Mr. WHITELAW were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN 4,869,000 declared that the Ayes had it.
  Report to be received Tomorrow
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1960, the sum of £;118,258 15s. 2d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Sir E. Boyle.]
9.55 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. I know that the practice followed in the last few minutes is that which has been followed on previous occasions for a few years, but it is not, I submit, covered by the Standing Order. There is no authority in the Standing Order for what has become the practice of lumping all the Civil Estimates together—Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Education, Board of Trade and all the others—so that hon. Members who might want to discriminate between Estimates, being in favour of one and against another—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is now referring to Committee of Supply. We are in Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. Silverman: I am addressing a point of order to you, Sir Gordon, on what I think we all agree to be the most important function which the House of Commons has to perform and which is the constitutional basis of the freedom and liberty and obligation of the House of Commons, namely, the control of Government expenditure. I admit that the procedure adopted tonight is in conformity with what has been the practice for a number of years, but it is not covered by the Standing Order and it makes the business of controlling Government expenditure a complete, utter, ridiculous and contemptible farce and the House of Commons ought not to submit to it. We ought to exercise our rights. The whole procedure of the

Division No. 111.]

AYES

[10.1 p.m.]

Agnew, Sir Peter

Berkeley. Humphry

Brewis, John

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Bidgood, John C.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter

Allason, James

Bishop, F. P.

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Atkins, Humphrey

Black, Sir Cyril

Bryan, Paul

Barlow, Sir John

Bourne-Arton, A.

Bullard, Denys

Barter, John

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Bell, Ronald

Box, Donald

Burden, F. A.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Film)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Butcher, Sir Herbert

House of Commons in the financial control of the Government is made completely farcical if we are compelled to give one composite vote about the Estimates of a number of Departments when we might be in favour of some and against others.
Mr. Stephen Swingler: Further to that point of order, of which I gave you notice, Sir Gordon. I wished previously to draw your attention to the fact that more than twenty Motions appear on the Order Paper, several in the names of hon. Members opposite.
The Chairman: Order. I have dealt with that point.
Mr. Swingler: My point of order is that we have voted millions of pounds, and that some hon. Members opposite wished to challenge the expenditure. They did not have the guts to come here and argue it, but they put Motions on the Order Paper.
The Chairman: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Swingler: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I wish to ask for your Ruling on Standing Order 16. You said that Standing Order 16 required you to put the Question on the Civil Estimates en bloc. I now wish to ask you if, because of the procedure to which we have been subjected, you will tell us—
It being Ten o'clock, The CIIAIRMAN left the Chair to report Pt-ogress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Soames.]
The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 144.

Butier, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)

Hlrst, Geoffrey

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Hobson, John

Partridge, E.

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hooking, Philip N.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Holland, Philip

Peel, John

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Hollingworth, John

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Cary, Sir Robert

Holt, Arthur

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Channon, H. P. G.

Hopkins, Alan

Pitman, I. J.

Chataway, Christopher

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Pott, Percivall

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Hughes-Young, Michael

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Prior, J. M. L.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Cleaver, Leonard

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Cole, Norman

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Jennings, J. C.

Ramsden, James

Cordle, John

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Rawlinson, Peter

Garfield, F. V.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Costain, A. P.

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Renton, David

Critchley, Julian

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Cunningham, Knox

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Curran, Charles

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Roots, William

Currie, G. B. H.

Kershaw, Anthony

Scott-Hopkins, James

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kirk, Peter

Shaw, M.

Decries, W. F.

Kitson, Timothy

Shepherd, William

de Ferranti, Basil

Lambton, Viscount

Skeet, T. H. H.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Leavey, J. A.

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Doughty, Charles

Leburn, Gilmour

Spearman, Sir Alexander

du Cann, Edward

Lindsay, Martin

Spear, Rupert

Duncan, Sir James

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Duthie, Sir William

Litchfield, Capt. John

Stodart, J. A.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut' nC' field)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)

Longhottom, Charles

Storey, Sir Samuel

Emery, Peter

Longden, Gilbert

Studholme, Sir Henry

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Loveys, Walter H.

Teeling, William

Farr, John

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Fell, Anthony

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Finlay, Graema

MacArthur, Ian

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Fisher, Nigel

McLaren, Martin

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Foster, John

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Turner, Colin

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

MaoLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Vane, W. M. F.

Gammans, Lady

McMaster, Stanley R.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

Gardner, Edward

Maopherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Glover, Sir Douglas

Maddan, Martin

Wade, Donald

Goodhart, Philip

Maginnis, John E.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Gower, Raymond

Maitland, Sir John

Ward, Dame Irene

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Webster, David

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Marshall, Douglas

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Green, Alan

Marten, Nell

Whitelaw, Williams

Gresham Cooke, R.

Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Mawby, Ray

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Wise, A. R.

Harvie Anderson, Miss

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

Hastings, Stephen

Mills, Stratton

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Hay, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Woodhouse, C. M.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionet

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Woodnutt, Mark

Heath, lit. Hon. Edward

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Woollam, John

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Naharro, Gerald

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Heave, Alrey

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hendry, Forbes

Noble, Michael

Mr. Chichester-Clark and

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

NOES

Albu, Austen

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Gourley, Harry

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Doer, Geore

Grey, Charles

Awbery, Stan

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hail, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Beaney, Alan

Delargy, Hugh

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Blackburn, F.

Dempsey, James

Hannan, William

Blyton, William

Diamond, John

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Boardman, H.

Driberg, Tom

Hayman, F. H.

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

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Healey, Denis

Bowles, Frank

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Boyden, James

Edelman, Maurice

Hilton, A. V.

Brown, Rt. Non. George (Belper)

Evans. Albert

Holman, Percy

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Finch, Harold

Houghton, Douglas

Callaghan, James

Fitch, Alan

Hoy, James H.

Chetwynd, George

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Cliffe, Michael

Forman, J. C.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Collick, Percy

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Hunter, A. E.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Crosland, Anthony

George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Craftsman, R. H. S.

Ginsburg, David

Janner, Sir Barnett

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

1544

1545

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Oswald, Thomas

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Prank

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Owen, Will

Spriggs, Leslie

Kelley, Richard

Paget, R. T.

Steele, Thomas

Kenyon, Clifford

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Storehouse, John

Lawson, George

Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

Stones, William

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Pavitt, Laurence

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

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Swingler, Stephen

Lipton, Marcus

Peart, Frederick

Sylvester, George

Loughlin, Charles

Pentland, Norman

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

MacColl, James

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Popplewell, Ernest

Thornton, Ernest

Mackie, John

Prentice, R. E.

Timmons, John

McLeavy, Frank

Probert, Arthur

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Proctor, W. T.

Wainwright, Edwin

MacPherson Malcolm (Stirling)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Warbey, William

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Randall, Harry

Weitzman, David

Manuel, A. C.

Rankin, John

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Mapp, Charles

Reid, William

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Reynolds, G. W.

Wilkins, W. A.

Marsh, Richard

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Willey, Frederick

Mellish, R. J.

Roes, William

Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

Milian, Bruce

Short, Edward

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Mithison, G. R.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

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

Monslow, Walter

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Moody, A. S.

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Woof, Robert

Moyle, Arthur

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Small, William

TELLERS FOR TIM NOES:

Oliver, G. H.

Snow, Julian

Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton.

WAYS AND MEANS
A gain considered in Committee.
Mr. Swingler: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Before we proceed further, may I ask for your Ruling on the interpretation of Standing Order 16?
The Chairman: No, I am afraid we cannot now discuss the Ruling I gave in Committee of Supply.
Mr. Swingler: May I ask you at what point I may raise it? I endeavoured to raise it before, during and after the putting of the previous Question. May I ask you at what point I may raise the issue involved in Standing Order 16?
The Chairman: The hon. Member has raised the point before and I have answered it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1960, the sum of £118,258 15s. 2d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Sir E. Boyle.]
Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, the sum of £86,414,640 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Sir E. Boyle.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the
1546
year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962. the sum of £2,108,686,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Sir E. Boyle.]
Mr. William Warbey: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Would you kindly inform the Committee the purpose for which this sum is being voted?
The Chairman: If the hon. Member listens carefully, he will hear when I put the Question again almost immediately.
Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. All I heard was a mention of a sum of money of a considerable magnitude. T did not hear for what purpose it is being voted. Would you kindly assist the Committee by informing us the purpose for which we are voting this sum of money?
The Chairman: I am only putting the Question. I am not explaining it.
Mr. Warbey: I did not hear what you said. Would you be kind enough to repeat that?
The Chairman: I shall put the Question again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962. the sum of £2,108,686,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Resolutions to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow;
Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES [MONEY] [No. 2]
[Queen's Recommendation signified]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
[Major SIR WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for financial assistance for the white fish and herring industries, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable into the Exchequer under section seventeen of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951.—[Sir E. Boyle.]
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Swingler: On a point of order, Sir William. I wish at a suitable stage, if I may have your guidance, to raise a question about the interpretation of Standing Order No. 16 and its application to the putting of the Question on the Civil Estimates. I have a copy of Standing Orders with me now. I am quite prepared to raise it at this stage, although I do not wish to make inroads on other business. I wish to raise the matter in order to have a ruling about the procedure through which we have been tonight, and I should be glad to have your guidance.
The Deputy-Chairman: I think I had better confine myself to what is before the Committee. We are now discussing the White Fish and Herring Industries Money Resolution. I think I must stick to that.
Mr. B. T. Parkin: On a further point of order, Sir William. May I give notice that at an appropriate time, not wishing to interfere with the business before the Committee now, I shall call attention to what I believe the Committee of Ways and Means did a few minutes ago? I believe that it voted £2,000 million and it should have voted £200 million. Owing to the disorder and noise then going on, there was some confusion, but I and my hon. Friends clearly heard the figure £2,000 million put. I should like in due course to inquire how the Committee may correct the appalling blunder which it has just made.
The Deputy-Chairman: However that may be, I think I had better keep the Committee to what is now before us.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Sir William. Will you explain whether the £2,000 million was for the White Fish and Herring Industries?
The Deputy-Chairman: Sir Edward Boyle.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): At the outset I must express to the Committee my very great regret that this Money Resolution should be necessary on account of what I freely admit was a drafting error, not a printing error, in the Resolution which the Committee considered and approved on the night of 31st January, 1961. Having made that expression of regret, I think that the best service I can perform now would be to explain as clearly as I can, without taking an unreasonable amount of time, how the mistake came to be made.
It will be well known to the Committee that under our Standing Orders any proposal for a charge on the public revenue or for the granting of money to the Crown must start in Committee of the whole House. However, as again is well known, a Bill containing such a proposal may receive a Second Reading before the Committee proceedings authorising the proposal. The only exception to that Rule is a Bill which is required to originate in Committee of Ways and Means, the sort of Bill which begins with the words "Most Gracious Sovereign".
Where this procedure which I have described is adopted—and it is the normal procedure nowadays—it is the custom of the House that the words embodying the proposals to impose the charge are printed in italics when the Bill is first published, and when the Bill reaches Committee they cannot remain part of it unless the charge has already been authorised by a Committee of the whole House. The authorisation can be given only on the recommendation of the Crown. That is why, for example, tonight, before we started our present proceedings, you, Sir William used the words "Queen's Recommendation signified." For this reason the Committee to which the Bill is refererred, even if it

1549
is a Committee of the whole House, cannot give the authorisation, which must be obtained by a separate Resolution to which the Queen's recommendation has been signified.
The point of this Resolution is that in order to avoid the disadvantage of putting too great a part of the Bill in italics the practice has grown up in the House—and I think it reasonable—of inserting a formal provision authorising a charge implied by the substantive provisions of the Bill and italicising only this formal provision. This Bill is a very good case in point. Hon. Members will see that the formal provision, Clause 3, is italicised. If Clause 3 (1), were not there, the whole of Clause 1 of the Bill, the operative Clause on which the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) addressed us so eloquently and so long. would have had to be italicised, and if Clause 3 (2) were not in the Bill, the whole of Clause 2 would have had to he italicised.
Clause 2 increases the maximum for outstanding loans to the White Fish Authority under Section 17 (1) of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951. The effect of the increase, which the Committee can debate in due course when we come back to Committee stage, is that at some future date there will be payments of interest, and repayments of loan, which would not otherwise have occurred. Under Section 17 (4) of the 1951 Act, interest payments and repayments of loan are payable into the Exchequer, and it is the practice of the House to treat provision for payments into the Exchequer of this kind, even though they are contractual payments, as a grant of money to the Crown indistinguishable from an ordinary Ways and Means grant.
The original Money Resolution which we debated on the night of 31st January covered Clause 2 in so far as that Clause authorised a charge on revenue to provide the additional moneys to advance. But, as I freely admit, and as we recognised after that Committee stage, the Money Resolution ought also to have covered the consequent additional payment into the Exchequer. That it failed to do, and that is why the further Resolution is necessary tonight. I express great regret about this. I missed it, the Treasury missed it and my right hon.
1550
Friend missed it. The original Resolution having been agreed in Committee and by the House on Report, it cannot be amended. That is the reason why a new Resolution is required this evening.
There is one other point which I ought to mention. I have not taken unduly long so far. I can understand hon. Members asking why the new Resolution is taken in the Money Committee and is not a Ways and Means Resolution, for I agree that the need for this Resolution arises from what one might call an analogy with our Ways and Means procedure. I think that I shall have the authority of the Chair in taking the view that it is the practice of the House that grants of money of this kind, when they are purely incidental to or consequential on provisions authorising expenditure—and the main purpose of the Bill is authorising expenditure—are included in the Money Resolution which authorises the expenditure, but that grants of money which are not associated with the authorisation of expenditure are authorised, as they always have been, in Committee of Ways and Means.
This is, of necessity, a technical subject. I have done my best to give the Committee an explanation of the need for this Resolution and why it has been drafted in this way. A plain man's guide would simply be that the original Money Resolution covered the first part of the italicised words in Clause 3 (1) and we require this further Resolution to cover the words in Clause 3 (2). With those words I commend the Motion to the Committee.
Mr. James H. Hoy: We have listened to a long explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and a history of how Money Resolutions came to be drafted. It has nothing to do with the case. The hon. Gentleman ought to have told the Committee that the Money Resolution produced by the Government on 31st January was defective, made provision only for the payment out by the Government of money under the new Bill when it becomes an Act, and failed to make any provision for the payment in of money. That, in substance, was the mistake made, and that is the point with which we are dealing. tonight. It was a mistake made in the drafting of the

1551
Money Resolution which failed to provide for payments into the Exchequer of money in interest as the result of the Bill.
I want to make a further protest about this because we have frequently been accused of holding up this Bill. The Minister said so himself, and one or two of his hon. Friends on the back benches said that we were preventing the work from being carried out. This was no fault of ours. The Bill was read a Second time on 31st January, and it is only now that provision is being made to deal with the Money Resolution. That is not the fault of the Opposition; it is the fault of the Government.
Let me also remind the Committee of what happened on 2nd March. It is on this that I wish to make a protest to the Government. On 2nd March, when the Leader of the House announced the business for the following week, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) asked why the Bill had been withdrawn on the previous night. The Leader of the House said that they had discovered a mistake in the Money Resolution and as a result he proposed to produce a new Money Resolution.
Until my hon. and learned Friend raised the matter the Government made no statement about it. If the Government knew that this mistake had been made, then, in my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, it was the duty of the Leader of the House, and certainly of the Minister, to say that this mistake had been made and that they proposed putting down a new Money Resolution to rectify it. But nothing was said until the matter was raised from the Opposition benches. Let me recall what the Leader of the House said in reply to a further Question:
"It is precisely because we wanted the Financial Resolution to be quite wide enough before we entered into further debate that we decided on this procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March. 1961: Vol. 635, c. 1756.]
The Minister must know that even this Amendment in no way widens the scope of the Money Resolution. I must point out to him once more that we protested against the tightness of the Resolution when it was first introduced in the House. Three-quarters of an hour was occupied
1552
by my hon. Friends and myself in drawing attention to the tightness of the Resolution. It is true that we failed to appreciate that it had been drawn so tightly that it even choked the Government in the process, so that they could not go on with their own Bill. The Government should have been much more forthcoming about the reason for the delay in the Bill. They ought not to be required to be pressed for an explanation but should have confessed in the House to their mistake rather than allow it to be brought out by Question and Answer during the statement on the business of the House.
10.30 p.m.
I want to ask the Financial Secretary one or two questions about the newly-drafted Money Resolution. I know that this Money Resolution is based on the 1951 Act and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it derives its power from Section 17 (4). But he failed to point out that it is modified by the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953. The main Act is the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, and it is modified by the 1953 Act. The principal Act is the 1951 Act, but it is the 1953 Act which makes provision for the paying out and receipt of money.
There is, however, another important provision with which the hon. Gentleman did not deal. I refer to Section 4 (3) of the 1953 Act, which states:
"If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Ministers and the Treasury that any sum representing the principal of an advance made out of the White Fish Marketing Fund or part of such an advance cannot be repaid, the Treasury may direct that the liability of the Authority to the Ministers shall be reduced to the extent of that sum."
I want an assurance that this provision is covered by the new Money Resolution.
The White Fish Authority not only makes a charge on the industry in respect of interest charges, but it so increases the interest charge as to recover any bad debts which may be incurred by the White Fish Authority as a result of these loans. The white fish and herring industry has always protested to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for Scotland that this was an imposition on the industry which it should not be expected to carry. I want to know why, if the Minister is making provision to deal with this matter of bad debts, the White Fish Authority should at the same time be making this

1553
imposition on the industry itself. An explanation is certainly called for. In short, therefore, what I want to know is, first, is provision made for it; and, second, if provision is made, why does the White Fish Authority seek to make a charge on the industry when these loans are granted?
Even with this addition to the Money Resolution, let it be clearly understood that, contrary to what the Leader of the House said, it in no way widens the scope of the Money Resolution, and I defy the Minister to say that it does. The Committee is absolutely tied. In no way can we seek to amend it. I put down an Amendment to the original Money Resolution, but the Chair ruled it out of order. It is so tightly drawn that we cannot amend any of the provisions. The Minister knows that if he should be faced with a bill for anything exceeding £3 million he will have to bring two Motions before the House to get the money required, so tightly is the Resolution drawn. That is the ridiculous position in which we find ourselves tonight.
While we will not oppose this Money Resolution tonight, we point out all its defects. Let the industry clearly understand that if there has been delay in dealing with this Bill and with the Money Resolution, the blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government and not of the Opposition.
Mr. Michael Foot: I have only one thing to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), although I think that the Financial Secretary has been very ungenerous in the way he said that he had to introduce this new Money Resolution. There are two counts on which he should have paid tribute to the Opposition for having so dealt with the previous situation as to get him out of his scrape.
First, on the previous occasion it was clearly pointed out during the debate on that Money Resolution that the Government were restricted to the Resolution they were then bringing forward, and there was a considerable argument about that. Furthermore, during the Committee stage, there was at least one occasion—and probably two—when a Motion to report Progress was moved, and it was argued that one of the reasons for reporting Progress was to give the
1554
Government further time to consider the whole of the Bill. Had it not been for that argument, which was eventually accepted by the Committee as a reason for reporting Progress, the Bill would have gone through its further stages under a misapprehension as to what should properly be included in the Money Resolution.
It really seems very odd that if a Government discovers that there is something wrong with a Money Resolution they should come a little later and try to spatchcock into the proceedings of the House a Motion to try to remedy a situation of their own creation. I should have thought, therefore, that the proper procedure for the Government was either LI withdraw the Bill altogether and reintroduce it—and that would be the cleanest and best method—or for the Government to go back to the point of the Money Resolution and wipe out the previous Committee stage discussion.
It is quite clear that the whole of that discussion in Committee on Clause I took place under a misapprehension. in the sense that if the Government had drafted the Money Resolution properly in the first place the debate would have taken place in a different perspective and in different terms than was the case the other night. It might have been possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) to have raised some further points had he known exactly what were the terms of the Money Resolution.
It is not right to have a procedure under which a Government can introduce a Money Resolution and then, when they find during the Committee stage that they have been wanting in the drafting of the Money Resolution, be entitled at any time while the Bill is passing through Committee stage, Report stage, going to the House of Lords, coming back here, to introduce an Amendment to their previous Money Resolution.
Can the Financial Secretary tell us whether there have been any previous occasions when this has happened? If he wishes to tell us at once, I will give way. Can he cite precedents for a Government choosing the moment when it can put in what amounts to an Amendment of the original Money Resolution? If the Government cannot find

1555
any really reputable precedents for doing this, they would have been treating us more generously and more fairly if they had said, "We have made an unholy mess of this. We have botched it completely. We must make recompense. As the Committee stage took place under false pretences, the Government are prepared to try to get that part of the discussion cancelled, and to go back to the point at which the mistake was made." But if we are to have procedure under which the Government can alter the terms of a Money Resolution at any time they choose, it means that they can play ducks and drakes with the whole of our procedure.
Mr. Anthony Crosland: One of the moving features about the various stages of our discussion of the Bill is the evidence that has accumulated of the profound interest in the fishing industry which is manifested in many different places. I had not realised until the Bill was introduced how deep and profound was the interest in Ebbw Vale and elsewhere, but I am only sorry that so far my hon. Friend the Member for the Manchester Ship Canal, if I might so describe my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), has not been able to catch your eye, Sir William, because we have had an excellent example of how interested Mancunians also were in the industry.
I should like to speak from a slightly narrower viewpoint than that of a resident of either Ebbw Vale or Manchester and ask one or two specific questions about the scope of the Money Resolution. I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) that this is not a very elevating occasion to preach democracy. The incompetence on the part of the Leader of the House certainly would not be a perfect example to people from overseas territories of how our democracy works. Nevertheless, I should like to ask one or two specific questions which. I hope, either the Minister or the Financial Secretary will answer.
Does the Money Resolution as now redrawn contain any limitation as to the date from which subsidies might or might not be paid to the distant-water section of the fleet? To put it more specifically, would it be possible under the Money
1556
Resolution as redrawn that the subsidies which have in principle been accepted as proper for the distant-water fleet might be backdated to the date, for example, when the Fleck Committee reported? Secondly, under the Money Resolution as redrawn, is it possible to avoid the situation which occurred last autumn, when the funds available to the White Fish Authority ran out and there was an extremely serious interim period in the course of which trawler firms could not place firm orders for new trawlers because they were uncertain whether they would get new grants and loans from the White Fish Authority?
Thirdly, I should like to ask whether the Money Resolution as redrawn takes account of the change in the basic situation of the fishing industry which has occurred since the Bill was first introduced. We have had clearly a basic change in that the Icelandic agreement—
The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is pursuing a course of argument that would soon lead beyond the scope of the Money Resolution.
Mr. Crosland: It would make me extremely unhappy should that occur, Sir William. I was about to stop just at the point where my argument would lead to discussion of something outside the scope of the Resolution. All that I wanted to ascertain was whether this redrawn Money Resolution did or did not take account of the change in circumstances since the original Resolution was presented to the Committee.
That is a legitimate question. This is the second Money Resolution which we have had and one wants to know whether it has been redrawn solely on grounds of technical incompetence in the first one or whether it has been redrawn to take account of the changed circumstances. We are bound to take account of the fact that the circumstances are quite different in the sense that the fishing industry's prospects and its need for the money which is promised to it in the Bill are quite different from the days when the Bill was first introduced. It is legitimate, therefore, to ask questions as to the scope of the new Money Resolution.
Does the Resolution, for example, take account of the fact that we are now faced

1557
outside Iceland, not with a 12-mile limit—because that is the impression which is often given—but, if one calculates the new base lines, with a limit amounting often to 27 miles? Does the new Resolution take account of the fact that the transitional period during which our men can fish between six and twelve miles is not, as in the case of the Norwegian agreement or as in the case of the Anglo-American resolution presented at the last Conference on the Law of the Sea—
The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The Money Resolution takes account of the Bill as it was before.
Mr. Crosland: I am merely asking what the Bill as it was before took account of.
The Deputy-Chairman: It would clearly be out of order to discuss all that is in the Bill. This is a Money Resolution only.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: On a point of order. Surely it is in order to ask whether the Money Resolution does certain things? It has usually been the procedure, in discussing Money Resolutions, to ask whether they cover certain things. I submit that what my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) is asking is covered by Clause I of the Bill. The nature of the subsidies proposed to be given to the distant-water fleets is contained in the Bill. My hon. Friend is only asking whether the changes that have taken place will be covered by the Money Resolution.
The Deputy-Chairman: I appreciate the point put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but this debate is confined to the Money Resolution and not to what the Bill may or may not apply to. The Money Resolution is confined, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East knows, to the payment and repayment of loans and of interest to and from the Exchequer.
Mr. William Ross: Further to that point of order. Surely the point is that whether or not one can amend a Bill in certain respects is dependent on the Money Resolution? My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) is trying to find out whether or not this Money Resolution is
1558
wide enough to permit him possibly to move some Amendments if necessary.
Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has put precisely the limited motive I had in mind in asking the questions I have put. I want to discover how far the wording of this new Money Resolution limits, or does not limit, our scope to move possible Amendments to the Bill at a later stage. I should like to ask one or two more extremely limited questions.
Does the scope of the Money Resolution, as now re-presented, permit us, at a later stage, to take up, in our consideration of the Bill, the question that the transitional period in the agreement with Iceland is very much more unsatisfactory than the Minister of Agriculture suggested it would be a month or two ago? For example. the whole of the area off the north-west coast of Iceland, which Grimsby fishermen and trawler owners in particular had expected to fish during the transitional period, is to be completely closed. This will be a serious situation for Grimsby's long-distance fleets.
These are points on which we should have guidance from the Minister of Agriculture. I must say to him—he is looking very impatient—that there is an extremely serious situation for our long-distance fleets.
The Deputy-Chairman: Order. would not be right to allow a full Second Reading type of discussion to develop in this debate on the Money Resolution.
Mr. Crosland: It would be wrong to do so, Sir William. I was provoked by the expression of boredom on the face of the Minister of Agriculture. I conclude by saying that I hope that he and the Financial Secretary will realise that they are dealing here not simply with a petty little Bill which has been rather inefficiently handled in the House, the consequences of which are of no concern to anybody, but with one which affects an industry of an extremely serious character to the country as a whole. That industry has taken a very bad knock in recent weeks, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will not simply defend the Government in terms of whether or not

1559
this Money Resolution was properly presented, or whether italicisation are in the right place or not.
Sir E. Boyle: I rise again because, in view of the speech by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), it might be desirable for me to try to explain the scope of the Money Resolution and what, therefore, the scope of the debate must be.
This Money Resolution does not touch distant-water fleets, subsidies, or Iceland. It is only for the payments into the Exchequer. Therefore—with very great regret, because it is not often that I find myself involved in debate on fisheries—I do not think I should be in order in trying to reply to nearly all the latter points he made, though my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has asked me to say that he has taken due note of all the matters raised by the hon. Member.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what he is saying now conflicts with what he said in his opening speech? In his opening speech he said that this Money Resolution was concerned mainly with printing—whether it should be in italics or in Roman type—but now he says something quite different, that it affects payment of money into the Exchequer. On which foot does he stand?
Sir E. Boyle: I think that the correct answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is "the right foot." In my earlier speech I was explaining to the Committee just why Clause 3 had to be in the Bill at all. The new Money Resolution, as I explained to the Committee, covers, as it were, Section 3 (2), and I tried to explain to the Committee is clearly as I could why Section 3 was in at all. Nothing that I have said in answer to the hon. Member for Grimsby in any way contradicted my earlier remarks.
I share the pleasure of the hon. Member for Grimsby that so many people in all parts of the country are taking an interest in fish, though I am not sure that hundreds of years ago the House of Commons would have thought it so odd that people were taking a special interest in white fish during a Wednesday in Lent.
1560
Perhaps I might now answer the two other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) asked about Section 4 (3) of the 1953 Act, containing a power to write off bad debts. Obviously, that power means less and not more money being paid into the Exchequer and, therefore, could not of its very nature require a Money Resolution. So the Money Resolution which I am moving—a very narrow one—has no connection at all with Section 4 of the 1953 Act.
Finally, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot)—
Mr. Willis: I hope that the Financial Secretary is not finishing.
Sir E. Boyle: —said that we should be grateful to the Opposition for their questions. I think all of us on this side are always grateful and always enjoy it when the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) rises to his feet, and I agree that he raised a very useful point about playing "cat and mouse" with the fishing industry on that Thursday afternoon.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale asked whether the fact that we needed a new Resolution did not perhaps invalidate our proceedings so far. That is not so, because the Resolution which we passed on the night of 31st January made perfectly in order the discussion that we had on Clause 1 of the Bill, in which the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) played so notable a part.
Mr. Harold Lever: Is it a fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asserted, that the Money Resolution governs and conditions the nature of the Amendments which are possible? Surely with a different Money Resolution we could have had different Amendments tabled?
Sir E. Boyle: No. The answer to the hon. Member is that the new Money Resolution that we are discussing would have made no difference at all to whether Amendments were or were not in order on Clause 1. The fact that the new Resolution had not then been before the Committee did not make any difference at all to our proceedings on Clause 1: they were perfectly in order.

1561
The answer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is that, quite apart from any question of a mistake—as, I agree, happened in this instance—it is by no means unprecedented to have a second Money Resolution to cover an Amendment to an original Bill either in the Committee stage or on recommittal after the Committee stage has been concluded. That quite of ten happens. It may be that the Government wish to table a new Amendment on recommittal, and it is then necessary to first move a new Money Resolution in order to cover that Amendment. In effect, that is what we are doing here. We are moving not so much an amended Resolution but a second Money Resolution so that discussion can proceed perfectly in order, when we come to it, on Clauses 2 and 3 in Committee. So I can assure the Committee that nothing unprecedented is happening here at all. I hope very much that the Committee, having had that explanation, will now be ready to approve this Money Resolution.
Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman gets rather slick in his argument about the payment of money in. He must not try to be quite so sharp as this. The Money Resolution is in two parts. The first dealt with payment of money out. What we are dealing with tonight is the second part, which deals with the payment of money in. I hoped that what I was saying to the hon. Gentleman was explicitly clear. The moneys which were first paid out are paid out under the first part of the Financial Resolution. It is that which empowers the Treasury to pay that sum out, but the second one deals with the payment of money in.
If this failure takes place, the Treasury is entitled to empower the White Fish Authority not to ask for the money. I asked the Financial Secretary and he said that that was all right and that it was provided for under the complete Financial Resolution. It must be provided for somewhere. Money does not appear from nowhere at all. It comes under the first part of the Financial Resolution. I was asking why, having made that provision, the White Fish Authority should impose a charge on the rest of the industry for any bad debts that might be incurred. If the Financial Secretary is getting his answers so slickly from the
1562
Box, I want an answer to that question and I think that the Committee is entitled to have it.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I merely want to make a protest against the way in which the white fish industry is being dealt with in this Resolution and by the Government. I have protested against the way the industry is being treated by the Government from time to time. On every occasion that we have Bills dealing with the fishing industry and Money Resoutions relating to them they are brought before us late at night. I have asked the Leader of the House so to arrange the business of the House and the Committee that these matters would come on earlier. The right hon. Gentleman may not realise that the fishing industry is one in which tens of thousands of people work and earn their living and one from which millions of people obtain nourishment.
The Deputy-Chairman: This is getting far too wide for a debate on this Money Resolution.
Mr. Hughes: May I finish what I am saying? I am dealing with the Money Resolution.
It has been already indicated from the Financial Secretary's speech that the Money Resolution is of a complicated character. It involves the discussion not only of the money paid by the Treasury but of the manner in which the Bill would be printed—whether it would be printed in italics or in Roman type. Apart from that, the involved way in which the hon. Gentleman attempted to simplify a very diffiult matter shows that this is not the type of thing that should be dealt with late at night. It should be brought before us early in the day and a whole day should be given over to discussing it. I repeat my protest against the disgraceful way in which the Government are treating the fishing industry not only tonight but on every occasion when anything relating to the industry comes before the Committee or the House.
Mr. Willis: The Financial Secretary said that the transaction about which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. Leith (Mr. Hoy) spoke would result in less coming in. But a profit might be made, in which case it would result in more coming in.
Sir E. Boyle: To write off bad debts, in so far as the power is operated, must mean less and not more money coming into the Exchequer. My sole point was that one never needs a Money Resolution to validate less money coming into the Exchequer. The whole point of a Ways and Means Resolution is to validate more money coming into the Exchequer.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has not understood. The point was that the White Fish Authority was making up the loss by charging an increased rate of interest, and it is possible that in doing so it might get more in return that the actual losses. Can the hon. Member explain that?
It being Eleven o'clock, three-quarters of an hour after the House had resolved itself into the Committee, The CHAIRMAN put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 1 A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present, Session to make further provision for financial assistance for the white fish and herring industries, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable into the Exchequer under section seventeen of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951.
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow.

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time. —[Mr. Maclay.]
11.1 p.m.
Mr. Harold Lever: On a point of order. Is it in accordance with the procedure of the House that the Minister should not outline a Bill on Second Reading? Does he not owe it to the House to do so? Many of us who are not from Scotland have stayed here especially in order to have some explanation of the Bill outlined to us.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): That is not a point of order. It is perfectly orderly for the Minister to move a Second Reading as he did.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Before I move my Amendment, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might do the House the courtesy of explaining what the Bill is about? That would be a very small thing to ask and it is his bounden duty to do so. If he will do so, I shall be glad to postpone moving my Amendment so that hon. Members who have not heard a word of discussion on the Bill or any explanation of it shall have some idea of what the Bill is about before they are asked to agree to its Second Reading.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): As the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) knows, I have already made two speeches on the Bill when it was considered in principle upstairs for three mornings. That fact has been reported to the House and HANSARD is available to everyone and I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), who is interested in the Bill, will have studied HANSARD. In fairness to the hon. Member for the Western Isles, who has made only one speech while I have made two, I should give him an opportunity to develop his arguments.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that

1565
the purpose of such a matter being reported to the House is that the whole House should be able to discuss it and should be able to hear the arguments? If everything is settled in the Scottish Grand Committee, would there be any point in bringing matters back here? The whole idea of having a Second Reading is that the matter should be discussed. Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and start the debate in the normal fashion by putting his case?
Mr. Maclay: I am only too anxious, as I always am, to be courteous to the House and to give every facility to hon. Members to understand what is going on, but I do not want conceivably to be guilty of tedious repetition, which is something which I have tried to avoid for the twenty years I have been in the House—although I have not always succeeded. The proceedings upstairs have been formally reported to the House and it would be wrong—
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order. The proceedings upstairs have not been reported to the House. All that has been reported is that the Scottish Grand Committee somewhere upstairs in this building discussed something. There was no Second Reading of the Bill; nor was such a Second Reading reported to the House. That is the first time that the Second Reading of the Bill has been moved anywhere in the House—or elsewhere. I have never heard a Minister moving a Second Reading without addressing himself to his Motion.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Nothing disorderly has arisen of which the hon. Member can complain. It is a matter for debate and discussion. Nothing disorderly has arisen.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Further to that point of order, Sir William. It is quite wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that it would he permitted by the Chair to report to the House what he called the proceedings of some body outside the House and ask us to assume that a Second Reading debate had taken place.
Mr. Maclay: This is only a further point of order. We are in an interesting procedural position. The fact that the
1566
Bill has been considered in principle in the Committee upstairs has been reported to the House. I did not say that the Second Reading had been reported. Therefore, the proceedings upstairs are properly available for any hon. Member to study. As hon. Gentlemen opposite are interested in this subject, they can read those proceedings. It would be wrong and discourteous to take up the time of the House by going over ground which I covered upstairs in two fairly lengthy speeches.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: We must get this point clear. The House must be told what is happening. The Bill was sent upstairs to be considered in principle, and we discussed the principles embodied in the Bill. It has now come back to the House for a Second Reading, which is a separate and distinct stage. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not do what is normally done when a Bill is introduced on Second Reading. I am surprised that he did not explain and outline the conditions which would operate if the principles of the Bill were accepted.
Mr. H. Lever: I do not know whether it is improper for me to intervene. I do not want to raise something as a point of order if it is not one. The Minister has come to the House, and, without troubling to offer any explanation, has thrown the Bill at the House for a Second Reading. There have been considerable protests. In the light of that departure from all traditions, I wonder whether you would accept a Motion to report Progress?
Mr. Speaker: I have just arrived in the Chair. I have very little idea of what is happening. I cannot report Progress. I have no one to report Progress to. I am the summit of Progress. I must inform myself of what is happening before I receive any more points of order.
Mr. Maclay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the position we are faced with is that, according to Standing Orders, the Bill has been considered in principle upstairs. The point I was on was that the Bill was considered in principle upstairs, and that fact has been reported to the House. That being so. I was pointing out that hon. Members who are interested in the Bill have full

1567
access to the record of the discussions upstairs. For that reason I felt that it would be discourteous to the House, having made two speeches upstairs, to make another speech which could only go over the ground I covered before. That was the point.
Mr. John Rankin: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that you have already ruled that you are in no way cognisant of any of the proceedings which have taken place upstairs. Therefore, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may or may not have said upstairs is not material to the position which now faces the House. Already we have had a Ruling that when we reach this stage in Scottish Bills and an Amendment has been tabled, that Amendment is within the rules of procedure in being suitable for discussion and debate in the House.
Mr. Speaker: As far as I know what has happened—limited owing to the fact of my physical arrival at this moment—I understand that the Minister has moved the Second Reading of the Bill and that the Question has been proposed. I hope I am right in thinking that that is the stage which has been reached, and no other. If I pick up the matter from that point, I call Mr. Malcolm MacMillan to move his Amendment.
11.11 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
"this House, while welcoming the extension of compensation to certain permanent improvements and of financial aid to some landholders of the economic status of crofters, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which applies to crofters bureaucratic compulsion, not applicable to other agricultural tenants or to landlords; which provides for the imposing upon crofters for periods of several years and at short notice of arbitrarily selected subtenants on their holdings; denies crafting communities the right of majority or of any decision in respect to schemes for radical reorganisation of their townships; fails to make any provision to assist crofters with the transporting or marketing of their produce; and fails to give the Crofters Commission any powers, responsibilities or resources to stimulate, assist or promote local industries and enterprises, without which crofting itself cannot survive."
That reasoned Amendment embraces a great many of the main arguments
1568
against the Bill, and against the Motion that it should be given a Second Reading. They are all widely drawn, so that they address themselves to the Motion and to this stage of the consideration of the principle of the Bill which, whatever the Secretary of State may say, is the stage at which we are now. I regret that it should fall to me to have to explain what the Bill is about. If the right hon. Gentleman will not do that courtesy, especially to his English, Welsh and loyal—none more loyal—Irish friends, does he mind if it is extended to them from this side of the House? Among us, we can assist his hon. Friends to understand what the right hon. Gentleman was committing them to in asking them to accord the Bill—which they have only now seen for the first time—a Second Reading.
The Bill covers an enormously wide field. It does not deal alone with crofting as such—the spade and the hoe and the plough and the tractor it deals with and affects the social conditions of those living in the crofting areas, because the Crofters Commission will have to take into consideration in all its activities the impact of its work and the effect it may have upon every aspect of the lives of people living in the crofting counties. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Commission has many wide duties laid upon it. The Bill is by no means as narrow as the right hon. Gentleman perhaps wanted to suggest that it is.
There are different opinions about the Bill on both sides of the House, I imagine, and within the parties. It all depends on the distance one is from crofting how strongly one feels about crofting problems. If minor differences emerge among hon. Members on that side of the House or on this, I think that most people will understand the reasons for them. Different hon. Members will give different emphasis to their points of agreement or points of difference. I hope that hon. Members opposite will speak with the freedom which some of the Highland Members at least normally exercise in the House and outside. Some of their speeches on the Bill have been extremely critical of the Government. One would have expected them to follow their criticisms to a logical conclusion and vote for the Amendment tonight. I do not know whether any of them will, but I very much hope that they do.

1569
It is important to explain a little of the background of the Measure which the House is discussing. The Highlands and Islands area comprises more than one-sixth, possibly nearer one-fifth, of the total land area of Great Britain. It comprises nearly half the area of all Scotland. Yet within the Highlands and Islands area there is a population of only 250,000, or a few more or less according to the drift inwards or outwards for casual employment or for other reasons, and this population is to be set against the total population of the United Kingdom which I understand now to be 52 million or 53 million.
The area is suffering a continuous drifting away of its population such as no other area in relation to its population experiences. I shall in a few minutes give an illustration to bring home to hon. Members the force of this when I tell them of what is happening in some of the smaller places.
If it were not for the fact that older people in the Highlands, thanks to the advances which have been introduced under the Welfare State in recent years, are living a little longer, the population would be dropping even more dramatically and frighteningly than it is now. The people who do drift away from the Highlands are, generally speaking, the younger people, the ones with enterprise, the people who want to launch out; and the result is that the population which remains, which is holding the statistics for us for the time being, is an ageing population.
We are losing roughly 1,000 people a year from the Highlands. While that is bad enough as a general figure, in the smaller areas the drift away is very much worse. It is best illustrated in terms of the real test of population loss, that is to say, taking it at school age. In the island of Eriskay, the population as a whole has fallen since 1931 from 420 to 330. In another of the islands it has fallen from 240 to 150. Taking all the smaller islands of the Hebrides, the loss is about 23 per cent. on average over that period of twenty years. For the school population, the loss is even more alarming still. School after school is either coming down from being a two- or three-teacher school to being a one-teacher school or being closed down.
1570
This is the human background against which we ought to consider the Bill and the Motion for its Second Reading. It has no meaning unless it has a meaning in these human terms.
I have been through the Answers which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my Questions on 20th December when he showed, with official figures, how alarming is the drop in school population, and while general depopulation in itself is alarming, the loss of the children and their non-replacement in the schools is the final test of survival. That is the test which least satisfactorily meets our scrutiny.
The Highlands and Islands have reacted badly to this Bill. This is partly because, broadly speaking, the Highlands and Islands are anti-Tory and anti-Government. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that that is so.
Mr. Maclay indicated dissent.
Mr. MacMillan: The right hon. Gentleman apparently does not agree. Let him look around the constituencies. Orkney and Shetland is represented by a Liberal. The Western Isles is represented by a Socialist. Caithness and Sutherland is represented by an independent. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) will agree that he was elected on a minority vote. I am sorry to say that Inverness is represented by a Conservative, but he, too, was elected on a minority vote. Only in Argyll can it be said that there is an honest Tory majority and a Tory Member. Taking the five Highlands seats, we find that the Government had 51,000 votes and that 64,000 votes were cast against them. The right hon. Gentleman will accept those figures because his Department published them not long after the General Election.
In 1950, for the first time in a generation, we saw a halt to depopulation. That was after five years of work by the Labour Government. There were many reasons for it. There were the great hydro-electric schemes which affect all the work of the Crofters Commission and without which most of its work could not go on. Local industries, farms and the crofters' homes for the first time saw and used and enjoyed electricity. Water schemes were brought into operation, roads were driven where no

1571
roads had existed before, harbours were built in Stornoway and in other ports all round the islands, fish processing plants were erected and extended, and jetties were built. The work on many jetties has been stopped since then and never re-started—as is the case with some roads; I make that comment in case the right hon. Gentleman does not know what is going on in his Department.
Taking all these things together, for the time being we halted the apparently endless drift of population from the Highlands. In 1950 for the first time we were holding our own. It was not simply a matter of the numbers of older people being sustained by the Welfare State; people were moving back into the area and the younger people saw for themselves a new hope and opportunity in the Highlands.
What has happened since 1952 is creating one of the greatest problems facing the Crofters Commission. It is making it difficult for the Commission to operate in the area and is making it difficult for the Hydro-Electric Board and other agencies to operate in the area.
Since then we have come up against one economic squeeze after another. This area, which has a history of neglect over many generations, is always at the end of the queue for development in trying to catch up with other areas, and it is always the first to be cut and squeezed in any economic squeeze. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I can give give him any number of examples if he is prepared to sit at my feet and take some instruction.
Mr. E. G. Willis: Give him some.
Mr. MacMillan: I expect that many will be given later by my hon. Friends. I am sure that there are many contributions scattered among them in the House. With this new enthusiasm which they will bring to bear to Second Reading, they will give examples.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot dispute anything I have said. He knows that since 1951–52 the rate of depopulation has taken such a turn for the worse that the Crofters Commission and everybody else have been startled and frightened. Since 1951–52 the rate of
1572
depopulation in the Highlands and Islands has been the worst since the turn of the century. I do not think that anybody can deny that.
The Highlands and Islands have possibilities for adding considerably to the wealth of this country, and it is criminal to neglect that great source of underdeveloped wealth. Hon. Members give careful consideration to the underdeveloped countries of the world; provided that they are 2,000 miles away, hon. Members come to the House to discuss them and everybody is interested in them. People want to do something to help them.
Lying within the borders of our own country is a great undeveloped area which I should have thought it was our first duty to develop. One of the obvious things that the Highlands provide is food—including the speciality of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), white fish—herring, beef and mutton. Then there are timber, a considerable amount in the way of textiles, and, of course, whisky, as well as opportunities for tourism on a great and expanding scale. Several of these are valuable dollar earners. For example, whisky is our most reluctant export but one of the most profitable in earning dollars. So are textiles profitable exports, and tourism is an excellent dollar earner.
The Crofters Commission has a responsibility in relation to every one of these, and we would like the Commission to have powers to do a lot more in the development of these things than is given in this Bill or in the 1955 Act which it amends. There is much undeveloped territory within our own country over which the winds of change and progress blow almost unnoticeably, except at election times.
Mr. John MacLeod: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Crofters Commission is asking for these powers?
Mr. MacMillan: No, unfortunately, these are the very things that the Crofters Commission is not asking for. These are the powers that we want to give to the Commission. I am sure the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty too, wants to give it these powers.
Mr. MacLeod: No, I do not. I have always said that. I do not want to give it these powers at all. It has quite sufficient powers.
Mr. MacMillan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands what he is saying. The Commission has a duty under existing legislation to collaborate with all those public agencies, and indeed with private firms and persons, in any development whatsoever in the Highlands, whether they are concerned with economic or social development. The Crofters Commission has extremely wide responsibilities. The problem is that it has not got power but it has responsibility. One is reminded of that old and well-known association of power and lack of responsibility, although I think it might be a little indelicate if I were to continue with that particular reference. It has got all the responsibilities, but it has not got the power to carry them out.
The Highlands are waiting to make a greater and ever-growing contribution to the national wealth. We are not, as is so often misrepresented, asking merely for subsidies and grants and all the rest of it for the purpose of pouring them into the Highlands without giving anything back again. Obviously, no responsible spokesman of Highland constituencies would want that to happen. At the same time. I must make it clear that that one way traffic is not the situation now.
What special subsidies do the Highlands and Islands get that are not equally shared in almost every case with the most prosperous agricultural areas in the whole of the United Kingdom? I do not think there is very much. I think I heard an hon. Member say "Housing grants." These are not payable through the Commission; they are paid through the Department. But, if I own a town house, I can get a grant for modernisation and improvement equal to anything that the crofter gets by way of grant. He contributes also towards the building of his house, very often with his own labour, his own hands and those of his family. No farmer in the south of England or in central Scotland can say that he is getting anything less—indeed, he is getting rather more—in value for the development of his farm than the crofter is getting for the development of what is too often his marginal patch of bogland.
1574
This Measure does something which runs against the tide of past legislation and the intention of this House in its legislation since 1886. Every relevant Act that has come along since 1886 has enlarged the liberties of the crofter, has made things easier for him and has tended to make him more secure in his tenure, and, therefore, more enthusiastic about what production it is possible to get out of his croft. That potential is greatly exaggerated by those who do not have to work a croft on the edge of the Atlantic.
This Act, however, runs right across that tide. Here the crofter's sense of security of tenure is being diluted and debased. I thought I saw the right hon. Gentleman shake his head, but as I do not hear any sound I must have been mistaken—
Mr. Maclay: My head occasionally wobbles, but the hon. Gentleman must not make too much of the way it wobbles. It may have something to do with the hour.
Mr. MacMillan: Perhaps I should attribute the weakness to the right hon. Gentleman's spine, not to his head.
These proposals for compulsions should have been resisted by the Secretary of State. Where does this legislation come from? We know that no crofter asked for it, nor did anyone speaking for the crofter either in this House or elsewhere. No Highlands local authority asked for the Bill. The Crofters Commission, a group of paid officials, was the only body making any demand at all for this legislation. It is insupportable that a group of paid officials should have the power to be able to say to the Secretary of State, "We know that the crofters, in general, are against this—." At least, the Commission should know that. If it does not, then the Commission is not sufficiently in touch with those whom it should serve.
No hon. Members opposite asked for this Bill—though they may support it now that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced it; it would be difficult for them not to, but I know that they will do it with heavy hearts—and lighter majorities, or minorities, after the next election. I cannot trace any demand for this legislation anywhere, except by the Crofters Commission. That is the only place—and it is wrong that legislation should be brought

1575
in merely to gratify a desire for increased bureaucratic power on the part of a body that is responsible for its own failure, which it wants to attribute to the crofters and the other people on the land.
The powers and duties of this Commission are broadly on the lines of reorganisation, development and regulation of crofting. That, broadly, covers its purposes and duties. The Commission has two full-time and three part-time members, and a panel of local assessors to advise it. I have to go through all this kind of thing because the right hon. Gentleman did not do the House the courtesy of explaining what the Bill is about. It is extremely difficult to do the Secretary of State's homework first and then put it before the House for examination, but I do not think that it is any the worse for that; I do not think that it is done any worse than the right hon. Gentleman would have done it.
The Crofters Commission will continue, under this Measure, in a slightly modified way, to have review and advisory functions in respect of the following important things; land settlement; the improvement of land and livestock; the planting of trees; the supply of agricultural equipment; the marketing of agricultural produce; experimental crofting methods; demonstration crofts; the need for public services of all kinds—the House should note that, the need for public services of all kinds; the provision of social amenities; the need for industries to provide supplementary employment for crofters or work for their families. Further, by Section 2 of the existing legislation which is to be amended if the Motion for Second Reading is carried and the Bill finally goes through, the Commission also has a duty
"to collaborate—"
that is the word:
"so far as their powers and duties permit with any body or person in the carrying out of any measure for the economic development and social improvement of the crafting counties …"
That is a pretty wide range, and these are very considerable duties, and if they were carried out, if the Commission had the money to carry them out, they could make an immense impact on the whole standard of life of the crofting areas.
The trouble is that the Commission has not asked for the finance necessary
1576
to carry out those duties and make them effective. It has asked the right hon. Gentleman only for an extension of its bureaucratic powers to lay new disciplines on crofters, to allow new compulsions against them which we no longer impose on farmers, landowners or any other section of the community. Only this working tenant section of our agricultural population is it proposed to discipline and compel in the way that this legislation does.
Reverting for a moment to the duty to collaborate, the Crofters Commission is under obligation, I imagine, to collaborate closely with the county councils, the Forestry Commission, the Tourist Board, the Hydro-Electric Board, the Transport Commission, the Herring Industry Board, the White Fish Authority and bodies like the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, I.C.I., MacBrayne's, the sea transport company, and British European Airways, and with individual persons wishing to undertake economic or social betterment in the Highland areas. These are extremely wide obligations and it is important that the Commission should have the resources which we alone can see that it gets while ensuring that it does carry out those duties.
The Commission has obligations only. It does not have the power. What, therefore, has the Commission been able or unable to do that has compelled it to come to this House—or, at least, to the Secretary of State in the first place—to ask for greater powers because the powers that it had were, in its view, inadequate? The Commission has been able, unfortunately, to do very little. It has done a sort of proxy Santa Claus act on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman. It has passed on grants to the crofters which the Department of Agriculture would have paid out in any case. It has been a message boy delivering the grants on behalf of the D.A.O.S. Beyond that, it has helped to administer cropping and grants in respect of fencing and certain improvements of that kind. It has had little impact otherwise upon the area and it has not had the powers in the right directions to have made any real impact.
The Crofters Commission should today be coming forward asking, not for an extension of the wrong powers, as

1577
we see it, but asking that it be given the right powers to carry out the real jobs of work which it has not been able yet to contemplate. Its last Report, upon which the Bill is largely based, was a shrill cry of despair. From beginning to end, it had given up hope, given us the attempt and almost given up the ghost.
Mr. H. Lever: Will my hon. Friend assist those of us who have been deprived of the conventional assistance which normally we get on Second Reading from the Minister who is responsible for the Bill? Could he help those of us who are not familiar with the position? I understand that there is power in the Commission to try to reorganise crofting townships and to prepare schemes. Under existing law, this requires, apparently, the approval of a majority of the crofters. The Bill takes away the requirement of the approval of a majority. Before passing from the point about the use of the Commission's powers, could my hon. Friend tell the House what has been the experience of these schemes? Have any been prepared? Have they been valuable? Have they been turned down by a majority? Does my hon. Friend think it safe to abandon that safeguard of majority assent and the like? Perhaps he will enlarge on that.
Mr. John MacLeod: On a point of order. The rule, I understand, is that a Bill of this kind can be sent to the Scottish Grand Committee. It has now come back here for Second Reading. Is it in order to have a complete Second Reading debate again? The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has, I admit, made new points this evening, but he is making virtually a lot of the points which he has already made in the Scottish Grand Committee upstairs.
Mr. MacMillan indicated dissent.
Mr. MacLeod: If that is the case, will it be in order for all Scottish Bills to be treated in this way?
Mr. Speaker: That is governed by the Standing Order, which is applicable in a case where an Amendment is put down to the Motion on Second Reading. I have not heard anything out of order yet.
Mr. MacMillan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for safeguarding the rights of, I hope, the majority of Members of this House who are concerned with those rights. If the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty wants to deprive himself of any rights, he can make application in the right place.
Mr. MacLeod: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Accusation has been made that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not given the House a speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. But he has already, upstairs in the Scottish Grand Committee, made two or three speeches—certainly two—on the Second Reading of the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—well, on the principle of the Bill. That has been done on many occasions. Is it now being argued that no Bills should he sent to the Scottish Grand Committee? Is it argued that Bills should come back here and that Second Reading debates should virtually he repeated on the Floor of the House?
Surely my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not obliged to make a Second Reading speech again? This is a very interesting discussion, but do I understand from your Ruling that this can be done with every Scottish Bill?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that was a point of order. Could the hon. Member indicate to me the point of order he wishes to raise?
Mr. MacLeod: My point of order is this: can this procedure take place on every Scottish Bill?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will look at the Standing Order I do not think that he will find it complicated. I do not want to read it to the House again. Circumstances differ according to whether or no there is an Amendment to the Motion for Second Reading. This is a case where that is so. The matter of whether the Secretary of State behaves with propriety in this respect or not is not a matter for me.
Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Am I to understand that some of us who represent Welsh or English constituencies which have small farmers who may be treated in this way, should not be allowed to have a debate when public money is

1579
being spent, because the Scots have had a debate upstairs? This House knows nothing of what goes on in the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. Speaker: For the second time today I want to repeat my request that all hon. Members will combine to help me to put a stop to this practice of rising to points of order which are not points of order.
Mr. Davies: I only asked for help.
Mr. MacMillan: I welcome this indication that the delayed action mechanism of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty is coming into operation. I hope that he will apply it later to what is the first Second Reading debate we are having on this Bill. I was asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham. Perhaps I may reply a little later if he will remind me of it. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has diverted my attention, though I am sure that was not his intention.
The Crofters Commission has a duty laid upon it, and quite a number of responsibilities in connection with that duty, on land settlement. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) who pointed out on one occasion, to which I am loath to refer in this House again, that in the five years since it came into being, only five new land settlement holdings have been created. That is part of the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham regarding the speed at which the Commission has been able to work. I hope to answer the rest of his question later.
The Commission has its difficulties, and among the greatest is the problem of where to get suitable land for land settlements. That is where we are up against a problem which in its day the old Liberal Party had to face and which every Government since has had to face, though I will hand it to the Liberal Party, or rather the rebel element—the Land League element—of it, that it faced up to it better than its successors on the other side of the House have done.
This is where the Crofters Commission comes up against a difficulty. As soon as it looks around for any suitable land
1580
on which to carry out land settlement, what does it find? It finds that all the land is booked up already. It knows that the Duchess of Westminster has 70,000 acres of land, much of which is very desirable for land settlement but is not available to the Commission.
An Hon. Member: For sport?
Mr. MacMillan: My hon. Friend may call the Duchess a sport if he likes. All I said was "the Duchess of Westminster".
Mr. Maclay: I am sure that the hon. Member will also say that those behind the Westminster estates have been some of the most advanced landowners in Scotland. They have done better work in that part of the country than any others have done.
Mr. MacMillan: I have not said anything so far that the right hon. Gentleman need contradict. If that is a statement by him, let us accept it at the value at which we always accept statements from him. If that does not sound too nice, it is not meant to be too critical either.
The Duchess of Westminster retains the 70,000 acres, and her daughter another 30,000, part of which is excellent land for the purpose of development for land settlement. The fact that the Westminster Estate has been able to do such excellent work agriculturally only proves my point that the land is suitable for agricultural development. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for underlining some of the argument. There between the Duchess and her daughter there are 100,000 acres, much of it good land, highly suitable for agricultural purposes which are in the meantime used very largely for purely sporting purposes. I understand that 120 stags per year are shot on the 30,000 acre estate and that either the crofters have already been shot or have disappeared because there are no crofters, but only stags and duchesses. There is another area there which is very tempting for any development body.
Then there are Lord Lovat's estates—200,000 acres, and I do not think that really accounts for it all. There 150 stags are shot annually, and there are 150 crofts—one stag for every croft, if that has any particular relevance.
There is also an odd coincidence in figures, in that for each of the 200,000

1581
acres Lord Lovat was not so long ago able to collect £1 in so-called "compensation" from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board. The Board was anxious to develop hydro-electricity in order to help the crofters in the Strathfarrar and Kilmorack area. That attractive estate, that beautiful pastureland with wonderful shelter, is all generously subsidised by myself and the crofters and everybody else, including the English and Welsh Members who were to be debarred from the debate by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty and the Secretary of State. Lord Lovat flourishes in his 200,000 acres with the £200,000 that he has collected from the Hydro-Electricity Board in respect of disturbance to his salmon fishing and so on.
Then there are Lord and Lady Rootes. They have an estate of 10,000 acres, much of which is excellent agricultural land. That is in Glenalmond. In fairness, one must say that there are on that land anything up to 3,000 sheep and 150 cattle, but a very large part of the estate is reserved for sport. They also hold between them deer forests in Sutherland, which run to about a further 13,000 acres.
Then there is the Duke of Atholl with 120,000 acres, all earmarked and duly laid title to, allowing of no Crofters Commission or anybody else who might want to disturb the ancient rights of the ancient Duke.
In all, there are about 196 deer forests embracing over 3 million acres of Highland land and there are 1,400 grouse moors all reserved for sport for the least useful section of the population, and a section that contributes least to the production of wealth in the Highlands or anywhere else. There are hundreds of other areas which are sterilised for agriculture or any other develpoment as long as these people are left in control. No wonder the Crofters Commission throws up its hands in despair about doing anything about land settlement and that it has to show for five years' activity only five land settlement holdings to its credit.
One cannot blame the Commission, for it has no power to deal with these great land monopolists and sporting landlords. This will go on until something is done by the House of Commons to enable the Commission to carry out
1582
its duties in crofting development. Until we do that the Commission will be frustrated, as will anybody who attempts to do anything.
The Commission gave birth to the idea of this Bill in a spirit of frustration, in an atmosphere almost of panic. After five years it is not pleasant for a public body which is charged with these duties to have to come back to Parliament for a renewal of its appointment and for amending legislation and say that it has only five new holdings, that it has only been able to do part of the registration of crofts, that it has distributed grants on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, but that it has done almost nothing else to show for its five years of existence.
The Commission covers its own confusion and its many failures by demanding additional bureaucratic powers for itself, instead of powers and resources which would enable it to do something about the assistance and promotion of industries suitable for a crofting area and ancillary to crofting and fishing. The Commission is ingrowing and shrinking into itself and is conscious now only of one responsibility, and that is to deal with crofting in the narrowest sense. Everything else has been abandoned. The attempt to venture boldly into collaboration with other people in industrial activities has gone. The attempts to devise ways of marketing or transporting or of reducing fares—all those have gone. The Commission asks for no more than the power to extend its bureaucratic authority to discipline the crofters, out of the whole agricultural population.
Crofting development clearly depends a good deal today on electrification. The Hydro-Electric Board has connected during the years since it came into being a very large part of the population of the Highlands and Islands. It has connected not less than about 90 per cent. It had intended that by 1949–50 it would have connected 100 per cent. of those who indicated that they wanted to be supplied in the Islands. Unfortunately, costs have risen against the Board and various political decisions in the last few years have made it virtually impossible for it to carry out its work, especially in the remoter areas with which the Commission is most particularly concerned, because of the lack of basic

1583
services with which in those areas to extend and modernise agriculture and crofting.
On the social side of the Board's responsibilities there is another difficulty which the young people particularly are clamouring about. They have, I think, approached the Commission for support, and they have certainly come to me and to other people.
I want to know how it is possible to get T.V. by gaslight. This is a question which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty raised in the House another time. One cannot get T.V. from a gas tap. This is a matter which concerns the Commission.
Mr. Speaker: I have some difficulty in connecting T.V. and gaslight with the subject matter of the Bill.
Mr. MacMillan: I admit that it is difficult, but my point is that the Crofters Commission has a duty laid upon it of concerning itself with the provision of social amenities. I am not trying to get away with anything and this is a serious point. The Commission is expected to collaborate with the right hon. Gentleman and, through him, with the Post Office and the B.B.C. and with everybody else concerned, and there are consultations from time to time.
Mr. Speaker: It may be that I am wrong, and if so, I am sorry. A difference of view exists as to whether T.V. is a social amenity or not, perhaps in the context of this Bill.
Mr. MacMillan: I am afraid that I share that doubt and view. I would not have it inside my door, and that is the majority decision of my family, too. But there is a demand for it and I am merely conveying that demand which, I know, has reached the ears of the Crofters Commission. In the Commission's view, I believe, and in mine it is, perhaps, unfortunately, one of the things which have an attraction for young people and the lack of it results in speeding depopulation. It is connected with the problem of keeping young people in areas which do not have the social amenities of the city areas and the fewer of these things young people have, for better or worse, the more the bright lights of the city attract them, adding to the depopulation problem.
1584
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this lack of electricity in the islands, in places like Barra and North Uist, is having the effect that the people of those areas cannot look forward, first, to electricity until 1975, according to the chairman of the Board, and, secondly, cannot look forward to the things which electricity makes possible, ancillary industry and, therefore, employment. Without electricity, they cannot look forward to the ancillary industries to provide jobs in the areas. Not just as important as that, is T.V. which is relatively a side issue, but which is important in the eyes of many people—the correct phrase, taken literally—and which I have mentioned in passing.
The Commission and the right hon. Gentleman are up against the frightening problem that every time they try to develop almost anything in the Highland, somebody is ready, either in a Highland castle or mansion, or on a city board in London, to leap out with an immense claim against them for compensation. Compensation for what? One does not normally hear of many of these people. They are quiet, retiring people who have never had it so good and who, by keeping quiet have had it good for a long time. But, as soon as a public agency like the Crofters Commission or the Hydro-Electric Board tries to develop anything, they come out from their mysterious corners in the Highlands and the woods and claim against the Commission, or the county council, the Department, or the Forestry Commission—against anybody who is rash enough to try to develop almost any of the neglected areas and resources of the Highland area. Their whole aim seems to be not to help the Commission, but to try to drain out of the community every last pound and penny they possibly can.
You would almost swear, Mr. Speaker, that there was a conspiracy to prevent hydro-electric development; but I would not go as far as that. They are satisfied if they get a handsome piece of compensation. They can be bought off. I doubt whether that is much to their credit: indeed, it would be much better if they objected in principle and were not so keen on the cash. That is what the Hydro-Electric Board, as well as the Crofters Commission, is up against.

1585
One example is the Kilmorack—Strathfarrar hydro scheme. For the benefit of my English and Welsh friends I should say that some of my Scottish friends and I talked about this matter on the Bill in another place—meaning "another place" not in the strict Parliamentary sense of the term. The Crofters Commission no doubt was closely interested in the Kilmorack estate. In that case, a scheme was held up while the landlord demanded his compensation. Month after month went by and every month that went by the Board's work of generating electricity was delayed and yet another month's revenue was lost to the Board, a loss of revenue which made it more difficult for the Board from its profitable schemes to carry the uneconomic schemes and provide electricity further into the remoter areas.
The thing goes round in this vicious and expensive circle. At the end of the day one of the landlords—and I am sure that he will not mind if I mention him because he has been mentioned before—Lord Lovat of the 200,000 acres was awarded £100,000 in cold cash and at the same time enjoyed improvements on his estate worth more than £100,000. He came out of that well over £200,000 to the good.
While that scheme was held up, and while I was being told in the House and by the Hydro-Electric Board that the Board was so hard up for cash that it could not afford to bring electricity to the crofting communities of the Outer Hebrides, the Board was paying thousands of pounds in compensation for interfering with the fishing which providence at some time had, it seems, awarded to his lordship and others. The Board apparently could not afford to provide electricity for the people on the spot, the people for whom the whole hydroelectric scheme was—
Mr. Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member. I can understand that as a preamble to some proposition related to the Bill, but I think that the preamble is getting rather long and I must require the hon. Member to relate it reasonably to the subject matter of the Bill.
Mr. MacMillan: I am merely illustrating how the supply of electricity, which is
1586
one of the duties which might fall on the Crofters Commission in certain circumstances and in certain places, will affect, and is affecting, the work which we have instructed the Commission and Hydro Board to carry out for us. So far I have given only one compensation case example. I will not refer at length to the other beneficiaries of this system of, shall I call it, hold-ups. I will quote only two other cases. Sir John Stirling collected about £50,000, and Sir Robert Spenser-Nairne also held up a scheme for several months; but I am not sure how much he received.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This may be my stupidity. I am very willing to listen to the hon. Member, but at the moment I do not understand how he can relate this reasonably to the subject matter of the Bill, and that I must require, even on Second Reading.
Mr. MacMillan: On that point, Mr. Speaker, before giving those examples perhaps I should have explained what I was anxious to point out. All this work of the Crofters Commission, which is laid on it directly by legislation, and which it is proposed to amend now, is related to the supply of electricity. The work of developing the crofts and modernising agriculture in collaboration with the various authorities and improving social conditions is tied up with the supply of electricity. It is fundamental to all agricultural development in the Highlands. That is my explanation.
Mr. Speaker: If I might assist, I will explain what is in my mind. I understand that point, and it may be legitimate, but I think that matters not arising in connection with the provisions of the Bill, or near them, which result from other reasons in the frustration of electricity supply or distribution are beyond the fine of order.
Mr. Manuel: Mr. Speaker, this is very important, and I should like your guidance because some hon. Members are very keen on this aspect of the argument.
For the past six years the Crofters Commission has been operating under the 1955 Act, and under that Act the onus is placed on the Commission to work with the Hydro-Electric Board. The Bill we are discussing will to some

1587
degree alter the 1955 Act, but not that aspect of it. Many of my hon. Friends who are interested in the Highlands are disappointed that there has not been greater co-operation between the Board and the Commission, and that more electricity has not been provided in the remoter areas.
Mr. Speaker: I will hear the hon. Member if he has the good fortune to catch my eye. What he is saying to me now appears to be in order, but what the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) was doing was going a good way away from the Bill.
Mr. MacMillan: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with the frustration of the work of the Hydro-Electric Board, which is collaborating with the Crofters Commission, or trying to, and unless something is done to end this frustration the work of the Commission cannot go on. It is admitted that that is so. We know that it cannot help to promote industries without electricity, and the activities of certain people in frustrating the supply of electricity are also frustrating the activities of the Commission.
In a Second Reading debate we are under some duty to propose alternatives to the present method of supplying electricity, and I was about to do that. When the 1955 Measure was in Committee upstairs an Amendment was moved providing that in certain areas where the Hydro-Electric Board, for no good reason, was not able to extend electricity to certain parts and crofting townships, the Commission should be given powers to do so. That is something that we must discuss in more detail in Committee. Electricity is one of the basic services, without which we cannot hope to modernise or reorganise and develop crofting agriculture in the Highlands and Islands.
We must find some way round this obstruction, in order to make it possible for the Board to assist the Commission in getting on with its work. Unfortunately, the prospect is getting worse instead of better. I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not have in mind the duties he laid upon the Commission, and which he is now amending and extending, when he made himself a party to putting further difficulties in
1588
the way of that Board, and therefore the Commission, in the electrification of the crofts. That is something with which the Commission must concern itself, day in and day out, in all its duties. And I am not merely talking in connection with television. Power is fundamental to the economic and industrial development we hope to see in the crofting areas.
Now, one more scheme—the great Glen Nevis scheme, a £4 million undertaking which, once in operation, would help to carry the uneconomic schemes in outlying crofting areas—is to be held up month after month while an Aims of Industry committee of investigation is going on with its inquiries. That is a further great frustration of the work of the Hydro-Electric Board and the Commission, and I am sure that it would have something to say to the right hon. Gentleman if it were free to do so. Commission members lecture hon. Members on this side of the House and other critics in their reports. They speak of our "fulminating against the Government". Those are odd words to find in a Report of a Government Commission—a report on which this very legislation is based.
They appear to be content to go on doing—as they say—"a little here and a little there", thinking in terms of decades, while the Highlands are dying by the month and the year. The right hon. Gentleman should give the Commission the same freedom to attack him as he gives it to attack us in respect of any criticisms we have about the failure of its endeavours. I am sure that the Commission would now have much more to say about how it has been made impossible for it to do its work, because he is helping to make it impossible for the Hydro-Electric Board to do its work.
I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman receives further letters from me he will not hide behind the new inquiry, as he has tended to hide behind all the others in the past.
Mr. H. Lever: Will my hon. Friend deal with the point he has just made about the Crofters Commission's Report? In the first place, it would assist some of us if he would give the reference in the Report to the passage where the Commission criticised Members of the House, and, secondly, will

1589
he tell us—because it may be relevant to this Second Reading debate—whether the Report was made available to Members of the Scottish Grand Committee? Was the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee held without the Report being available?
Mr. MacMillan: This is hardly for me, I think, but my hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to that point. It is a non-Parliamentary Paper for which hon. Members have to apply on a green form which is then sent to some distant quarter, possibly to Inverness. Copies of the Report had to come back through the post, within the rather short notice of the Second Reading debate on the Bill. Therefore, many hon. Members will have no copies at all unless they sent for them themselves some days ago—and that goes for some other highly relevant documents without which it is not possible to conduct this debate as it should be conducted.
As for the reference to the advice which the Commission, which is the inspirer of this legislation, gave, my hon. Friend will find the relevant passages on page 15. The Commission says:
"Britain is in no mood for daring innovations; she is in a period of rueful stocktaking rather than of expansion. So we see no prospect of any comprehensive measure to reduce those restraints on Highland development which are imposed by existing difficulties of communication and marketing, and by the high level of freight charges. It serves no purpose for anyone to fulminate against the Government, or the Crofters Commission, or any other body striving for progress"—
one would hardly recognise the Government in those terms—
"in face of those ancient disabilities, because responsibility rests on the country at large."
The Commission goes on to say:
"As things are, we shall all have to be content with the present tempo of improvement"—
the expression "present tempo of improvement" is an excellent description of "regeneration," is it not?—
"a little here, a little there, and an excessive amount of discussion —"
and so on. One notices that in the Report every reference to criticism or discussion always describes it as "fulmination", "excessive" or "unreasonable". The Commission has adopted a strangely free vocabulary in dealing with both Members of Parliament and
1590
others, people whose duty it is to criticise its work and make sure that its work is going on as it should. We are told that we should not criticise the Government or fulminate even against the Commission itself. That goes beyond even what the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty said about limiting the right of discussion. I hope that my hon. Friend will now agree that I was not misleading anyone in any way in what I said.
The Secretary of State will have to address himself to the problem of helping to bring electricity to the remoter areas. Clearly, the Board has no intention of doing it under its present disabilities. It claims it is not able to do it in its present position. This is not a reason for running into the arms of Aims of Industry and knuckling under, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, to the pressure groups which have been parading about this place for several months. It is a reason for his devising ways and means of doing what the Board is unable to do, largely because of policy decisions and actions of the Government themselves, for instance, by making it dearer for it to borrow money and restricting its work by an economic squeeze every two or three years so that the Hydro-Electric Board, like other development authorities, has had to curtail or delay its programme.
The other day, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), when we were discussing the setting up of the Aims of Industry committee, the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance, or what appeared to be an assurance, though it was cagily worded, with a great deal of hedging and equivocation. It may have been force of habit or it may have been intent. Anyway, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate that local distribution schemes in the remote areas to which reference was made would not be affected adversely by the Glen Nevis inquiry or the Aims of Industry inquiry. That was the impression with which the hon. Member left the House—smiling. I do not know whether he is smiling now. Perhaps he is snoring. At any rate, he is not here.
The following day I received a letter from the Secretary of State about the supply of electricity to two islands which

1591
have been denied supplies all these years. I have had voluminous correspondence about the electrification of these islands. On electrification depends all modern development of crofting and ancillary industries, jobs, supply schemes—and television too. In 1954 the Hydro-Electric Board almost invited tenders for these. What has happened since? There has been one so-called economic squeeze after another, and more and more difficulties have been put in the way of the Hydro-Electric Board as a result of deliberate Government action and policy. Right up to 1961 the Hydro-Electric Board has not been able to bring electricity to those crofting communities on the islands of North Uist and Barra. Recently the chairman of the Board said that things were so difficult for them that he could not promise electrification of those islands—which means industry, jobs and all the rest of it—until 1975.
The right hon. Gentleman wrote to me on 6th December about the supply of electricity to North Uist and Barra. He began,
"I have been unable to write to you before now"
—I am sure that it is his own reply—
"because I have been considering the desirability of appointing a committee of inquiry to review the general arrangements for generating and distributing electricity in Scotland."
All this in relation to a tiny local distribution scheme in the Outer Hebrides. He continued:
"I have now announced to the House the setting up of a Departmental Committee with the following terms of reference …"
I am sure that all hon. Members, even English and Welsh hon. Members, have had vouchsafed to them the terms of reference of that Committee. The letter continues:
"You will recall that in previous correspondence I have drawn attention to the difficulties confronting the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in meeting the capital cost of connections in remote areas and the annual cost of providing a supply, and since the needs of the remoter areas raise important social and economic questions I feel that the issues involved should he fully examined by"
—believe it or not—
"an independent body."
I cannot think he meant independent of the Aims of Industry; but I am not sure.
1592
This is farcical, and a feeble excuse for avoiding for another year—and who knows how many years after that?—the necessity to do anything about the special needs of these special areas and their special problem of unemployment. There is no part of Great Britain with a worse record of persistent unemployment than the Western Isles. I say that not just because the statistics published by the Ministry of Labour show it but because, in addition, there is much under-employment concealed by various local factors—for example, the fact that crofters are self-employed, even though they depend mainly on other jobs, as they must. They cannot live from four acres and a cow, which is still quite an average crofting equipment in that area.
When the right hon. Gentleman writes a letter of that kind he is running away from the problem and he is taking the Crofters Commission with him, because the Commission is quite helpless if he insists on making it impossible for the Hydro-Electric Board to get on with its work.
The right hon. Gentleman may be content to have said of him when he dies, as Keats said,
"Here lies one whose name was writ in water."
But while he is still alive—as I believe he is—he still has a certain responsibility for hydro-electricity and for developing and making available water and power to the crofters. At present what we have in him is mainly water and very little power.
I am going to pass on to him a letter from Inverness County Council which is vitally concerned with crofting development in co-operating with the Crofters Commission and is demanding electricity for outlying areas. I am going to pass on to him what, so far as I know, is the unanimous protest against the setting up of a committee of inquiry following the Minister's yielding to the pressure of interested parties who want to frustrate what they regard as the spoliation of areas in the Highlands in which they are interested—areas which, to a large extent, some of these people are only concerned in keeping as sporting areas, deer forests and grouse moors. That is their only interest in the areas.
Outstanding among these people is Colonel Whitbread. I do not think anyone

1593
would say that he has any particular interest or investment worth mentioning in the Highlands of Scotland. He has anything up to 26 or 27 directorships, and not one of them, so far as I am aware, is in the Highlands of Scotland. There may be some in Scotland, but not one in the Highlands. Yet he is concerned and has distinguished himself in leading the agitation in the lobby to which the right hon. Gentleman has now yielded for this inquiry and the further delay and frustration of the electrification of the crofting counties.
I am sorry that that should be the case, but the right hon. Gentleman has asked for it, and just as Mr. Cutbill, that professional grouse creator, sent by the Aims of Industry to the Highlands to raise all sort of complaints about this work, has come to be known as "Whitbread's tout," the right hon. Gentleman has put himself in a very unfortunate relationship with a body of this kind whose concern clearly is not with the development of the crofting areas.
Let us look at the Commission's attitude to its responsibility for transport and for freights. The Commission has given up all hope. It has said that much as it would like to see something done about reducing the cost of marketing the crofters' produce and transporting it at more reasonable rates, it regrets that it can see
"nothing in sight that can be expected to lighten the burden of increasing freight rates within living prospect."
That is not much of a living prospect for the crofters, especially in Shetland and the Outer Islands, if they have got to put up with the excessive burdens of freight charges, delays, irregularities and all the rest for the reminder of their lives.
I do not know if it was the chairman of the Commission, who is in his sixties, or one of the younger members of the Commission who wrote that, but at any rate it is not intended to cheer us up. What it does indicate is that the Commission is completely barren of any suggestions or ideas regarding the lightening of the burden of freight charges. But it still has the duty of thinking around that problem and making recommendations to the Secretary of State.
1594
I do not know whether it has made any recommendations, but here is a body asking for an extension of powers and of its rights to discipline and to compel crofters. I want to know what that body has been doing. I should like to know what it has said to the Secretary of State and what his answer was. Nothing has happened, except that the situation has got worse, and once against the freight charges have been increased by another 10 per cent., in an area where it costs already more than 10 per cent. more to live than it does even in the region of Inverness, let alone Aberdeen, London or Glasgow.
Something has to be done if we are to retain the population, which it is ostensibly the policy of all Governments to do. Answering Parliamentary Questions and Adjournment debates they all say that. If it is their purpose to retain the population in the Highlands and Islands; and to raise their standards roughly to those of the rest of the country, the Government must obviously tackle the additional cost of living in those areas. Instead of that, they pile on 10 per cent. upon 5 per cent. upon 10 per cent. in higher freight rates until it becomes quite impossible to do business there, to develop enterprises or industries in the area, or to live with any comfort and bring up a family—not at the present cost of living.
There is a different sort of body that asks the right hon. Gentleman to set up an inquiry—not Aims of Industry this time, but a body representative of the Highlands—the Ross and Cromarty County Council. That council wants an inquiry now, not into hydro-electricity but into the question of freight charges, into the MacBrayne Company's affairs and the running of its services, and into the whole question of the cost of the carriage of goods in the North-West Highlands and Islands.
It has asked the Inverness County Council to join with it—as I know the Inverness County Council will—in this demand. It has asked the Argyll County Council to join with it in an approach to the Secretary of State for an inquiry into ways and means of doing what the Crofters Commission should be advising the right hon. Gentleman about. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will yield as willingly to the pressure of the elected local authorities as he did to the

1595
pressure of unrepresentative and obviously financially interested people. So much for freight charges.
Then the Crofters Commission talks just a little bit—may I modestly say, unlike certain hon. Members—about the fishing industry; but I am afraid that it has given up fishing, too. The Commission has made no continuing attempt to do anything about freight charges, and has given no new thought to ancillary industries without which, as the Commission itself say over and over again, crofting cannot survive at all. Now the Commission seems to have given up any interest it may have had in the fishing industry and shows no intention of interesting itself in a practical way in trying to develop it.
The right hon. Gentleman, without further legislation, could be helping the Commission and the crofter-fishermen to solve their problems in that particular field—if "field" is the right word in the context of the fishing industry. I have been speaking so long on crofting that when I come to fishing I still have one foot ashore, but I am sure that my hon. Friend who is such an expert on white fish and anything connected with it, even in the early hours of the morning, will forgive me if I do not use the right figures of speech or figures of rhetoric—
Mr. H. Lever: The facts are so important, and so helpful coming from my hon. Friend, although we did not get them from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. MacMillan: I am having to do the right hon. Gentleman's job for him. Indeed, being a member of the clan to which I belong, I am extremely lucky not to be on the Treasury Bench as one of the Macmillan family. We have our little difficulties among our friends and Cousins in the Labour Party, but the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, has solved all his little local differences with his cousins and friends by putting them all on his Front Bench. Not that there are no more difficulties there. I am not ashamed of the clan, but I am ashamed of the achievements of my fellow clansman's right hon. Friends—particularly the Secretary of State for Scotland—
Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman is not listening—he is seeking advice.
Mr. MacMillan: He is not even grateful to me for explaining what I can of the purpose and the intention behind the Bill, and of the Commission which inspired it. I do not blame him wholly for the Bill. I do not blame him completely for the contents of this Bill or for these proposals. I know that he was almost bludgeoned into it by the Commission and by nobody else at all. There was no insistence for this Bill in the right hon. Gentleman's Department or among Ministers, Members of Parliament, local authorities or anybody else.
It came from only one place. That is why, in some respects, it may be such a bad Bill. [Interruption.] I was saying something complimentary to the Secretary of State. That is, perhaps why he looks so surprised now. I shall thank him, as I did once before somewhere else which is unmentionable in this House, for having served as a buffer between the crofters and the Commission; because I am afraid that the Commission had originally much more sinister aims and designs against the crofters by way of compulsory amalgamation of their pitiable small crofts into larger units with the almost inevitable displacement of population that may still be effected under the Bill. It has been modified, and to that extent I thank the right hon. Gentleman. It may again have been force of habit that made him take the middle course rather than the extreme left or extreme right. We can in that case thank his force of habit for it.
The Commission has duties in connection with crofter fishermen and the development of the crofter fishing industry in the crofter counties. One of the difficulties about all this is that, to my knowledge, the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have never carried out a single one of the important recommendations that have been made in respect of the fishing industry by, for example, any of the Highlands and Islands Members of Parliament, the local authorities or, as is to a large extent true, the Neven-Spence Committee of 1945. One of the things that I recommended then, although the Neven-Spence Committee did not accept it, was the closing of the Minch around the islands and north-west Highland area. Unless that is done, it will be impossible

1597
for the Commission to carry out its duties of raising the standard of life of these crofter-fishermen by collaborating, as it should, to the full with the Herring Industry Board and with the White Fish Authority. Those are two of the bodies with which it has a duty to collaborate.
Unless the Secretary of State gives greater protection to the inshore fishermen and to the livelihood of the crofter fishermen, there will be an increased drifting away from that industry and, therefore, from crofting itself. The Commission pointed out over and over again in the early stages of its existence that it is vitally important that fishing should continue to be one of the few bases of local economic life, particularly in the outlying places and the Outer Islands.
I should like to know in what way the right hon. Gentleman will help the Commission or the Commission is to be empowered under the Bill to do something practical about the marketing of the livestock, of the lobsters, of the fish and all the rest from, say, the Outer Islands or any of the other fishing and stock-rearing areas. What proposals or powers does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind for the Commission? What will the Commission be able to do under the Bill that it is not able to do now? Will the Secretary of State be prepared to amend the Bill under pressure or in co-operation with us on this side or with his hon. Friends in such a way as to make possible the planned transporting of livestock in particular, especially from the Outer Islands?
What powers will the right hon. Gentleman give the Commission to do a little more about the construction or assistance with the construction of jetties and piers, since he is not prepared to undertake this himself? Will he place this duty upon the Commission firmly, once and for all, with the resources, the finance and the general equipment to do it? Or, will things drift on just as they have been doing? I cannot see anything in the Bill to lead us to hope for anything else.
What is to prevent the Secretary of State, on the advice of the local township committees, practically every one of whose members are fishermen, in collaboration with the Crofters Commission
1598
and other local bodies and local authorities, having a more efficient system of fishery protection around the islands and the crofting villages throughout the area?
Why should he not organise what we have proposed for the Islands—a continuous preventive patrol, pursuit and arrest service, with a fleet of armed, powerful speed boats with all-weather capacity, based on the local fishing bays? What is to prevent the Secretary of State operating such a service for the protection of the livelihood of the inshore fishermen, with the collaboration of the Commission, local township committees and local authorities. We have asked for this time and again? But there is no sign of a response from the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he is taking advice from the Lord Advocate at the moment, but it is not the quarter to which I would turn for it. The Secretary of State must know that crofting can be destroyed—I wish I could have his attention. It is early yet, and he should not be so washed out.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will understand that in my present job I find it necessary to be able to listen, talk and do ten other things simultaneously without doing any harm to any of them.
Mr. MacMillan: I wish the right hon. Gentleman also had the capacity to understand as well, because then we might have some response. He can destroy crofting at sea as well as on land. If he destroys the inshore fishing industry he cannot keep crofting on its feet.
This is a problem that many countries are facing. It is a basic problem not only for the Crofters Commission but for the Government and everybody else. It is the problem of the second job in the countryside. Almost everywhere, the small holding, the small farm, and the croft have failed as a means of providing a livelihood up to modern standards, especially when compared with standards in urban areas. Cities have attracted the population of the countryside. That is true of most countries.
If one looks at the studies made by such organisations as the I.L.O. and F.A.O., one finds that in almost every country in Western and Central Europe, including Finland, Norway, Southern Germany, France and Southern Italy, the

1599
central problem of study and research in connection with agricultural areas is that of the second job. In Southern Germany there is the problem of the man with the small, inadequate farm, who turns to the town for ancillary work. In the Highlands it is the problem of the man who has to have a fishing boat as well as his croft, or a weaving loom, or a job in a local textile mill. The central problem is the second job.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) is listening carefully, because he has said this so often. Indeed, on the occasion when he tried to do something about it here by introducing a Bill to set up a development body in the Highlands, it was his right hon. and hon. Friends opposite who frustrated him, but he had the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to their credit.
This, then, is the problem of the second job—in other words, the problem of introducing light industries, based first of all upon indigenous resources and, secondly, even upon some artificial method, directed by the Government as a conscious effort to industrialise. This will have to be tried if the Secretary of State is to sustain crofting and small farming in the marginal areas. Why should the Commission not now be encouraged, assisted and empowered to encourage light industries—even to sponsor and promote them. We have, after all, adopted the principle of equalisation in relation to local authorities and rating deficiencies and the provision of basic services and development of many kinds. Is there any reason why we should not be able to extend the principle, of what I might call equalisation of costs, to enterprises willing to go into crofting areas by compensating them for the additional cost of doing so?
If the Secretary of State is prepared to think about that he might find it a better way of doing the job than by the devious and unsuccessful method which D.A.T.A.C. tried to operate in the Highlands, and which is now being operated by B.O.T.A.C. If the Government were themselves in co-operation with bodies like the Crofters Commission, the local authorities, the Hydro-Electric Board and the rest to induce industries to go into the outlying areas on the clear understanding that they would not be penalised
1600
in the way of costs by doing so, and were prepared to equalise costs for them and give them other incentives, I cannot imagine that some Scottish industrialists would not respond.
But, failing such a response, and in the absence of private enterprise doing it, is there any reason why the Government should not themselves, through the various public agencies, both promote industry and guarantee to purchase its products? It seems to me not an insuperable problem at all if the Government were willing to tackle it. But if the Government do not do either of those things, we shall not get industry there, and on the argument of the Crofters Commission itself, if one does not get industry there, crofting will not survive; and then we shall be right back where we started.
I could give the right hon. Gentleman many suggestions about how he could sustain the crofting side of the crofter-fisherman economy by doing a great deal more to develop the fishing side. Obviously, the protection of the waters in which the inshore fishermen make their livelihood, or try to, in competition with illegal trawling of all kinds, both home and foreign, is one of the most important directions in which the right hon. Gentleman and his Department can help the local people. We have suggested the provision of full-time locally-based and to some extent locally-manned speed boat services, based on the local fishing bays, instead of the old-fashioned and cumbrous fishery cruisers which can be seen miles away and whose movements are radioed from one illegally trawling vessel to another. The right hon. Gentleman has it in his power to take a number of steps if he wants to and to get legislation, which the whole House would support, to try to protect the livelihood of the inshore fishermen. Many suggestions have been made to the right hon. Gentleman along these lines, and so I will not take any further time on that particular point.
There are other problems facing the Crofters Commission. One of them is the difficulty that many of the jobs which are available now to crofters are jobs in which there is not any Class 1 insurance. The Crofters Commission, like everybody else, is no doubt anxious to try to ensure that any development of industry and provision of jobs will

1601
be on an insurable basis as far as possible. It is well aware of the difficulty that when a weaver in the world-famous Harris tweed industry becomes unemployed as an out-worker, weaving this world-famous cloth in his own home on the croft for which the Commission has a direct responsibility, the man gets no unemployment benefit. He is an able-bodied man. Therefore, he gets no National Assistance. If he leaves the area, there is no guarantee that a Hebridean weaver will get a job in a factory on the mainland which requires, for example, skilled engineers. The usual thing for him is, in desperation, to go into the Merchant Navy and give up weaving altogether. So it goes on.
The crofters are all self-employed as a class. The Harris tweed weavers, the textile weavers, are all self-employed as a class. They are grouped together with bishops and judges and Mr. Cotton and Mr. Clore and the right hon. Gentleman, if I may take the liberty of grouping him with those characters. Nobody has done a single thing about the problem of the crofter and the crofter-weaver. Time after time I have written to Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman, who was good enough to reply fully about it but never have we been able to get them to accept a single suggestion to improve the insurance position and the social security position of this already depressed class. Why should we leave out of all our benefits the people who are trying to hang on on the fringe in the marginal areas and making a go of it at crofting, fishing and weaving?
Why should they be left out of the benefits of unemployment insurance in hard times and of payments for industrial injury and all the other things to which they are just as liable as any factory worker? The Secretary of State for Scotland has no answer to that, except that they are left out now and therefore there is nothing that we can do about it—which is an extremely unhelpful attitude and not uncharacteristic of him. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have some ideas about this? Otherwise we shall not get the young crofter or weaver to stay in that area. The weaver often is a crofter and the right hon. Gentleman has responsibility for him just as has the Crofters Commission.
1602
All these men are just as dependent on an employer for jobs as any factory worker is. When the raw material is not delivered to their doors for weaving and processing these men are just as unemployed and just as poor as any worker unemployed anywhere else in the country. Yet the right hon. Gentleman sends me bland letters telling me how sympathetic he is and that he is considering this with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance—a bonny pair—and we end up by getting no result whatsoever. Is it not time that we considered this along with the problem of jobs? It is no use having a Crofters Commission without crofters and we cannot get crofters to remain and sustain themselves without industry.
If we do not provide them with insurable employment we throw them on the mercy of the National Assistance Board. They will not even be allowed to draw National Assistance, since the Board will not take responsibility for them while they are able-bodied men who can register for other employment, which, in turn, is not available to them.
One could say many things about the many responsibilities of the Crofters Commission.
I will say no more than one sentence in passing about the additional burden which people in that area have to carry when they fall ill through industrial injury or otherwise—perhaps injury on the croft, or in the fishing boat where the crofter-fisherman is concerned, and injury at the loom where the crofter-weaver is concerned.
If that man has to travel to a hospital at any great distance away in his area, he has in many cases to pay to go into hospital for treatment out of his own pocket and do it over and over again if he requires a number of journeys. This is a particularly heavy burden in an area where the wages and the standard of living are much lower than they are basically in almost any other part of the country.
The Commission appears to have taken obliquely some credit for one quite dramatic improvement and change which has been going on in the island of Lewis. This is the new pasture regeneration or reseeding schemes in the island. There has been reseeded and virtually reclaimed from moorland up to

1603
3,000 acres of land which was formerly a brown bog of no value to anybody. Suddenly there is this dramatic gesture of green throughout that area and one sees beautiful, green, lush grass growing and in a year or two years the cattle population gradually increases and everybody is very happy about this demonstration of the capacity of crofters to work, co-operate and respond when they are given the right leadership.
The Crofters Commission has never actively frustrated any scheme. It does not promote schemes itself. It pays grants which the Government make available to the Department and for the rest takes a certain paternalistic interest in all that is going on, which I am afraid is slightly characteristic of the chairman of the Commission after many years in Colonial Territories, and it says "This is excellent."
I should like to pay my trbiute to the people who really did the work and who inspired it—the local people, with the help of the advisers of the College of Agriculture, particularly the local adviser on the island of Lewis, although these men hate being mentioned, especially by name, and the lands officers from the Department of Agriculture. They all worked together magnificently with, let it be said to their credit, the local merchants, who gave extended credit, and, in certain cases, the banks. There was an excellent response and it was again demonstrated that there will be a good response to any scheme which can be shown to he practical and of advantage and suitable to the locality. The crofters will co-operate in any sphere in which the necessary capital, which neglect and poverty through the generations has prevented them from accumulating for themselves, is made available to them, and when the right technical advice and co-operation are offered.
None of these things is tackled in the Bill. Nobody asked for the Bill. No crofter is demanding it. No landlord is demanding it. It is neither wholly good nor bad. No farmer, or fisherman, or local authority, or Member of Parliament is asking for it. Only the Commission has asked for the Bill, which does only one thing and which will result in only one thing, however far ahead we look—an extension of the Commission's bureaucratic powers.
1604
The crofters are already smothered by regulations and Acts of Parliament, hedged in with all sorts of restrictions which would not be tolerated for one minute by any landowner, by any farmer, in this country, and which none of those classes is even invited or asked to tolerate. Why should the House impose on the most helpless and poorest and most depressed section of the agricultural industry disabilities and disciplines and compulsions which it dare not, and, in any case, would not, impose upon the much more powerful and influential elements in farming and land-owning?
What do the Government expect to get out of the compulsions and disciplines? For instance, what do they expect to get in the way of additional agricultural production? Supposing they increase the crops in all the crofts on a lot of difficult and rocky marshland and add the lot together; what would the total extra production be in an island like Harris or Eriskay? It would be very little indeed. Have the right hon. Gentleman and the Commission any way of marketing the surplus, if a surplus is created? The experience with surpluses over the last years has been that they have had to rot into the ground, or the crofters have been frustrated in their enterprise by not being able to compete in the inland markets because of the cost of and delays in freight to the mainland markets.
The sum total effect of these so-called re-organisation schemes is that they will not work under compulsion and that all the compulsory sub-letting will not be allowed to work in any areas where the clan system is still strong and where personal and township and family loyalties are extremely strong.
The sum total effect achieved by the Bill will be a sense of disturbance throughout the croft lands caused by this bureaucratic body's attempts to enforce its powers. English and Welsh Members may not know that crofters are already compelled to reside one the croft, wherever it is and however uncomfortable it is—or at the most within two miles of it—if they are not to be booted out of even the small and inadequate patch of ground that was probably won from the heath or picked out of the rocks by their ancestors when the landlords were busy pushing the Highlanders to the edge of the Atlantic.

1605
Along comes the right hon. Gentleman and his Commission with this miserable Bill and asks us solemnly to consider it on Second Reading, without even any explanation. It would be almost an act of faith to accept this document without explanation; and that is asking a lot if we bear in mind our experience of the right hon. Gentleman's legislation.
The Bill is asking for power publicly to discipline and humiliate the crofters for failing to do what no hon. Member of this House would find himself any more able to do than the crofters, and that is to wrest a living out of many of the miserable patches of bogs in the West Highlands. The Bill is in danger of diminishing the security of tenure and of further loosening the old attachment to the land, which is a valued and precious thing in an area where they have had to fight for every square inch of land. The results will not, in terms of productivity or human happiness, justify an Act of Parliament being passed on the lines of this Bill with which we have been confronted.
The Crofters Commission should come before us today and say: "Look, we possibly made the wrong approach to the crofters. We were clumsy and tactless. We showed inconsistency in matters of assignation and other matters. When it came to reorganisation schemes, we failed to carry them out on the voluntary basis because we sold the people the prospect of something really dramatic and profitable to them before we explained to them that they would have to pay higher rents and carry additional burdens. That is to a large extent the reason for the failure of the reorganisation schemes. The people did not know the snags. They did not know in good time of the new impositions, taxes and burdens, financial and otherwise, until the schemes were well under way. Suddenly they were confronted with them and they refused to go on".
Had the Crofters Commission told them frankly that there were certain snags and that there would be certain burdens and consulted them about this at the beginning, much of the work that was wasted on the schemes would not have been wasted, and the time of the Commission would have been saved.
1606
Some time ago tonight I was asked about compulsory reorganisation. May I relate it in passing to something in which this House and my party in particular takes great pride, that is, to the majority right of the local people. That is extremely important. It plays a part in our debates on Central African Federation and in many other colonial discussions, but here in this legislation it is proposed for the first time in the reorganisation of the crofting villages that the will of the majority shall not only not operate but shall be no more than merely consulted. In other words, even if there are up to 100 per cent, of the crofters in the community against it, subject only to the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman, subject only to that one frail and unreliable safeguard, the Crofters Commission can impose its will on that whole township, or group of townships, as to its radical reorganisation in all its aspects. The will of the majority of the people can be flouted and set aside by a group of paid officials.
That is something about which the House ought to be anxious. Even the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) might show some small sense of responsibility in relation to this filching away of the rights and liberties of that section of the electorate, the agricultural population. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman regards this is a matter of levity, but he has some concern in the passing, if it is passed, of the Bill. I ask him to treat the matter more responsibly.
Mr. Raymond Gower: How does the hon. Gentleman know that my aside to my hon. Friend had anything to do with his speech?
Mr. MacMillan: I am sure that it had nothing to do with my speech.
Mr. Gower: It was a private matter.
Mr. MacMillan: It is not a private matter when a public matter is being discussed. It is an offence to giggle and laugh like a silly schoolgirl in the corner of the House.
Mr. H. Lever: Can my hon. Friend enlarge on that point? He said that the hon. Member for Gower would take an interest in the principle involved in the Bill. Why should we expect the hon. Member for Gower, in particular, to take a special interest in it? Is there something in the hon. Member's contributions

1607
to the House which shows his interest in the subject, or which justifies the belief that he has a special interest in it? I do not mean to be disrespectful to my hon. Friend or to the hon Member for Gower.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) entitled to call the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) the hon. Member for Gower? There seems to be some misapprehension about it. Barry is a different constituency from Gower. If the hon. Member represented Gower he would take more interest in the farming population.
Mr. MacMillan: I am obliged to my two hon. Friends for their interventions, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies). The reason for my paying special attention not to him but to the hon. Member for Barry is not that his interest is any greater, but that his ignorance is greater than that of some other hon. Members on this subject. The reason for that is the failure of his right hon. Friend to explain the Bill to us. I have the difficult task of trying to bring home to the hon. Member what I am saying; I am trying to register my words in his understanding, or at least in his hearing. I am obliged to do the work of his right hon. Friend. Perhaps he will lay the blame at the door of his right hon. Friend for not explaining the matter in even simpler terms than I am trying to use for the hon. Member's benefit.
In the past these schemes were on a co-operative and voluntary basis. The people had to be carried along by the organisers. It could have been a very exciting experiment if the Commission and the crofters themselves had been given the right incentives and resources to carry out the schemes. But they were never equipped properly, and the Commission was tactless in its handling of the situation. The whole operation was badly conceived.
But that is no reason for destroying the principle of the majority decision in the crofting townships and imposing two things upon the crofters by compulsion—first, the sub-letting of their crofts for periods up to seven years, with the humiliation, in full public view, of their having strangers imposed on them on their own back doors, to cultivate the land
1608
because, in the view of the Commission, they were not doing the job the right way, and, secondly, the humiliation of having imposed on them reorganisation schemes which can achieve very little in these areas where production is such a marginal thing at best.
If the Secretary of State says that no Secretary of State would dream of imposing a scheme in an area if the people were against it, why give the Commission these powers? Why put these provisions in the Bill, instead of enshrining the majority rights of the crofters in it? The right hon. Gentleman must face the fact that on 26th November, 1958, the Chairman of the Commission said, publicly, that the number of crofts must be "drastically reduced." That can be done only in one way. In relatively congested areas like the Western Isles, if the number of crofts is reduced and the area of each enlarged the people are displaced—and the people are much more important than the crofts, at the end of the day. We are concerned with human problems. The Government have said that they are concerned with maintaining a thrivng population in these areas, and are trying to raise the standards.
That is the purpose of the legislation passing through the House. That is the purpose of every agricultural or fishing subsidy. Yet, at the end of the day, we are to allow the Commission or anyone else to pursue a policy which must inevitably result in a drastic reduction not only in the number of crofts but in the number of crofters because the number of crofts has gone down.
The right hon. Gentleman must address himself, and he must insist upon the Crofters Commission addressing itself, to the second job. The Commission has stated that, unless other employment, industrial employment or sound employment in fishing with an income is available, crofting itself cannot be sustained. That is the view of the Commission. What will the Commission do, what will it be enabled or instructed to do, about the second job, on which depends in turn the maintenance of crofting? What does the right hon. Gentleman himself propose to do about it? It is important to have answers to these questions, and I hope that they will be asked over and over again tonight, because there is no reality in crofting without the job which makes crofting possible.

1609
There are parts of the Bill which could have been introduced and taken together, quite logically, as I see it, in order to produce a Measure which would have been welcomed by the crofters and by all of us here. There are in the Bill several proposals which we strongly welcome and which my local Labour Party in the Western Isles, after critical and careful study, still welcomes. It is such a pity that the Government should bring into the Bill provisions which are utterly indigestible to crofters and which run so counter to their whole sense of self-respect and the whole idea of democracy, majority rights and all the rest that they cannot take the Bill as it stands.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. McLean), the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, and, I am sure, other hon. Members, would have been kicking up a furious fuss if it had been a Labour Government who introduced this Bill. After all, the Tory Government went out of their way to remove the last compulsion, the last discipline, almost the last obligation, from other people in agriculture, the ones to whom they pay the biggest subsidy. The last supervision was removed from the farmers not long ago. Now, they impose those very disciplines which they removed from their more influential friends and supporters upon the poorest, most helpless section of the agricultural population. What a wonderful democratic decision. No wonder they do not have support for it on their own side of the House any more than on this.
The right hon. Gentleman certainly has no support in the Highlands for his Bill. The Highlands do not all vote Labour. As I have shown—I will give the figures again at some time, if it would help—most people in the Highlands do not vote for the Government, but, more than that, I can show that the Government could not marshal majority support for themselves anywhere on this Bill, because their own supporters as well as their opponents in the Highlands are against it. What possible justification can there be for introducing the Bill at all?
We believe that it is a good thing that there should be a Crofters Commission. We think it should be effective. We think that it should be armed with resources of finance and democratic power, subject, of course, to scrutiny, and subject, I think,
1610
to a large extent, to very considerable answerability through the Secretary of State in this House. Such a Commission should have on it what it does not have now, that is to say, several practical people who know something about crofting, who have had mud on their boots and mud on their hands, people who have actually done this sort of thing.
On the Commission there should be members who could not only talk directly with people, particularly in the Outer Islands, in their own language, but also talk in practical, knowledgeable crofting terms in the village meetings. The Crofters Commission is now going to the villages under the pressure of criticism from the Western Isles. It has begun to consult people, but, unfortunately, it is now consulting people about destroying their majority rights to take decisions about their own future and their own industry.
We want to see economic holdings of reasonable size carved out of the land which is available—not out of other crofts we do not want what has been condemned as "croft cannibalism," with one croft eating up another and intensification of depopulation and people being forced out of crofting. We want to see an extension of crofting into the neglected estates in the Highlands. We want to see a limit put on multiple farming in the Highlands and we want to see an end to week-end farming.
Sir Douglas Glover: Hear, hear.
Mr. MacMillan: I am glad that I have the hon. Member's support.
Sir D. Glover: I was congratulating the hon. Member on having spoken for two hours.
Mr. MacMillan: I congratulate the hon. Member on having been able to listen to me for two hours, which is much more of an ordeal. My difficulty was, and still is, that I am doing two men's jobs. Strictly speaking, I should be collecting a salary of about £7,500 at the moment. I should be collecting the right hon. Gentleman's salary and my salary at least for tonight's work, because I am doing a double shift—his and mine.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope that my hon. Friend is not going for a salary of £24,000 a year.
Mr. MacMillan: To get back to the Crofters Commission, never mind my having to do two men's work, I am in a difficulty which the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) can share; he is hanging on to every word, for he has not heard one of these words before in Committee upstairs. He has not heard this whole speech before, as one hon. Member put it. I can tell him what the Bill is about, what our objections are to it, what is the background to it and all the things which his right hon. Friend should have said had the House, and his hon. Friends in particular, insisted on him saying them. The right hon. Gentleman should have made a Second Reading speech. He would then have done half my job for me and would have earned his salary, instead of leaving me to do his job for him.
In the Western Isles we are anxious to see larger holdings. We should not in the last object if the 50-acre limit were removed, provided that it did not lead to cannibalism of crofts. There are hundreds of thousands of sterile acres in the Highlands. There are some deer, admittedly, forests and other areas which are sterile and never will be anything other than sterile, but there are very few areas in which nothing can be done with the land. We could do what is being done in Lewis and the Outer Hebrides—regenerate the areas with grazing and an increase in the cattle population. That can be done almost anywhere in the Highlands.
We also know that the black-faced sheep can go almost anywhere that the red deer can go up to quite high altitudes. There should be very little waste land in the Highlands and there is now a considerable waste. On the one hand, we have hon. Members who speak of 3 million acres of deer forest and of the need to fill them with sheep and cattle. On the other hand, we have hon. Members who say that the 3 million acres of deer forest are not worth an argument, and that we can get nothing out of them. But there are very few areas in which we could not do something useful with some of the land, through regeneration.
Mr. Manuel: Does not my hon. Friend agree—and we both know something about deer forests—that within the deer forests there are many acres of good
1612
summer pasture which could be made available to crofting townships, which would conserve the tillage which is now being eaten so bare, with consequent loss of milk in those areas?
Mr. MacMillan: My hon. Friend has gone full cycle to the redevelopment of an old idea—summer shieling. Few people are familiar with it, except the people in North Lapland and people in the Outer Hebrides. The custom was in the summer—and to a limited extent still is in the Island of Lewis—to drive the stock out in May to the moorland pastures, which are rich, where they spent the summer, and to bring them back in August, sleek and well fed.
That is the point that my hon. Friend has in mind. The old summer shieling idea was on those lines. The cattle were brought back in first-class condition, and then they went on to the village grazing once again. That system could well be carried out in other islands as well as on the Isle of Lewis. It probably originated with the Scandinavian occupation of about 300 years. It may well have been imported from Sweden. It is still practised with the reindeer herds in Northern Lapland. The herds are taken up to the high altitudes away from the flies and all sorts of pests, and are grazed on the distant pastures. Then they are brought down again in the winter to the more sheltered areas.
The important point to bear in mind is that if re-seeding schemes can be carried out as they are in the villages in the Outer Islands, co-operating in terms of some thousands of acres, the same system can be applied to the fuller regional development of regeneration. It can be done on a regional basis, employing a large number of people full time—everybody from the man who is doing the sowing and the liming, right through to the man who is doing the haulage and all the other jobs. All the people who are employed on those regional schemes could be given insurable employment, which they are not getting in the smaller schemes under the present arrangement.
The Crofters Commission, instead of trying to amalgamate holdings, ought to be working on the basis which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) mentioned the other day—on the co-operative

1613
village unit basis—so that unnecessary capital is not spent, but working in a planned, sensible and economic way as a village co-operative unit. A great deal could be done in that way, under the supervision of the Crofters Commission, with the help of the Department of Agriculture with all its experience, and of the College of Agriculture.
This suggestion has been made time after time. I have often done so, and so has my hon. Friend not long ago in a rather different way. But we never get any response. The Minister says that the crofters will not co-operate. I say to the Minister: why not try to co-operate with the crofters? Why not offer them the right incentives and try to carry them with you, as we have done in the lobster marketing schemes and in these successful re-seeding schemes? If the Minister will carry the people with him, he will have some success. But merely to compel, bully and discipline them is to discriminate against one section of the community and create a loss of self-respect and public humiliation which they will not tolerate.
What is the view of those Members of the Scottish Committee who, I understand, had an opportunity of discussing this Bill before it was allowed to come to the attention of my English and Welsh hon. Friends? With one exception—the Secretary of State himself—hon. Members on the Government side as well as on the Opposition side of the Committee were highly critical of many parts of the Bill, and indeed were critical of many things of which my local Labour Party—the members of which know something about crofting, as crofters—was most critical.
I quote now my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) when he spoke on this Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee. I will not quote my own speech because that would be immodest even for a Member who has now spoken for over two hours this evening. My hon. Friend said:
"No one in the Committee or outside it who has paid any attention to the problem of the Highland; could take the view that the Bill goes any way towards tackling that problem."
We would all agree with him there:
"No matter how fully its provisions are implemented it cannot make a substantial or
1614
worth while contribution towards the solution of the manifold problems of that area."
My hon. Friend also quoted these words from some of the comments of the Crofters Commission:
"We see no alternative to pressing on towards the limited objective, the rationalisation of crofting agriculture, and we propose to ask for powers to that end."
My hon. Friend's point was that these are, in fact, all the powers in which the Commission is interested. It is not even interested in using the powers it already has, let alone ask for powers to enable it to do what is essential if crofting is to survive—to help to provide ancillary industries and second jobs.
My hon. Friend went on to say:
"I repeat that this will not deal with the cancer of depopulation; it will merely intensify it."
It is to that very point that my present arguments are addressed.
My hon. Friend went on further to say something with which I feel every hon. Member will agree:
"This is a fiddling little Bill which nobody wants or supports."
My goodness—how I agree with him. He asks, too, what we do when faced with this situation, and answers:
"We get down to considering a Bill which goes no further than the Napier Commission recommended in 1887, no further at all."
My hon. Friend is absolutely right there.
I am sorry to say it, but I am now talking the language of the witnesses, the crofters, in 1883 and 1884 who gave evidence before the Napier Commission upon which the 1886 Act was based. I am still talking that language here—about second jobs, inadequate crofts, lower standards, depressed conditions and insecurity—here, the new insecurity introduced by the right hon. Gentleman—lack of amenities, and transport. We are still talking the language of 1886 and 1887.
My hon. Friend went on:
"I do not think that the Secretary of State would claim that the Bill is for the protection and conservation of the population of the Highlands and Islands. It is not; not at all."
And, of course, one can only agree with what he said.
He went on:
"I know that landowners would want the Bill."

1615
But I would add that even the landlords have not blessed it so far. They may be keeping quiet in the hope that it will slip through its Second Reading with discussion at all, which is the hope of the right hon. Gentleman when he does not do us the courtesy of explaining and discussing the Bill.
My hon. Friend also said:
"What about the crofters' organisations? … One gathers from Press reports that they have been against the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 16th February, 1961; c. 119–25.]
That is absolutely correct: I have not seen one report in support of it.
My hon. Friend also said, and it is important, that he would have thought that the local authorities would have been interested in it. The reason why the local authorities have not shown interest in the Bill is the reason my hon. Friend himself gave when he described it as a "fiddling little Bill." It can achieve so little, yet it can do so much harm in creating dissension and resentment amongst neighbours that it is not worth the support of the local authorities who, in any case, were not properly consulted about it.
While there are parts of the Bill which we would have welcomed had they been taken together in logical sequence and which would have made a helpful and useful Measure, that is no reason why we should swallow the bad with the good. I believe that the offensive parts of the Bill will poison its acceptable parts and frustrate its operation if it is forced through by the Secretary of State with these compulsions and humiliating and selective disciplines still imposed in it.
The Labour Party has its own way of dealing with some of these problems. In 1945, it put into operation for the first time in the Highlands things which had never before been tackled. Had the Labour Party remained in office, I believe that these things would have continued at the tempo and pace which they had attained by 1950, when, for the first time in generations, depopulation had been halted and there was throughout the Highlands and Islands a new note of hope and, among the people, a sense that the Government and the House of Commons were interested in them.
Almost every development that we have seen in the Highlands since then,
1616
even in Tory days, has been based upon public enterprise, everything from afforestation to the Dounreay reactor. There has been hardly any new private enterprise, with the honourable exception of the efforts of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who is such an uncharacteristic Tory that I am amazed that he has not developed a sense of shame at being a Tory. At least, the hon. Member tries to create work and he invests and believes in the area. Had private enterprise done what he exceptionally did, it would not be so necessary for us to tackle the situation as we are doing today.
But the hon. Member is a lone voice and a lone example. The very exception proves the case that we have been making against the failure of private enterprise and the necessity for the State to come directly into the regeneration of the Highlands. Who else will do it? All the private interests have worked to the frustration of every attempt at development. I have illustrated that in connection with the Hydro-Electric Board. I could illustrate it in relation to the efforts of the Forestry Commission to acquire enough land to be able to plan a few years ahead. One could give any number of illustrations of the frustration of all development by the sporting landlords and what I can only honestly call the spiv classes, who have no interest in the Highlands except as a pleasant retreat from their City interests. The Aims of Industry is frustrating the work of the Hydro-Electric Board and, therefore, the work of the Commission, which requires electricity for all the work on the crofts. All these people are interested in only one thing: that is, their own financial and material investments in the City and elsewhere and, secondly, in retaining for themselves whole sterilised areas of the Highlands and Islands where agricultural production could, even now, be expanded, but which they want to keep and reserve for themselves as grouse moors, deer forests and sporting grounds.
We could argue about this until the cows come home or, in the deer forests, until the deer come home, but these are still the facts of the matter. There may be no evil intention consciously behind this sterilisation of hundreds or thousands of acres of Highland soil. Those people may simply accept it as being their inheritance in the natural order of things.
Mr. Manuel: It is not.
Mr. MacMillan: Every clansman is a cousin of the chief, even if the Prime Minister does share my clan name. Whether the inheritance of any chief is to a nouveau riche stockbroker from London or of one of the hereditary lairds of Sutherland or Inverness-shire, their claims can be equally asserted by the ordinary clansman and the ordinary Highlander. The ordinary Highlander has never admitted, whether before the law, before Parliament or before the chief, that he has less right to take a deer off the hill or a salmon from the river. He has always treated that as his natural right of inheritance. Who would dare to look him in the eye and say, "You have less right to this freedom of the hill, loch and stream than I have. I have a right to 100,000 acres; you must pay me for renting three or four"? A man cannot look at his neighbour in a clan in the Highlands and especially in the Islands and say that and get away with it He would be laughed at.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope my hon. Friend is excluding from his indictment Members of this House. Is he not aware that the Home Secretary has shown an interest in Mull? I hope that my hon. Friend will not assert that the Home Secretary would be entitled to take a deer illegally.
Mr. MacMillan: If the Home Secretary acquires an interest in Mull, deer will not be taken illegally by him, but any attempt by a native of Mull to take a deer would be regarded as illegal.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I think that the hon. Member for the Western Isles is being encouraged to stray off the Crofters Bill.
Mr. MacMillan: I agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) put the tempting target of a red deer in front of me, and I am sure that you will excuse my following it from instinct. I shall follow deer no longer on Mull, but leave it to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is fortunate in that he is not known on Mull, whereas the Prime Minister is known in the Isle of Arran and, therefore, would not be so welcome to go back there.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend should have some respect for historical accuracy. The Prime Minister's ancestors did not come from Arran but from Mull of Kintyre.
Mr. MacMillan: I was dodging that because the rest of our clan also came from the Mull of Kintyre. But I am trying to leave the problems of consanguinity of clanship and return to the subject of the Bill. The Prime Minister's grandfather was expelled, for sheep rustling, from the Isle of Arran, and the Prime Minister has been wool-gathering ever since.
We believe that the Crofters' Commission could still serve a very important, useful and protective function in the Highlands and Islands if it were given the finance, equipment and staff to do it, and if it had the experience, the local knowledge and the will to do the things that I am sure every hon. Member for a Highland constituency, and every local authority in the Highlands, wants it to be able to do for the Highlands. If local authorities were given the opportunity and the finance, I doubt if many of the Commission's powers would be needed; but, unfortunately, they have got problems of their own because of de-rating and the soaring costs which most of them find in borrowing for their services and development projects. As the party opposite is apparently not prepared to let any other body encourage industry to go to the Highlands, the Commission should be given the power to assist industrialists, through the provision of capital from a global sum which the House would be glad to vote to it, and should be allowed to use its initiative in looking for suitable people, prepared to develop local industries, whether in textiles, or other things, ancillary to crofting and fishing—even mineral development.
If the Government were prepared, where private enterprise is not normally prepared to do it, to offer special inducements to enterprising people wishing to go out into the outlying areas and to guarantee them against any disadvantage from going to those areas compared with areas nearer the main sources of supply and the markets, we might hope to see some industrial development. But merely to look to the Commission, with its bureaucratic powers of compulsion

1619
against a selected group of agricultural tenants, while not imposing any duties upon it to develop the essential second jobs on which everything depends, is to take no step at all in the direction in which we should like to see the Government go.
Mr. H. Lever: My hon. Friend has on more than one occasion referred to the Crofters Commission as being a bureaucratic commission. Presumably he uses that expression to indicate to the House that in some ways he is thinking of the fact that it has full-time officials. Could he perhaps outline to the House what alternative possibilities he thinks preferable to the present system—perhaps a mixture of full-time officials and part-time ones?
Mr. MacMillan: I am only sorry that my hon. Friend is asking me to do so much of the work of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. I do not mind doing a certain amount of his work, but it is asking quite a bit that two men's jobs should be done by one man. That is not the sort of second job that I have been talking about up to now. I have been talking about a second job for somebody else, not myself, and a profitable one, not an unprofitable one of this kind.
Mr. Harold Davies: I have taken the trouble to slip into the Library, because of the importance of my hon. Friend's views on small farmers, to look at the 1955 Act and what the Minister at the time said about the Crofters Commission. He said:
"This Commission will devote its entire energies to promoting the welfare of the crofting communities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 431.]
In the Schedule we were told that there were to be six members, some of whom were to be part-time. I consider that this is one of the things to which my hon. Friend for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) was referring.
Mr. MacMillan: To some extent the Commission is something like the Ministerial side of the Scottish Office. It has about six members, some of whom are part-time. As must be painfully obvious to my hon. Friend and the people of the Highlands, that is one of the difficulties in the Government under which we are labouring at the moment.
Mr. Rankin: But is it not the case that the Government discovered one gentleman on the Commission who knew a great deal about crofting and so they sacked him?
Mr. MacMillan: It is, in fact, true that there was a gentleman there who, first of all, spoke most fluently and eloquently the ancient language of Scotland, the language of Scotland in the days when English was unknown or had not been properly developed. He was first-class in the sense that he was a practical man and knew something about crofting, knew the West Coast problem area, and knew farming and agriculture. Then he disappeared; and in his place we now have the defeated Tory candidate for Orkney and Shetland, a landowner. I am not saying anything against the gentleman concerned—I do not know him very well—but there it is. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knew him very well, and that was all that was necessary.
For the rest, the position is that there are two full-time members of the Commission. The chairman would, I think, by now have been completely retired from the Foreign Service. His last post, I think, was at the Embassy in Venezuela. The conditions there being so similar to those of the Western Isles, he was regarded as the most suitable person to exercise a sort of colonial maternalistic supervision over the Western Isles, as I have no doubt he has done in many disappearing British colonies.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to be unjust. Surely this gentleman was appointed because of his experience in Venezuela as there was an impression that oil might be discovered in the Isles?
Mr. MacMillan: I do not know but I would hope that oil might be discovered. It would be of the greatest assistance in creating ancillary industries.
Meantime, that is the composition of the Commission. At the moment there are two full-time members. Another one is well-known and able. He was a member of Argyll County Council, who has considerable knowledge of the area and who speaks the language. There are three part-time members and a staff of officials, of whom I am offering no criticism whatever. They are doing

1621
their job under the orders of the Commission as well as they possibly can and conscientiously. They are assisted and advised very well indeed by officers of the Department of Agriculture and various other people.
I do not want to say much about individuals, because they are hampered and hamstrung by inadequate powers. But they are hamstringing themselves as well as the crofters by asking for the wrong kind of extension of disciplinary powers. They will find themselves more and more up against local people and the community's traditional way of life.
I have quoted many other people. May I quote a rather long sentence which I spoke elsewhere on another occasion? It is:
"If we demanded now that public ownership and responsibility for the development of the land in the crofting counties be made the foundation of a real security of tenure for the working tenant crofter, buttressed by a programme of modern re-equipment, with guaranteed fair prices, planned local markets and planned transportation of stock, at fair freights, particularly, in these days, for store cattle and if we launched out on a regional programme for reclamation, regeneration and land settlement in the Highlands, with State promoted ancillary industries, I am sure that the Labour Party would sweep the Highlands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 16th February, 1961; c. 101–2.]
That was my view a few weeks ago and naturally that is my view now. We were able in the years 1945–51 to move towards some of these objectives through the work of the Labour Government and by that Government's inspiration and enthusiasm.
We suggest that there should be created now a body to assist the Crofters Commission, to supervise its work to some extent—though not to interfere with its routine work unnecessarily. That was the idea behind the Labour Party's proposal for a Highlands and Islands Development Authority. Such a body should be armed with adequate powers and financed adequately and given a considerable amount of freedom to co-operate with local authorities, existing executive bodies and other agencies in promoting the economic and social development of the Highlands.
I am putting that suggestion forward only briefly. The reason why I do not go into detail is that we have not yet completely worked out the details. We
1622
want things worked out, but not necessarily to be adopted as permanent gospel, because we want to be a little free to negotiate and adapt ourselves. We do not want to go into the fullest details at the moment. We want to consult with people and get their cooperation and not impose compulsions through a development board or any other kind of body.
I think that I have answered the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham and have made a speech for the Secretary of State. I am sure that I have said at least some of the things that the right hon. Gentleman would have liked to have said.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could my hon. Friend explain how his plan would assist the tourist trade in Scotland?
Mr. MacMillan: The Crofters Commission has spent a good deal of time discussing the tourist industry, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire will not expect me to go into the whole of the Commission's Reports up to 1959. I am sure that the Chair would take a very opaque view of that exercise and I shall therefore spare the House.
The Commission has been very enthusiastic about tourism. At one stage, the chairman visualised such a development of summer tourist chalet-based industry that the picture was drawn for us of crofters earning a net income of £1,000 a year. The maximum number of chalets to the croft was to he about six and, with, say, 30 crofts on either side of the road running through a village, that gives some idea of what the average crofting village was to look like—its six times 60 chalets added to the 60 houses with their T.V. sets which are coming in 1975 when hydro-electricity comes to the area and with the houses sprouting little antennae all over the area. To me the picture seemed a little sad and unreal and it was unacceptable to the Islands community, at least, as a main basis of livelihood, and we were all highly critical of it. Since then, it has been less enthusiastically advanced by the Commission and by other people. The criticisms were reasonable and they were understood by the people and even by the Commission.

1623
While tourism plays its part in the crofting areas, I am afraid that we still have to solve the problems of the cost of travel to places like the Outer Isles for people travelling with families, who are probably the people who most need a holiday in these areas. Tourism will take a long time to develop as a major industry in the outlying areas.
In the meantime, my hon. Friend may be satisfied with that partial reply and I am sure that the right lion. Gentleman when he comes back to the Chamber, if he comes back, will be prepared to answer my hon. Friend's questions. Will hon. Members kindly now address their questions to the right hon. Gentleman opposite? I have done enough of his work for one night. He, not I, is supposed to be answering the questions.
We have suggested another way and another agency, another way of dealing with Highlanders as mature human beings, our fellow citizens, a way other than that of the Crofters Commission which imposed this Measure on the Secretary of State who is now trying to impose it on us, without even explaining the Bill to the House. We have suggested the other way, the way of cooperation, of comprehensive development through a body equipped for the job, instead of this poor, frustrated, little group of officials, hungry to justify their failure and trying to satisfy that hunger by increasing their disciplinary power and their powers of compulsion and just a little afraid of asking for them and desperately frightened of being given the duty of bringing ancillary industries and the "second job" without which, as they themselves say so often, crofting cannot hone to survive.
Mr. H. Lever: I beg to move. That the House do report Progress—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not the correct formula. The House is a House. Were we sitting in Committee, we could report Progress.
Mr. H. Lever: I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned. In view of the lateness of the hour, I hope that such a Motion will be acceptable.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot accept that Motion.
1.50 a.m.
Sir David Robertson: The hon. Member for the
1624
Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) knows more about crofts than any hon. Member, and in his marathon speech tonight he exploited his knowledge at some length. I took note of one or two important things he said. I consider that his remarks on reclamation and reseeding are most appropriate. The Western Isles have shown commendable activity in re-seeding.
There has been a great decline in fishing, not only in the Western Isles, but in my constituency, because of over-fishing, and now that Britain has conceded to Iceland and Norway the twelve-mile limit, it is high time that we had the same limit. The Minch has been closed to British trawlers for years, but any foreigner can come in. The sooner we take steps to protect our fisheries, the better it will be for the crofting communities which live by agriculture and fishing. Not many live by fishing nowadays.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks on industry are correct, as are his observations on depopulation. I thought that the hon. Gentleman gave a graphic description, and a truthful one, of the depopulation which has occurred in the Highland area which once carried one-third of the population of Scotland, but now carry less than one-twentieth.
I did not share the hon. Gentleman's view on the method by which industry should be compulsorily brought into the Highlands. I never have, and I do not think that I ever shall, because the Government have performed miracles in Northern Ireland where we had the will to introduce industry to the six Northern counties and great successes have been achieved. Over 70,000 new jobs have been created since the war, and if a fraction of that will were demonstrated in the Highlands great progress could be made. I do not share the view about industry in the glens, but in the towns and large villages where communities live and want to go on living industry would be of tremendous help.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in his condemnation of the failure of the Hydro-Electric Board to introduce electricity to the Highlands, because without electricity we cannot have industry. A similar thing, but to a lesser extent, is happening in my constituency. The Board is not fulfilling the obligations imposed on it by the House to connect consumers in remote areas. It says

1625
that it cannot meet the cost, but the truth is that if the Board stopped plunging from one new scheme to another costing millions of pounds and consolidated and settled down to run its operations properly, it would have no difficulty in meeting its obligations to connect up the remote areas.
The Board has carried on for years with millions of pounds earning nothing. It takes years to complete the schemes, and interest has to be paid on these vast sums of money.
Mr. Harold Davies: I am interested in a hill district and this question of electricity supplies. May I ask the hon. Gentleman if his experience is similar to that which we have met in other parts of the country where there are National Trusts or planning areas? If there is a National Trust or a National Park in an area, the authorities are reluctant to allow the electricity board to erect poles in the area, and consequently the problem of uneconomic underground cables arises. Does that problem arise here?
Sir D. Robertson: No, Sir; that does not arise. I know the problem very well. I took part in the debate on the original Bill, about twenty years ago, when nationalised electricity was first brought in by Mr. Tom Johnston, then Secretary of State for Scotland. I believe in electricity and I am most anxious to have it, but we cannot have it so long as the Board is compelled to pay its way and find millions of pounds to pay the interest on borrowings for projects which are wholly unremunerative. The Secretary of State has appointed a committee to investigate this matter, but I can assure him that no committee is required to justify my remarks; they are economic facts, which no one can challenge.
I support the Bill, as I supported the 1955 Act, because it confers incalculable benefits on our Highlands constituents, especially on the men who were not brought in to the Act although they had the status of crofter, and who are now brought in. We now give benefits by way of generous grants, and it is also a good thing that tenants who are unable, for one reason or another, to carry on working their crofts properly should be able to lease them to somebody else
1626
who can, and to give them legal tenancies for a period, thus enabling them to get into a position to run their own crofts later on.
I spoke in the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on the principle of the Bill, and for the sake of those hon. Members who are not present at the proceedings of that Committee I should like to quote what I said about the Commission. I said:
"The Commission should now concentrate on the job of rehabilitating crofting agriculture. It spends far too much time in publishing its grievances and difficulties instead of getting down to work to overcome them. A first-class commercial man should be appointed manager to provide the drive so badly required. The Commission talks an awful lot, and writes letters galore, instead of getting down to the job it has to do.
Someone said at our last sitting that only three reorganisation schemes have come about. That is correct. What a shameful record for five years"—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Might I ask—
Sir D. Robertson: Not just now.
"The Chairman and his colleagues must regain the confidence of the crofters, and that can only come about by hard work and integrity. Their decisions as between man and man must be taken without fear or favour, and in the knowledge that any crofter has a constitutional right to bring a legitimate grievance directly to the Secretary of State, or to him through his Member of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 14th February, 1961; c. 58–9.]
I gave those words great consideration. I wrote them down, as I seldom do, and I felt that I was fulfilling my duty in the highest traditions of the House in saying something that was necessary and true. But for some reason or another the Secretary of State, in winding up the debate two days later, said, of the criticisms expressed generally:
"On the whole they have been couched in moderate terms, but one speech, that of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), went a little far in what appeared to be an attack on men whom I and most hon. Members know are devoted to their task and are doing everything in their power in what is not an easy job."
I replied to that. I disagreed with the right hon. Member and he disagreed with me. He asked me to withdraw and I said that I refused to do so. I said:
"I know the Commission very much better than the right hon. Gentleman. That is not his fault because he carries many burdens … but I have already given the Scottish Office and the right hon. Gentleman the evidence on which my remarks were based …"

1627
He asked me to withdraw, but I did not do so.
I said further:
"if the right hon. Gentleman dares to continue in Committee his pitiful apology for the Commission I will have a great deal to say, because even corruption comes into this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 16th February, 1961; c. 129.]
Since then, the Secretary of State has been very active in publishing his views to the Press. I have not done so, and I am taking this first opportunity now to speak on the matter.
All this has a background. Early last year, the Sutherland Crofters' Union was formed in Brora in my constituency as a result of acute resentment against the actions of the Commission. I was invited to come up to address a mass meeting of crofters, but I refused to do so. I wrote to them and told the Crofters' Union that I would not come, and also I wrote well of the Commission. I spoke in favour of it. I have always strongly supported it ever since the Commission was formed.
Another cause of resentment, a very reasonable cause, arises in the Crofters Commission's Report for 1959. At the end, in Appendix X, there are two diagrams, Plan A and Plan B, and the explanation is:
"We have selected a typical township to illustrate what the present conditions are and how they would be modified by long-term re-organisation. The present position in township 'A'"—
which is in Brora, is then given. There are 22 crofts held by 15 tenants, with the arable land subdivided into about 100 separate pieces. There are four absentees. I imagine that the land of the four absentees has been sublet and is worked by others.
Plan A shows the crofting area as it is now, and Plan B shows it as it will become. Instead of there being 22 crofts with 15 tenants, the number of crofts is to be reduced to three, giving each about 30 acres of arable land and a considerable quantity of hill. It looks to me as if there is about the same amount of hill and grazing. The new, larger holdings will be small farms. It would be a very good thing to do if there were the land to spare; but what is to happen to the other 12 tenants? What about security of tenure?
1628
In all the crofting legislation from the very beginning, security was given. It was given in the 1886 Acts. It was given in the 1955 Act, and we have it again in this Bill. But this which is set out in the Appendix from which I have quoted is an indication of what the Commission intends to do, and the Crofters' Union has taken very great exception to it, quite rightly. There is great apprehension in Brora about who is to be kicked out and who is not. The hon. Member for the Western Isles talked about the cannibalisation of crofts. Here is an example of it, and this is exacty what the Commission has in mind. There should be no doubt at all in the Secretary of State's mind about the resentment which is felt.
Mr. Rankin: Has not the Commission two ways of achieving its objective: one, by agreement, and the other, by legal sanction? Is there any indication, or can the hon. Member tell us, whether there has been or there will be agreement?
Sir D. Robertson: I am coming to that.
Last summer, shortly after the Crofters' Union was formed and this Report was published, two crofting families appealed to me for help against the Commission. The first case concerns Robert Sutherland, who is the tenant of 62 Dalchalm. He was born in the croft. His father died in the croft in 1943. The family have been there for generations. Robert was a typical Highland lad. He went to Aberdeen and qualified as a Master of Arts, and today he is a headmaster in Aberdeen.
When the father died in 1943 the croft was assigned to Robert and, like a good son, he took it over, not for himself—he knew that he could never use it—but for his younger brother, W. D. Sutherland, who was on active service with the 5th Seaforth Highlanders and who had a grand war record, becoming regimental sergeant-major of the 5th Battalion in the 51st Division and serving through the whole of the North Africa campaign, the Sicily campaign and the campaign in North-West Europe.
When he came back it was to his old job as a postman. It is typical of the Highlands that one brother should become a Master of Arts and the headmaster of an important school in the

1629
City of Aberdeen while another brother should become a postman—jobs which are very different in income and status.
The postman-brother had worked in the croft part-time. He had helped his father in the days before he went to war. When he came back, although he had married and had young children and lived a long way from the croft, while his widowed mother lived in the croft house he struggled on for two years keeping the croft going on his own. But at the end of that time he had to give it up. One can imagine the difficulty of a rural postman who had to walk miles every day in his work and then had to work on the croft in his spare time.
Robert, the brother in Aberdeen, sublet the croft to a Mr. Coghill, who carried it on efficiently and well and cultivated it 100 per cent. When he died, it was sublet to Mr. MacDonald.
That continued until the summer of last year when the family decided that in view of the impending retirement of the postman-brother, Robert would transfer the croft to the postman-brother, who had a young son who was also old enough to work on the croft. But the Crofters Commission refused the assignation.
That goes against all the fundamentals in crofting legislation. The first principle which runs through all these Acts is security of tenure. There was no just reason for this refusal. The Commission sent out an official who told the postman that he was too old for the croft—despite the fact that he is still on the Reserve of Officers. The official told him that he was too old for the job. He is a fine fellow and certainly is not too old for it. His son, aged 18 or 19, has a clerical job in the road surveyor's office, and he was to have succeeded his father on the croft. This is a fine family. The mother, who is a trained nursing sister, but who abandoned that profession when she married and had children, is still working to earn enough money in order to carry out the family's share of the improvement in the old croft house, such as putting in a new bathroom.
The Crofters Commission official decided that he would not allow this assignation to the younger brother, although succession was guaranteed after his death to the younger son. At
1630
a meeting of the full Commission on 4th July the Commission upheld that decision. The family were to be dispossessed of a croft in which they had lived for so long.
At this stage they appealed to me for help. I wrote to the Commission and set things in motion. Before that I did something which the Commission could have done, either through one of its members or through one of its assessors; I visited the family. I went to the office where the son worked, only a few hundred yards from the croft. He would be the ultimate successor after the postman-brother gives up the croft. He is a bright and intelligent man. I questioned him and asked him whether he was keen on crofting, and he said that he was. He has a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. job and does no work on Saturdays, so that he has plenty of time in which to help his father and ultimately he will marry, settle in the croft and carry on crofting with the help of his wife.
It was suggested that the family should go and see the Commission, and so Robert the teacher, and W. D. the postman and his wife, went to meet the Commission. At the interview, in my judgment the chairman of the Crofters Commission acted like a prosecutor in a criminal trial. He said to the teacher, "How dare you make a profit rental?" Since when has it been a crime in this country for a landowner or a farmer to make a profit rental? But according to the chairman of the Crofters Commission, it should not be done. However, the decision was reversed, and the family are now in possession of the croft. I wish them good luck, and I am sure the House does too.
It was a shocking decision. It was not just an error of judgment. There was something rotten about it. I am not suggesting it was corrupt, but it could have been corrupt if that croft had been given to a multiple crofter. I wonder if the Secretary of State can tell me if that was the intention. Who was to get this croft? To take it away from a family with whom it had been for all these years was a rotten decision, and it was not far from corrupt.
There was another case, and it is even worse. This concerned a man, John Smith, and his wife. His wife is a daughter of the famous Addie Tom

1631
Sutherland, the miners' leader from Brora, who received a silver cup and 250 guineas from Lord Attlee at the Dorchester Hotel when Brora Mine took first place as the best small mine in Great Britain. He was a crofter as well as a miner. There is a lot of strength in what the hon. Member for the Western Isles said about ancillary jobs. He was a full-time miner and a very good crofter as well. When he got past the age of using it, he bequeathed it to his daughter who married a John Smith, and they are doing a splendid job. He learned in some strange fashion that a vacancy existed at the croft next door, but for some extraordinary reason the Commission had made up its mind that it was to go to a Councillor George McIver who already holds half a dozen crofts with 36 acres of arable and a substantial share of common grazing.
Here is a young couple with very little, and well capable of using more, and the adjoining croft becomes vacant. Time and again the Commission has said in the Press and on television that the policy of enlargement must be carried out on adjoining crofts. Here was a perfect example where that could come about. The multiple crofter, Councillor McIver, did not have a croft adjoining the Smiths' croft it was some distance away. But he had cropped it for some ten or twelve years on a sub-letting.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: What sort of councillor was he?
Sir D. Robertson: He is a first-class councillor.
Mr. Hughes: Was he a county councillor?
Sir D. Robertson: He is a county councillor, a vice-convenor of the County of Sutherland, a member of the Highland Panel and a member of the Northern Regional Hospital Board, a most outstanding public man. He is a coal merchant, too. He is what I would call a gentleman crofter. He spends much of his time going to Inverness to see the Crofters Commission and going on deputations to meet the Secretary of State. This vacancy was created for him, and I have here the evidence in a letter that I received from the chairman of the Crofters Commission, dated 1st July:
1632
"When the Technical Officer was interviewing the crofters one by one in East Brora Muir township, he found that Mrs. Baillie, the tenant of No. 12 was an elderly widow with none of her family wishing to succeed to the croft. He explained the provisions of Section 18 and she readily agreed that she should give up her land while retaining her house. She emphasised that George McIver had been cultivating her croft since her husband died ten or 12 years ago, and that it was her wish that he should continue to have the use of the land. She was warned that this result could not be guaranteed but, in fact, it did suit our plan"—
Here are the material words:
"it did suit our plan"—
the Commission's plan:
"to earmark this croft for George McIver, and the landlord agreed."
If ever anything was in the bag, that scheme was in the bag at that stage. The landlord has the right to apply for a new tenant, and to nominate him—although the Commission can over-ride it—but this was fitting in with the Commission's plans, in spite of the fact that the Smiths were so much more deserving and better able to take over the croft. This vacancy was all arranged for; the Commission was creating a vacancy that would go to Councillor McIver.
That seemed a very wrong thing to do, but it took on a more sinister aspect. I got a letter from Councillor McIver dated 18th August. That was a very material date, because it was on that date that a letter reached the Commission from the landlord saying that the Smiths were going to get the tenancy. On 18th August, the plan, or the plot had become unstuck. I had been pressing the Commission to come to a decision, and on 3rd August—five days later—I got a letter from the Secretary saying:
"In this case we are awaiting the landlord's application containing his formal proposals for the reletting of the croft."
The Commission had them in its office on the morning of the 18th.
When the landlord wrote to the Commission he wrote also to the Smiths. I learned it from the Smiths, and they were very pleased that they had got the croft, and that the landlord had nominated them. Four days later, however, a letter was sent to a Member of Parliament which was completely untrue—completely untrue. I immediately telephoned the Secretary and said that I had had a letter from Councillor McIver,

1633
saying that he had learned that I was interested in the case. He said:
"I was then informed that the croft, of which I had had the sub-tenancy for over twelve years, would be allocated to me."
The Commission told me that, too.
So there is the full circle, clearly proving what was going on; a vacancy created and with no competition, advertisement or notice, and, in complete defiance of the fact that the Smith croft was adjoining, it was to go to a multiple crofter who was farming far more land than the average crofter, who has five acres. Mr. McIver says that he has 36 acres, plus the arable grazing effeiring to the various crofts—
Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme): The hon. Member has given the House two cases relating to something on which we are asked to vote extra powers to the Crofters Commission. In one case, he alleges corruption, or the smell of it, and in the second case he says that the Commission was mendacious to him by writing a letter giving false information. He has told us that there was something sinister. Would he tell us what action is being taken by the Commission itself against those responsible for these misdemeanours?
Sir D. Robertson: I read out the letter, and it is here for the hon. Member or anyone else to see.
Mr. Swingler: But what action is being taken against those who, in one case, told lies to the hon. Gentleman and about whom, in the other case, he alleged a stink of corruption?
Sir D. Robertson: I am alleging in this case that there is corruption. That letter got in on the 18th. I said that the letter written on 16th August went to Smith from the landlord. I saw the landlord last week in Edinburgh and he showed me the letter to wrote to the Commission on 16th August, but he also showed me an application form which he filled in and dated the following day. But they went together on the 17th. They arrived, a day later than the Smith one, in Inverness on the 18th.
Who suppressed the information to Mr. McCuish? What object was there in doing it? There was a very material object. It was to enable Councillor
1634
MacIver to put the screw on me, which he did in writing that letter dated 18th August. He was appealing to me. I am certain that Councillor MacIver knew I had intervened in this matter before, but up to that vital day when the landlord's application and recommendation came through, there was no need for Councillor MacIver to do anything, because the Commission had told him that he would get the croft and that the landlord agreed.
Hon. Members will imagine how I felt. I felt highly indignant that such a thing could happen. The Commission reversed the decision once again. It had to reverse it. It had no alternative. I wrote a firm four-page letter to the chairman of the Crofters Commission and on the same day I sent a copy of it to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who looks after crofting and agriculture. Hon. Members can thus imagine my feelings when I had made a tactful speech upstairs in the Scottish Grand Committee, a shot across the bows of the Commission, without disclosing any names or anything but calling on the Commission to do its job with integrity and fairness as between man and man.
Then, this kind of thing happens. Is this fair as between man and man? If the Secretary of State had been a wiser man, he would not have said what he did. There were an awful lot of things in my speech upstairs that he did not like, but he picked out this one. Here was the big hero coming along to defend his officials. No official need fear any harm at my hands. Had the Secretary of State any sense, he would have kept quiet. He could not find the evidence, and he wrote to tell me so.
Before I got the letter, however, the whole of the Scottish lobby had been alerted. People telephoned me at home and came to see me. I did not have the letter. It was on the board. The Press officers had been alerted and had been given this information and the substance of the letter, and headlines appeared next day in the Scottish Press giving the readers the impression that my allegation was untrue. It was only the slightest allegation. I said "even corruption."
That is corruption. If anyone doubts it, let me quote the two greatest dictionary authorities available in this House.

1635
The first is Webster, in which one of the meanings of "corruption," a many-sided word, is
"Impairment of integrity … or moral principle; … influence that corrupts."
From the Short Oxford Dictionary, Volume One, third edition:
"Perversion of integrity by favour."
The Secretary of State called on me to withdraw and I did not withdraw. Under no circumstances would I ever withdraw. I was sent here, like all of us, to do my duty as I see it in this House, and I have done it like that for twenty-two years. As long as I am in this House, I will go on doing it.
I come to the point raised from the benches opposite. Corruption would have ensued, as I have indicated, if the Commission's scheme had succeeded. Councillor MacIver was much too close to the Commission. I say that with regret, but I believe it to be true. The local people in Brora tell me that he is constantly hanging his cap up—that is a Scottish expression—in the Commission's office. After the headlines in the Press, he opened a debate in the county council. I had been pressing the council from the day the Bill was published. I sent the council a copy of it and asked for observations upon it, because most of the council's ratepayers were crofters or agricultural workers.
I had no information from them at all until a day or two after the publication of the report that the Secretary of State had rebuked me—with all my long record of public service—for doing my duty. The Secretary of State knew so little about it—indeed, nothing about it—while I knew so much.
I have nothing against Councillor MacIver. I am full of admiration for him. He is an excellent local councillor. He began by declaring to the Council his interest in that he was a crofter, but it did not need to be told that, his claims for compensation went in every day of the week, because most of the time he has worked on public duties. I do not mind that. But it is a shameful thing—and this proves my case again—that a man who is far too close to the Commission gets a resolution passed saying that the Commission consists of good people doing a good job.
I have long experience in dealing with crofters in the two counties of my con-
1636
stituency. It is the only constituency in Britain with the sea on three sides. Three Members of Parliament represented it up until 1922; now there is only one. That is the effect of depopulation, which the hon. Member for the Western Isles talked about, which I have talked about, and which the Government talk about but do so little about.
Crofters are easy to get on with. If the advice I gave to the Commission in my speech in the Scottish Grand Committee is carried out, the Commission will succeed in the difficult task of reorganisation, and I will be glad to help it in Brora or any other crofting area in my constituency.
2.27 a.m.
Mr. John Rankin: It is not my business to try to pour oil on the troubled waters opposite. Nevertheless, I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), because the topic with which he has been so largely dealing is one on which I, too, have had some correspondence.
My correspondence, like his, comes from a county councillor. It deals with exactly the problem that he has been detailing to the House, although, of course, the letter which I have does not involve any of the very serious charges to which he has referred. But he said that vacancies are never advertised.
Sir D. Robertson: I did not say "never," but that this one was not advertised.
Mr. Rankin: In some cases they are not advertised. I am sorry if I carried his words a little too far. In view of what I said, I want to refer to what is in the letter. It tells me that since the war almost all the crofts which became vacant have been swallowed up by the large farms and estates, I am speaking now of Inverness-shire.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. N. McLean) is not present, because I am certain that if he was he would be prepared to join in the debate and perhaps support—I see that the hon. Gentleman has now returned. I am glad to have drawn him out of his retirement. I am certain that he will be able to support, to some extent, perhaps from his even closer knowledge, what I am saying. It is a

1637
remarkable thing that this letter from a gentleman of responsibility, who himself is a farmer and is also on behalf of his sister cultivating a croft, should tell me that the crofts have become vacant because they are being swallowed up by the large farms and estates. He says that this is still continuing and that the Commission has done absolutely nothing about it.
He goes on to say that not a single croft is advertised for letting and that the first that they know about a change of ownership is when the landlord—he says that the landlords are mostly hobby farmers—is seen cultivating and grazing the croft himself. That is an alarming state of affairs. I hope that the Secretary of State is taking note of this; I will give him the letter if he wants it. My correspondent says that only last year three crofts near where he lives went vacant and went to the landlords. They are not even going to other people in the farming world; they are going back to the landlords. It is because of things like this that people around where he lives in Inverness have absolutely no confidence in the Commission.
I find that attitude supported by letters which I have received from the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. Therefore, the view expressed in the letter to which I have referred is not a view which is peculiar to an individual. From all the information which I have been able to gather, it seems that there is a lack of confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the Commission; and the sooner the right hon. Gentleman looks into that the better.
I interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) to point out that Mr. Mackenzie, who was a member of the Commission, was discovered to have a good knowledge of crofting, and evidently that was regarded as a disqualification for membership, and so he has been removed from the Commission. Is is for that reason? I hope that the Secretary of State will unseal his lips at the end of the debate and give us a little more information about these things than we have at the moment. He will have an opportunity. I have an appointment at 9.30 a.m., and because of that I shall be time-limited. The "guillo-
1638
tine" will automatically fall upon me, because I cannot go beyond that hour.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: A lot more than a "guillotine" is likely to fall on my hon. Friend.
Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles set an admirable lead. He spoke for, I think, two hours and 45 minutes—a remarkable record—and I hope that some of those hon. Gentlemen opposite—if not the right hon. Gentleman—who knows so much about crofting will try to emulate my hon. Friend's example.
I was fascinated by what my hon. Friend said and I should like to touch upon one or two points he made. He spoke of electricity supplies. I do not want to remind the House of the industrial and social importance of electricity but of its importance from the point of view of the woman in the crofter's house. The crofter's wife is the most important part of the croft. She has a great deal of work to do. I know many crofts where the only other worker apart from the owner is the wife. If wives of hon. Members were living in houses where there was no electricity hon. Members would find it very difficult to keep them for very long.
Mr. H. Lever: I hope that my hon. Friend is not under the illusion that this is an exclusive disadvantage experienced by crofters. Many of my constituents are similarly placed and have no access to electricity.
Mr. Speaker: The difficulty about that is that the constituents of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) may be rather remoter from the provisions of this Bill.
Mr. Rankin: If my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) inquires into those cases he will find that they are people who are on the waiting list for new houses built by local authorities.
Electricity is particularly important in a croft where so much outside work and other work associated with the croft is laid upon the shoulders of the woman. There is a pressing need from that point of view for electricity supplies in the households of the Highlands.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles also dealt with research

1639
and referred particularly to forestry research. That again is a most important matter for crofting. It may or may not be news to the House that today in the whole of Great Britain only one station deals with forestry research and that station is in Hampshire in the south of England. All the research knowledge that comes from there is, of course, immediately available to those who are engaged in forestry in that area, but very few are, because one of the great forestry areas in the United Kingdom is in the North-West and in the centre of Scotland. And in Scotland there is no major forestry reesarch station at all. There is a minor one in Edinburgh but that has to give the benefit of its knowledge to the north, east and west of England. Therefore in Scotland, where there are great forestry areas, all we have is part of a minor station in Edinburgh, while for England there is one major station and part of the minor station in Edinburgh.
I hope that the Secretary of State is taking note of that fact, because we shall not have a sufficient development of forestry in those areas of Scotland where it is so necessary unless there is research knowledge which is easily available and quickly applicable. Its importance derives from the fact that the crofter today cannot live by his croft alone. He has to be a postman, a driver, a labourer, a fisherman and do several other jobs as well as be a crofter if he is to make a living.
What size should a croft be to be an economic unit? That is a problem which the Commission does not face. To discover the view of a practical man about what size would make an economic unit I wrote to one engaged in the industry. He told me that a croft should carry seven to ten cows and 100 to 150 breeding ewes. The minimum size would earn between £300 and £400 a year, plus free house, milk, potatoes and so on. He said that there were such places around where he lived and that they were getting along fine without other work having to be done, but he went on to say that there were very few crofts of that size. That size of croft is essential unless other work is available, as it would be if proper use were made of the land available—"wasted land" is what my correspondent called it.
1640
That brings me back to the root of the problem which we are facing. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was quoted as saying that this was a fiddling little Bill. That is the truest description which can be given. It is a fiddling little Bill because it does not face the root problem—the lack of land. The Bill does not make more land available. It may give more land to Peter, but it does so by taking land from Paul. In doing this, it displaces crofters and that is bound to lead to the further depopulation of the Highlands.
The land is there. There are 3 million acres available and although it may be said that not all of it is arable, even that is doubtful. I quote the views of an authority on this matter who was laird in the area of Glasgow where I live, Sir John Stirling Maxwell, of Pollok, who was chairman of the Departmental Committee which was appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1919 and which reported in 1921. He was a liberal landlord in many ways. He said:
"It may be true that a deer forest employs more people than the same area under sheep. It certainly brings in a larger rent. From a purely parochial point of view, it may therefore claim to be economically sound, but from no other. It provides a healthy existence for a small group of people, but it produces nothing except a small quantity of venison, for which there is no demand. It causes money to change hands. A pack of cards can do that. I doubt if it could be said of a single deer forest, however barren and remote, that it could serve no better purpose."
The view cannot be lightly dismissed because he was a deer forest owner. He owned more than 56,000 acres in the County of Inverness. He doubted if it could serve no better purpose.
In the same Report it states what could be done with land which is reserved today for deer. As a result of two years' inquiry the Committee estimated the production, assuming that the 3 million acres in 1920 had been under sheep and said that these acres would have carried 604,000 ewes, rams, and so on, with 205,000 lambs. They would have marketed annually mutton worth £419,000; wool to the value of £188,000, and skins worth £83,000, a total yearly increase in wealth of £691,000.
On the other side of the balance sheet, taking the forests as they were in 1920, we get 630 tons of venison worth £59,000, skins worth £2,000, mutton priced at

1641
£58,000, beef worth £20,000, wool fetching £26,000 and skins worth £14,000, making a total market value of £180,000.
By the simple process of subtraction, there is an annual loss to the community of £510,000, and that has gone on for forty years. We have lost a lot. I do not understand the joke, and if there is anything funny in that I should like to hear what it is.
Mr. Anthony Fell: There is no joke. Your hon. Friend was smiling at what you were saying so I smiled back.
Mr. Rankin: That is no reason for you being provoked. I can stand my hon. Friend smiling because I cannot see him but I can see you.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be better if hon. Members addressed their observations to the Chair.
Mr. Rankin: That was a dead loss to the community of £510,000. We could have been producing food of that value now, but we cannot get it. That is one reason why the Commission is suspected by the crofters.
The right hon. Member knows quite well that a far bigger Bill is required to deal with this problem. He knows that in Inverness-shire the land of which I am talking is owned largely by four persons—Cameron of Lochiel, Lord Lovat, the Countess of Seafield and the Mackintosh of Mackintosh. Crops and food are actually in the hands of people who are using the land for sporting purposes, and that is why the crofts are not able to become the economic units I have already indicated, but are kept down to a level which is causing some of us to think that the whole problem will have to be approached from an entirely different angle. We must think not merely of the croft as a unit, but will have to regard the whole township as the unit.
We have to try to make the township a balanced community, comprising industry and agriculture, because under present conditions of land ownership a croft cannot possibly become an economic unit. Many years ago, when I was starting to hear my own voice in public, I remember being at a meeting of a debating society of the Young Men's Christian Association. Once a week, in
1642
the evening, we had debates on various topics, and one night we were dealing with the ownership of land. Since nearly all the speeches were maiden speeches, some of them were not very long. I have never forgotten one speech by a member who had never spoken before. It was one of the truest speeches I have ever heard, and I shall give that speech to the Committee tonight. I shall quote it all, because I know it by heart. The speaker said:
"Mr. Chairman, landlordism is the curse of this country."
There was his introduction, his argument and his peroration, and every word was true. The Secretary of State knows it to be true, and landlordism is a greater curse in the Highlands of Scotland.
That is the root problem facing the right hon. Gentleman, and it accounts for his serious look at the moment. It is giving him much concern. He knows that he cannot solve the problem that faces him now so long as this land remains in private hands.
In the constituency of hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland 400,000 of 1,200,000 acres go to deer forests and one quarter of that area is in the hands of the Duke of Sutherland. That is an enormous amount of land to own. It is all being abstracted from community use in order to provide private profit and private pleasure.
Sir James Duncan: The hon. Member is advocating the nationalisation of land. Will he say whether that is the policy of his party?
Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) must not lead me away into realms which he knows quite well would be out of order.
Sir J. Duncan: On a point of order. The hon. Member is now admitting that what he has been saying recently about the nationalisation of land has nothing to do with the Bill. As he has admitted that it is out of order, would it not be right for him now to bring himself within order?
Mr. Speaker: I am not governed in my judgment by the admissions of hon. Members, nor did I think that what the hon. Member said amounted to an admission of that proposition.
Mr. Rankin: I am not easily distracted from my objective by the feeble attempts of the hon. Member for South Angus.
I was saying something about the loss in food, but the loss in money is equally disastrous because the crofter Buffets indirectly from the possession of these animals by the private landlord. The gentleman who wrote to me says that in Strathnairn, where he farms, 90 per cent. of the holdings adjacent to the deer forests annually lose £50 to £100 because of the red deer which raid them. This is one way of keeping the crofter continually living on the margin of poverty.
The crofter has no protection from the marauders which not only eat the rich grazings he might have for his cattle but invade his territory and destroy the foodstuffs which he grows. In 1953, for instance, deer did damage to the tune of £200 on one farm alone. In the 10-mile stretch of Strathnairn about sixteen holdings are involved, and deer cause an annual loss of £1,000. It is little wonder that a crofter cannot make of his croft an economic unit when, in the first place, he cannot get the richer grazings necessary for the well-being of his croft and, in the second place, what he grows is attacked by the deer which are not fenced in. The whole of the North of Scotland is one great deer forest and fencing is not permitted. An acre of turnips left growing in a field will feed 100 sheep for a month. In one night a herd of 40 or 50 deer can destroy that acre of turnips. I ask hon. Members, particularly those who represent English constituencies, to consider what that means to men who are trying to live in places where that sort of thing happens.
The crofters feel no confidence in the Commission because it is restricted in the work which it can do.
Mr. J. M. L. Prior: Has the hon. Member got his facts right? If 100 sheep can feed on an acre of turnips for a month, how can 50 deer destroy an acre of turnips in one night? My recollection is that deer are not more than twice as big as sheep, so 50 deer should last for a month on an acre of turnips.
Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me, It is not that the deer eat all the turnips. They leave the
1644
place in such a mess that after one night they have destroyed what should have been food for the sheep for weeks. If the hon. Member had seen marauding deer he would know how they can do such damage.
In discussing the Bill we are not talking about a handful of people, for there are 20,000 crofters and their dependants. To a large extent we are considering their future. All told, with those who are dependent on them, the crofters are at least half of the population of the Highlands. They are seeking to earn a livelihood in a job which in present conditions provides little chance for them to do so.
This has led to a lack of confidence in the Commission. We cannot wholly blame the Commission, because it has only the powers which the House has granted it, and basically the problem resides with the Government. Not only is the Bill not comprehensive enough but the Government are not investing sufficient money in the Highlands. I hope that the Bill will be strengthened in Committee.
On page 11 of the Report of the Commission we read,
"Payment of cropping grant for cultivations carried out in 1959 was completed before the end of the year and a total of 6,004 claims was paid as compared with 5,477 claims paid in 1958. The total amount of grant paid was £269,300 in respect of 29,930 acres under cultivation."
It happens that I am at the moment engaged on another Bill dealing with co-operative production. During the proceedings on that Bill it has been made clear, and accepted on both sides of the Committee, that the annual expenditure on feeding stuffs, seeds. fertilisers, fuel and machinery on a farm of 100 acres is £1,750. Every one of those requisites is needed on a croft, too. If we compare the number of acres and the rate of investment in a general farm with that in a croft, the difference is nearly £250,000 to the disadvantage of the croft. Therefore, there is inequality of investment. Yet there is no difference between the needs of the crofter and of the general farmer. After all, crofting is farming, but on a very small scale, though I agree that in certain respects it has its own peculiarities and to that extent it is different from general farming.

1645
Crofting is different from farming in that we still have in parts of the Highlands balloting for the strips, so that a crofter with a strip near his house may get in the ballot another strip several miles away, and he may have a good deal of moving about from one strip to another. He may have his strips all over the place. That makes his problem rather different from that of the general farmer, who would not tolerate that sort of thing. But basically, the common problem is the cultivation of the land. Yet the Government are prepared to give far more support to the general farmer than to the man who is farming a few acres in the Highlands. There is thus an alarming deficiency of Government investment in crofting.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to the Act of 1886. Before that Act, the crofter suffered from another great disability, rack rent. He had no security of tenure. He could be turned out of his croft at a moment's notice. Part of the area represented by the hon. Member today had 15,000 people earning a comfortable living from the land. In one single night they were evicted by the landlord and left on the shore to starve, or to earn what they could from fishing. That is true. The people who today tell us that these lands could not carry any more people do not know the history of the country about which they talk. These lands carried thousands of people fifty or sixty years ago where today they are scarcely carrying hundreds.
"It is noteworthy"—
says Thomas Carlyle:
"that the nobles of the country have maintained a quite despicable behavour from the times of Wallace downwards"—
the nobles—the people supported by the party opposite; although I exempt from that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland:
"A selfish, ferocious, famishing and unprincipled set of hyaenas—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Is that a Parliamentary expression to use about noble Lords?
Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order, this is a quotation from HANSARD:
"A selfish, ferocious, famishing and unprincipled set of hyaenas, from whom at no time
1646
and in no way has the country derived any benefit. The day is coming when these our modern hyaenas—tho' toothless, still mischievous and greedy beyond limit—will, quickly I hope—be paid off. Ye do-nothing dogs, what are ye doing here?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 274.]
3.12 a.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay) rose—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) spoke a little time ago, and I felt that it would be wrong if I did not reply fairly soon to that speech. I will then, of course, have to deal with the debate so far as it has gone. There are reasons why I should make my speech now.
I do not want to dwell more than I must on this matter which, at the moment, lies between the hon. Member and myself, but he referred to the rebuke I gave him in Committee. He quoted me as saying that he went a little far. That seems a very mild rebuke compared with what one hears in this Chamber from time to time. But in a reference to the Commission in a subsequent intervention he used a phrase which he has repeated tonight. He used the phrase, "Even corruption comes into this".
Those of us who heard the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight have heard as much about the charges of corruption as I have, either this evening or at any other time, and I cannot see that anything he has said tonight carries with it any justification for the use of the word "corruption" in any sense of the word. I will deal briefly with the two cases he mentioned, but I do want to give my version of the facts.
The hon. Gentleman's first specific case concerned a crofter called Mr. Sutherland. The complaint seemed to be that the Commission was wrong in its original decision not to approve the crofter's proposal to assign the croft to his brother. As the hon. Gentleman explained, this crofter, on being tackled by the Commission about being an absentee, sought the permission of the Commission to assign the croft to his brother, a postman, in Brora. The Commission at first refued consent on the ground that it would

1647
not be in the crofting interests to introduce to this small croft an assignee who would soon retire and whose sons, it seemed to the Commission, were not inclined towards the crofting way of life.
The applicant enlisted the support of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, perfectly rightly, and the hon. Member perfectly rightly took up his case. The Commission arranged for a hearing to take place in Inverness, where the Sutherland brothers were able, with their lawyer present, to state their case in full. The new feature, I am advised, which emerged from that meeting was that the proposed assignee's son, aged 18, was said to be sincerely interested in crofting although in the meantime he was working as an unqualified assistant in the county engineer's office in Brora. In the light of this information, the Commission considered a fresh application made by Mr. R. Sutherland to assign the croft to his brother and eventually consented to this proposal, thus reversing its previous decision.
That is the story. I can see nothing in it savouring of corruption in any sense of the word in any dictionary.
Sir D. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman is distorting this. I said with the utmost clarity that the Commission sent an investigator, who said that the postman was too old to succeed. He was told clearly that there was a younger son in a job in an office, working from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.—and I said so in my speech —who was able to devote his spare time to helping his father, the postman, and that when the father passed on he would succeed him in the croft. These facts were known to the Commission. After the investigator came along, the Commission took a decision to dispossess the family. The Commission confirmed that, as I said in my speech, at a full meeting on 4th July. It is absurd for the Secretary of State now to say that any new evidence came up. No new evidence came up. All that happened was that I found it out.
Mr. Maclay: I am sorry to dwell on this, but a grave charge has been made by the hon. Member, who used the word "corruption" involving a public body. I must try to get this straight. I have given my version as I understand it and I cannot see that it varies in any way from what the hon. Member has said in
1648
substance, even if what he has just said is more accurate in detail. I still cannot see that the word "corruption" comes in.
Sir D. Robertson Sir D. Robertson rose—
Mr. Maclay: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I have done so once already. I shall deal now with the second case, in which the name of MacIver was brought in. Number 12 Fast Brora Muir is the name of the croft and I do not think that except in minor detail my version will disagree in any way with the hon. Member's version. When the croft fell vacant, the Crofters Commission and the estate had a number of consultations about its re-letting. One point that I should make clear is that there is no requirement to advertise. If anybody advertises, in those cases it is the landlord and not the Commission.
The Commission and the estate had a number of consultations about the re-letting of the croft. Mr. George MacIver, who occupies another croft nearby, had worked 12 East Brora Muir, as the hon. Member said, for a number of years by arrangement with the previous tenant. The Commission's long-term plans for the township had envisaged that when the croft fell vacant, it should be re-let to Mr. MacIver. This would have been a perfectly normal procedure, but there were other local applicants for the croft, and in the event the Commission consented to a proposal by the estate to re-let it to Mrs. Smith, who, like Mr. MacIver, had another croft nearby.
Sir D. Robertson: After I intervened.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member intervened, but that is what hon. Members do the whole time. I spend a lot of my time on letters which ask me to reconsider decisions, taken either by me or by somebody else, but I have never charged anybody with corruption.
The hon. Member should not use the word "corruption" loosely like this in the House of Commons when he talks of people outside who cannot defend themselves. I defend them now. I feel more strongly about this than about anything since I have been in this House—the abuse of privilege to make a charge of corruption. I withdraw the phrase "abuse of privilege", because it is not for me to say that. I consider it absolutely wrong, however, to use the word

1649
"corruption" on the evidence that the hon. Member has put before the House tonight. I am sorry to speak with feeling, but I would be quite wrong if I did not do so when that is how I feel.
The hon. Member raised two points in confirmation of the charge of corruption. One was that the Secretary of the Commission, as I understood it, gave information on 22nd August saying that formal proposals for re-letting the croft were awaited by the Commission, whereas such proposals had already been received on 18th August. The chairman of the Commission has himself explained to my hon. Friend that this was a misunderstanding which arose because the Commission's staff is divided between two offices, and, what is more, that the dates in question ran over a weekend. Those are the facts, as the hon. Member can see by looking up a calendar. The hon. Member has himself referred to this one occasion as an administrative failure. It was not a very serious one, and there is certainly no evidence of corruption. That is the version given to me, and nothing that he has said tonight has thrown any different light upon this matter.
The hon. Gentleman said this gentleman was on too close terms with the Commission. I have never known that that was evidence of corruption, and nothing has been produced either in this debate or in the hon. Member's letters to me or to my Department which would bear out the use of the word corruption.
In any job of this kind, where judgment is involved, there is bound to be questioning as to whether the right decisions have been made. Nobody takes exception to that, and occasionally the question can be put in fierce terms. But it is a different matter to accuse individuals of acting with lack of impartiality for what are corrupt reasons. I, too, have the definition of the word "corruption" here, and I, too, got it from Webster's, which is one of the dictionaries which my hon. Friend quoted. That definition is:
"Impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle…inducement (of a person) by means of improper considerations to commit a violation of duty."
All I have to say about this sorry matter is that I listened to my hon. Friend and have considered the other things he
1650
has made available to me, and I can find no evidence of that in anything I have before me now.
Sir D. Robertson: Is it not apparent, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Secretary of State will not see—is not prepared to see—that this administrative failure was raised to explain the delay? The chairman of the Commission wrote to me and said that he blamed the Borough of Inverness for having unsuitable accommodation. He said that the Commission had one office on one side of the river and another on the other side. That means perhaps a distance of 400 yards between them, with a bridge crossing the river.
There are dozens of firms in this great City of London whose offices are in half a dozen different places, because they have not been able to find accommodation in the same building. Yet it is suggested that a letter which arrived on 18th August—I was notified on 23rd August by a letter written on the 22nd —was held up because of the distance between the two offices. It was not an administrative failure. The letter was deliberately held up on the vital day that Councillor McIver wrote to me. Somebody told him that this letter had arrived.
I thought that I had made it clear that this was the vital day. If the letter from the landlord had been in Councillor McIver's favour, there would have been no need to communicate with me, but on that day he wrote to me and put the screw on me to support him and not the Smiths, which I was unable to do. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I have had to go over this ground again, but HANSARD will show all this in the morning. The Secretary of State does not want to see in this case.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is utterly untrue.
Sir D. Robertson: Nonsense.
Mr. H. Lever: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. However enjoyable, intrinsically, it is for Members on this side of the House to hear the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland in effect calling the Secretary of State a liar, and the Secretary of State saying that what the hon. Member said was untrue, can you say whether either of

1651
those expressions is Parliamentary language or not?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir G. Touche): "Untrue" is not, strictly speaking, in order.
Mr. Maclay: Did I say "untrue"? I do not know what I said "untrue" about. I am sorry if I said something which is not in order, and, of course, I withdraw it.
The point I am making is that, even if the timing is what the hon. Member says, I have pointed out to him that the dates in question run over a weekend—from a Thursday to a Monday—and I have no reason to believe, nor has any evidence been produced to me, that this was in any way a corrupt procedure.
Mr. Swingler: Has this complaint been independently investigated? I am making no imputations about it. Obviously, the Minister has been informed of this matter by people who are parties to the dispute, as it were, but I draw no inference from that. I am merely asking the Minister whether he has taken any steps to have the allegations which have been made by the hon. Member independently investigated.
Mr. Maclay: I do not think the hon. Member can have followed carefully what I have said. I do not consider that there has been any evidence of a charge of corruption to investigate. I have been giving the version that I was given of what actually happened. What more can be done? I recollect that at one stage the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to this as an administrative failure, which it was, but I did not think that it was an administrative failure, involving the holding up of a letter over a weekend in this instance in which two buildings were concerned, which was going to have these very strange imputations attached to it. There must be many more instances occurring which could lead to equal trouble. However, there is no evidence on which I could proceed on the basis of corruption. If the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland reads HANSARD tomorrow he will have great difficulty in seeing that there was evidence of corruption.
1652
If I might turn to the Bill, the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) made a long and interesting speech. I will not deny that. At moments my interest lagged, but it came back from time to time. I am not sure what the hon. Member was aiming at in a good deal of his speech. He must not be sensitive about this. He said some fairly firm things to me, and I shall say some fairly firm things back to him. Compared with the whole length of his speech, he spent very little time on the two points which I know are causing him genuine concern. I know that there are other points which concern him, but there are two major ones. I want to spend a little time on them—
Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Might I have your guidance? May the House now be informed whether the Minister considers that he is replying to the whole of the debate? Some of us on this side of the House feel—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Harold Davies: Then may we have some information from the Minister?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Maclay: I explained what I was going to do. I said that I was going on to deal with the debate as it has gone so far. I cannot tell what happens with the debate before it finishes. That is quite impossible. I have not a clue. I wish I had. The hon. Member has now put me out of my stride: and I was well away, too.
I will deal with the two points raised by the hon. Member for the Western Isles in due course, but I should like, first of all, to get rid of those parts of his Amendment which deal with transport, marketing and the promotion of local industries. He dealt with the last subject particularly at very considerable length. These matters are not in the Bill. I have always known it, and I said straight away when the Bill was being considered in principle upstairs that it is not intended to deal with them. Other powers exist. I do not believe

1653
that he or his hon. Friends who put their names to the Amendment think that the Bill is the right place in which to deal with these matters.
All sorts of suggestions were made, many of them interesting, including the comprehensive one that we have heard so often, of a new Highlands and Islands Development Corporation, but that would not have gone into a Crofters Bill and I do not believe that that is a serious part of the Amendment. Even in local marketing the hon. Member knows how bodies like the Development Fund have been able to give help to organisations such as Outer Isles Crofters Ltd. and Lewis Crofters Ltd.
The promotion of local industries is not a simple matter. None of us thinks that it is, although some speeches are made to sound as if industries would grow all over the place provided the Government would only give some help. The hon. Member for the Western Isles must not take exception to what I am about to say. I have been accused of being complacent about things. As hon. Members know, I am not complacent. But the charge that possibly could be made against hon. Members opposite is that of over-enthusiasm to make their points, which is the opposite of being complacent but which makes things look so gloomy that it makes it frightfully hard for them and for us to get things done.
The hon. Member said that transport charges made it difficult if not impossible for industries to develop in the Islands. But, without underestimating for one minute the undoubted difficulties, we have only to consider the record over the past few years to see how, given the necessary initiative and the right kind of industry, and with the forms of Government assistance that are available, industrial projects can be and have been successfully developed.
Since the Local Employment Act came into operation last April, £459,000 in financial assistance has been recommended by B.O.T.A.C. for 17 projects in the Highlands and Islands, with an estimated employment potential of 460. In addition, £253,000 of assistance for 29 projects was recommended by D.A.T.A.C. during the 20 months during which the Distribution of Industry Act, 1958, was in operation. Taking
1654
these successful B.O.T.A.C. and D.A.T.A.C. projects together they should on the applicants' estimates provide about 976 extra jobs.
Development Fund assistance has also been going into the Highlands, made available through the county councils, and that money has gone towards the cost of providing four small factories with an estimated employment potential of over 200. The Industrial Estates Management Corporation is building on behalf of the Board of Trade a glassware factory at Wick with an employment estimate of 56, and there is also the Board of Trade Industrial Estate in Inverness of 23,000 square feet, provided through the Corporation and its predecessor, Scottish Industrial Estates, Ltd.
In all, Government-assisted projects in the Highlands and Islands—excluding Dounreay where over 2,000 permanent workers are now employed, about half of them recruited locally—have a total employment potential of 1,280 workers, which is a really significant contribution, bearing in mind that the average number of unemployed in 1960 throughout the whole area was 5,419. I am not saying that this is the whole answer but it is absolutely wrong throughout debates of this kind to talk as if nothing was happening. It creates an absolutely wrong impression.
Mr. Manuel: In case the right hon. Gentleman is levelling that accusation against me, I would point out that I devoted some time in a speech in Committee to this matter. I feel strongly about it. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us how many of the 17 or 19 projects which he has indicated are operating and also give more information about the total of jobs. It is apparent to all of us—and I do not like saying this—that, in order to secure aid, many people are over-assessing the employment capability of projects when they actually get going. That is well-known.
Mr. Maclay: I do not have the figures in my head, but going back to 1945, when this kind of operation began—it was a little after that that accurate records began to be kept—it is true that some of the applications have undoubtedly turned out to employ fewer than was estimated, but for every one

1655
of those, there have been many which have employed more than was estimated. I have taken the trouble to get the figure worked out for the whole of Scotland, although it has not yet been broken down into individual areas, and it is a long way up on the estimates, although individual projects may have fallen below.
Mr. B. T. Parkin: Has the right hon. Gentleman in his head the figure of the average capital cost per job in these projects?
Mr. Maclay: I do not have it in my head.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the area I was talking about and which is facing a special difficulty is the Outer Islands area? I was not talking about the Highlands and Islands as a whole, because one cannot deal with the Highlands and Islands as a whole and it is nonsense to talk that way. I was talking of the Outer Hebrides and the difficulties of working there. That was why I spoke of compensating firms going to the area.
Mr. Maclay: I am glad that the hon. Member has made that clear. The Outer Islands are getting special developments. This is a question of solid work by the hon. Member, by myself and by organisations which are interested in trying to find the right people to bring the right industry into the right place. It is impossible to put in and make permanent something artificial and completely unsuitable to the area, and no one is suggesting that we should. The means are available and various forms of grants and loans are available, given the right initiative and the right project.
There are parts of the Bill which are causing concern in certain parts of the crafting areas and I should like to get them into perspective. The crofting problem has been with us for many years and no one—certainly not the hon. Member for the Western Isles, who knows it very well—believes that it can be solved overnight by anybody. This is a very big problem for geographical and many other reasons. One of the most important things is that those whom we are trying to help to a more effec-
1656
tive and more modern way of living should have confidence in the tools which we are trying to put into their hands and into ours to help them.
In spite of what has been said about arbitrary decisions which, it is said, we are to ram down people's throats, the only points on which the hon. Member for the Western Isles, and those who think like him, and I differ are on the majority decision being removed in reorganisation schemes, and the possibility of compulsory sub-letting. It is generally recognised that, unless there are some compulsory powers somewhere in the background, it is very unlikely that a scheme can be made to work. In Committee we can examine all sorts of ways of trying to meet those worries, although I cannot promise to find a formula which will satisfy hon. Members opposite. It is very largely a matter of finding words to ease the situation.
I remind the House what a reorganisation scheme is. It is a scheme for the reallocation of the land in a township in a way which will lead to better use of that land and to the general benefit of the township. This may mean, for example, re-allocating small, scattered pieces of land into more viable units so as to help those crofters who are able and willing to cultivate the land to make a better living. It would be wrong to imagine that reorganisation schemes involve wholesale dislocation of the lives of crofters, especially older crofters. Indeed, with the exercise by the Commission of its other powers in relation to absentees, assignations, re-letting and sub-letting, the reorganisation scheme may more and more come to give formal shape to developments which have already largely taken place.
There are, however, specific safeguards of the crofters' interests. Clause 7 makes it clear that every crofter will, if he so wishes, be able to retain his house as part of his croft and that every crofter willing and able to cultivate a croft will get at least as good a croft as he had before.
I submit that these are reasonable and clear provisions. The trouble was that the procedure for dealing with reorganisation laid down in the 1955 Act was found by experience to be hardly workable. Only a handful of schemes

1657
have gone through, and there are many reasons for this. The main stumbling block has been the provision in the Act which requires a formal majority decision in a township, following a long series of discussions, before a scheme can be confirmed.
I understand the real fears of those to whom the possibility, whether real or imaginary, of something being imposed on them, even with the support of a majority of their fellow crofters, can be a cause of genuine worry and misgiving. These fears and misgivings can, I am sure, be largely met by a fuller understanding of the procedures in the Bill and the safeguards they contain.
Let me make it clear, however, that I do not think it would be sensible to retain reorganisation provisions in which, at the end of various stages of a long and protracted procedure, a scheme can be vetoed by people without knowing, exploring and assessing their reasons for disagreeing when these reasons might well be found to be due to misconceptions and misunderstandings, or to arise from particular matters which—I ask the House to note this—could be put right without undue difficulty. That is what can happen under the procedure we are proposing. It was not possible under the previous procedure.
We are, therefore, proposing a procedure by which both the overall merits of a scheme will be fully explored and assessed, and detailed objections considered and dealt with, so that the risk of misunderstanding is minimised and opportunity can be taken to meet particular difficulties by means of modifications to the scheme. In short, it is not only a question of knowing who or how many are against a scheme, but we must also know why they are against it. I must emphasise this. There must be provision for listening to objections and also for weighing objections and for comparing benefits and drawbacks.
We have come to the conclusion that a much better way of doing this is to rely on the well-tried procedure of the public inquiry of which there is great experience throughout the country. In these inquiries every relevant consideration comes out and is reported on by an impartial person, and the final de-
1658
cision can be taken in the light of circumstances which all can see and all can judge.
I am not suggesting for one moment that one can in a matter of this kind ignore the weight of opinion in a township, or force a reorganisation scheme through in the face of the hostility of the people mainly concerned. What I do say is that we must find an effective way of ensuring that the full facts are brought out and that interested opinion is tested. I agree that there may be points of detail in Clause 7 which we could usefully discuss in Committee and I shall of course consider what has been said tonight, but experience has proved that we cannot make effective progress with reorganisation schemes with the existing provisions.
I think that the hon. Member for the Western Isles—I refer to him particularly because he raised these points—may feel that the need for reorganisation is less pressing in some parts of his constituency, but I am sure he recognises that conditions in some other areas outside the Western Isles are very different and that reorganisation is the only hope of enabling the community to survive.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I am not against reorganisation schemes. I am not against the Crofters Commission taking the initiative in recorganisation scheme. The point is that we are now, for the first time, doing something from which we believe all other sections of the agricultural community, that is, exercising special selective compulsion. We are not against reorganisation schemes as such.
Mr. Maclay: On what knowledge I have it is improbable that it is exactly as the hon. Member says. Certainly some areas in his constituency are not suited for it.
I want to say a word about subletting, which was the other main point raised. The provisions of the Bill are designed to encourage and effect the orderly subletting of crofts which are not used, or not fully used, so that crofters who are anxious to make a better living from the land may be helped to do so. The sponsors of the Amendment object to there being any element of compulsion in this matter, but there are two reasons why we feel this element is necessary.

1659
First, though I should hope that the provisions in Clause 10 would give rise to a great deal of voluntary subletting on an orderly basis approved by the Commission—and the offer of grants to approved sub-tenants should help this development—there will inevitably remain a number of crofts not properly cultivated, where the crofters are not able, or are not sufficiently interested, to effect sublets themselves. One can visualise people who, for a variety of reasons, just never get round to doing this, and there would have to be some outside stimulus.
Secondly, the existence of a compulsory power, though exercisable only in the last resort, will underline the importance of subletting as a means of improving the crofting economy and should serve as a stimulus to crofters to take the initiative themselves. This is a more difficult argument, but it is borne out by what has happened in relation to absentee crofters. While the Commission has taken action against absentees in a considerable number of cases, there have been many other cases where absentees have, on their own initiative, assigned or renounced their crofts. These subletting provisions are novel in character and they will no doubt merit detailed consideration in Committee, but they are of cardinal importance to the whole scheme.
We are proposing to give up the power to dispossess the crofter who does not work his croft in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. I wish that the hon. Member for the Western Isles would not say that the Bill removes more and more the feeling of security of tenure, because it is reinforcing the crofters security.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: That is not the point I made. In fairness, the right hon. Gentleman will not want to misrepresent my argument. I said that it has created a sense of insecurity by its dilution of the right of tenure of a crofter, by threatening to have a subtenant, not of his choice, at his back door, possibly for seven years.
Mr. Maclay: In practice it will often be less than seven years. The worry here is out of all proportion to the effect of the Bill. Here again, however, we will see if we can remove that fear. I
1660
know that we cannot make these things work if people in the area do not believe in them. We could not force this down their throats, even if we were foolish enough to want to. But there may be cases where some element of compulsion is essential to keep the thing going.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) asked whether I could give him the figures of capital investment. I do not have them with me, although I had them last time. If he wants them I can send them to him, but he must be careful: he will have to read them, and they may cause him trouble, because they are very comprehensive, and in great detail, and conclusions are difficult to arrive at in the end. But they do not bear out the hon. Member's case that other areas are getting disproportionately large amounts of capital investment. I will send him the figures.
Mr. Rankin: Is that all?
Mr. Maclay: That is all about that, yes. The hon. Member and the hon. Member for the Western Isles went back over past speeches, and I suggest to hon. Members opposite that unless they can bring themselves up to date they will never get back to power. Both hon. Members were quoting speeches made 40, 50, 80 or even 100 years ago. They are completely out of touch with what is going on in matters affecting land. It does not help anybody, including the crofters, whom I know hon. Members opposite are most anxious to help, to convey the impression that there is still lots of land in Scotland waiting for cultivation and development of this kind. We have been over this time and time again. The Forestry Commission has the greatest difficulty today in finding land to develop which is not already used effectively for agricultural subjects. As for the so-called deer forests and the grouse moors, we have heard about these so often, but how many of those areas could carry new crofts or extensions of crofts?
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: What about regeneration?
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member knows that regeneration is a long, slow business, and it must be done close to the right crofts; it is no use doing it away up in some corner of the hills. I do not

1661
know, and I have never heard, of any shortage of land suitable for regeneration of the very interesting kind which has been done, and which I have seen, in the hon. Member's constituency. But to talk as if all the land is available for everyone to be happy with is to talk distorted nonsense.
Mr. MacMillan: Nobody does that.
Mr. Maclay: Hon. Members opposite convey fiat impression. They have been conveying the idea that we have only to remove the deer from the land and everything will be all right. Is it to be sheep or crofters? All the stories which the hon. Member for Govan was telling—heart-rending stories, it is true—related to the advent of sheep, and he spoke about people living in large numbers in the Sutherland area. The hon. Member must realise that the world has moved on since then, and a standard of life which it was possible for people then to accept simply would not be acceptable today. It was a very hard life. I admit that people may derive contentment from a hard life, and I say nothing about the merits or demerits of that time, but—
Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said.
Mr. Maclay: I cannot give way. I am running dry now and I shall not stay on my feet much longer.
I want hon. Members opposite to try to help us to do the job we all want to do for the crofters. Let us keep things in their proper perspective. I believe that, before it has passed through all its stages, the Bill will be seen to be an effective instrument for doing what we all want and will receive the unanimous support of all hon. Members.
3.52 a.m.
Mr. Harold Davies: It may seem strange that a Welshman representing an English constituency should wish to take part in this debate and should take the trouble to follow it through to this point and note carefully the terms of the Amendment. There is nothing frivolous about the interest of some of us who represent constituencies in which there are small farms where problems very close to those dealt with by the Bill arise in a similar context.
The Secretary of State has told us that we must look forward, that the old
1662
days have gone. We know all that. But our crofting legislation, from the 1955 Act going right back to the days of Gladstone—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: And before that.
Mr. Harold Davies:—and before that, had a purpose. There has been no answer given to the question raised by the provisions of Clause 9 of the Bill, which provides:
"Section twenty-one of the Act of 1955 (which relates to the duty of a crofter to work his croft in accordance with the rules of good husbandry), shall cease to have effect."
Section 21 (1) of the 1955 Act provides:
"It shall be the duty of every crofter to work his croft in accordance with the rules of good husbandry and to provide such fixed equipment on his croft as may be necessary to enable him to do so."
I do not want to enlarge the debate by a mass of verbiage, but it is interesting to notice that, at a time when we speak of helping agriculture, we repeal one of the Sections relating to the need to work the croft in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. There is more in this than meets the eye. I link it with a tendency which can be seen all over the world.
The Economist always refers to agriculture in an off-hand way.
Mr. Hughes: Patronisingly.
Mr. Davies: It patronises British agriculture.
Mr. Hughes: Especially Scottish agriculture.
Mr. Davies: Including Scottish agriculture. If hon. Members read what it said at the time of the introduction of the Bill they will see that it wrote scornfully about small farmers as "problem children" and about "peasant myopia". It said that the Bill was good and that we should have an open market value for land.
Mr. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend sure that "peasant myopia" is a quotation from the Economist? It sounds like a quotation from Mr. Khrushchev.
Mr. Davies: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is from the Economist. It asks what the Bill does and says that infirm and inactive crofters can retain the houses but can be compelled to sublet the remainder and to give up the

1663
tenancy. I do not want to bore the House by reading extracts from the report of the Crofters Commission; all Scottish Members—who do their duty, on both sides of the House—have read the Report. But I did not like the reference to the open market value as the key to the crofting land problem.
I raise this problem because it is exactly the same as in other places where there is a Green Belt, a National Park organisation and Commissions and county councils making plans. We see land which is no longer to be cultivated and tenanted by farmers being made available at market value. The House must watch this. I guarantee that when the Bill becomes an Act it will not be many years before there will be great speculation in land values in this remote part of Britain, such as we are having on the verge of urban districts and towns in my area, where land from small farms is being released—in some cases good agricultural land—and bought for building
Mr. H. Lever: I have an open mind on this whole question, as I know has my hon. Friend. It is not a party question. Perhaps he will take the opportunity of this intervention to explain who will speculate in this land and where. I can understand that such speculation would occur in his constituency, but would it occur in the Outer Isles?
Mr. Davies: Under Clause 9 of the Bill it is no longer necessary for the rules of good husbandry to be maintained in crofting. That is the first point. The second point, as is stated distinctly in the Economist, is that the key to the value of this land will now be the open market. The open market value of crofting land will be higher than present-day values of land. Now I come to the key point in my answer to my hon. Friend. Who is going to speculate? England is becoming increasingly urbanised. More and more people travel by car to the quieter areas, and Southern Ireland and Scotland are becoming the mecca of the motorist.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: And of the Americans.
Mr. Davies: Yes. The crofters are being moved, and there will be a
1664
tendency for big business to take over those areas for the hotel and tourist industry. It may be said that that is a good thing. So it is, but the point is that this situation is being compulsorily pushed on to these people who are being given no chance of developing.
In the Jack Committee Report on Rural Bus Services—[Interruption.] This Report, which came out at 4 o'clock yesterday, is very relevant. May I refer hon. Members to the Amendment which states that the Bill
"…denies crofting communities the right of majority or of any decision in respect to schemes for radical reorganisation of t heir townships; fails to make any provision to assist crofters with the transporting or marketing of their produce; and fails to give the Crofters Commission any powers, responsibilities or resources to stimulate, assist or promote local industries and enterprises, without which crofting itself cannot survive."
It is no good calling us on this side of the House Luddites, stick-in-the-muds and old-fashioned. The Agriculture Act, 1947, which was introduced by a Labour Government, was the most progressive Act ever brought before the House to help Scottish, English and Welsh agriculture. If the Commission had had real powers, it could have done something years ago to implement the Jack Report on Rural Bus Services.
Let us see what the Report says about Scotland. At page 8 it speaks of the decline in the number of bus passengers and states:
"It has been suggested to us that other contributory factors have been changes in the geographical distribution of the population, the increase in bus fares and the increasing number of mobile shops. We consider each of these in turn.
Changes in the geographical distribution of the population which are relevant to our problem take two farms: an increase in the larger villages and towns of the countryside and in the rural areas which surround the larger cities, and a decline in the remoter parts of the country. This latter process of decline has been continuous over a long period and has been most pronounced in the upland areas of the north and west, especially in mid-Wales and in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland. In these areas the number of births no longer equals the number of deaths so that on the basis of present trends a further decline in population is inevitable."
The Report goes on to show how impossible it is to develop rural bus services in these areas. Here is a constructive job that the Commission could have done. Had the Government not done

1665
such wicked things to our nationalised transport system, the Commission could have introduced mini-buses in these areas. In the Report there is a suggestion that the introduction of mini-buses, which are not so expensive as the larger vehicles, would have been one way of helping the people in the rural areas, including crofters.
The relevance is that this could happen in my own constituency where, in some of the rural areas, there are declining populations. Some of the small farmers have incomes of only £5 16s. a week. In the Zuckermann Report on natural resources, with special reference in this case to agriculture—the title is "Scale of Enterprise in Farming"—there is an analysis of the earnings from crofts and small farms. The average income of crofters—in cash —is given as £3 a week—
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Further to that point
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. The hon. Member has already spoken once.
Mr. MacMillan: But this is a point. Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the hon. Member cannot repeat himself.
Mr. MacMillan Mr. MacMillan rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. The hon. Member is entitled to speak only once, unless his speech has been misunderstood.
Mr. MacMillan: I do not want to speak again, but to ask a question, which has been commonly done in this House.
Mr. Manuel: Further to that point of order, do I take it that when one hon. Member gives way to another in order that he may be asked to expand some point in the speech, the hon. Member intervening, who may have already made a speech, is then out of order in intervening?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: An hon. Member is entitled to speak only once, unless his speech has been misunderstood or there is some special ground like that. He is then entitled to intervene, but he is not entitled to go on intervening.
Mr. H. Lever: Further to that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, surely it is an important right in this House than an hon. Member should be able to make a brief intervention, and that that right depends, not on whether or not he has spoken earlier but on the courtesy of the hon. Member who has the Floor in giving way. I think that this is so on the other side of the House. Surely, it would be flouting the established usage of the House to allow, without protest, the principle that an hon. Member, having spoken once, is forbidden to make a brief intervention by courtesy of the hon. Member who is then speaking.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: He can make a brief intervention if his speech has been misunderstood. The rule is quite clear.
Mr. Lever: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If I may seek guidance from the Chair, whence comes the point about intervening only for a given purpose? Surely, it has been the established usage of the House that hon. Members can always, at any time, intervene as often as the courtesy of other hon. Members permits, and, with great respect, the Chair should not rule away, without there being protest, an established right of hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The normal rule is that an hon. Member can speak only once on a Motion.
Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In answer to my hon. Friend you said that an hon. Member is not entitled to go on intervening. That implies that there is some sort of limitation on the right of an hon. Member to intervene, other than the courtesy of the hon. Member who holds the Floor in giving way. Surely, that is not so. If an hon. Member is in order in the question he puts or in the character of his intervention, and the hon. Member who has been called has given way, there is no arithmetical limitation on the number of times an hon. Member may intervene.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was explaining that, normally, an hon. Member can speak only once. If his speech has been misunderstood, or something like that, he can intervene, but the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm

1667
MacMillan) has intervened quite a number of times, and his speech was not then being misrepresented. Therefore, he had no right to speak again.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: Is not that a new Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has, of course, made a speech in this debate. As I understand it, he was not endeavouring to make a second speech but was merely proceeding to ask a question of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). I have been about this place for quite a long time now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I have not hitherto heard the Chair rule that an hon. Member who had addressed the House could not thereafter intervene in the speech of another hon. Member, who has done him the courtesy of giving way in order that the first-mentioned hon. Member, who has spoken, could ask a question. That is common usage.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may intervene in certain circumstances, but he cannot make a second or third intervention unless he is called.
Mr. H. Lever: Further to that point of order. You ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my hon. Friend could make an intervention for the purpose of clearing up a misapprehension in connection with his speech. Can you assist the House by telling us what authority there is for imposing such a restriction upon the right of an hon. Member to intervene?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The authority will be found in Erskine May at pages 448 and 449.
Mr. Harold Davies: I always understood, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that an hon. Member was allowed to intervene. The point I want to make—
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Further to that point of order. I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would tell me—it possibly weakens my position in some ways—why I was not ruled out of order on previous occasions, or why the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and some of my hon. Friends were not ruled out of order on the same basis. Is this a new Ruling? What is the difference between
1668
this proposed intervention and the many others permitted by the Chair earlier?
Mr. Speaker: I must decline to rule in circumstances like this. I do not know what has been happening. I have just reached the Chair and I cannot refer back to what I have not heard.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Am I in order, Mr. Speaker, in asking my hon. Friend one short question arising out of some comments he has been making about the low incomes in agriculture in the crofting areas, which we have been talking about for a considerable time this morning? I wanted to ask my hon. Friend—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will have to assist me, because I do not know. I assume that the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) was addressing the House.
Mr. Davies: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I was prepared to give way for the question.
Mr. Speaker: Certainly, the lion. Member may intervene if the hon. Member for Leek is prepared to give way.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I would not call it argument with the Chair, because I do not want to be disrespectful, but that is what the whole discussion with the Chair has been about. I am glad that you have given that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which is extremely important for the rights of hon. Members. I wanted to ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that in the area to which he has been referring and which is referred to in the Report, there is probably a higher number in proportion to population of people who have had to claim exemption from the general social security contributions because they fall below the minimum level above which they become payable.
Mr. Davies: Yes. This is the whole problem of small farming and crofting in the British Isles. I was quoting the Government Report by the Natural Resources Technical Committee entitled "Scale of Enterprise in Farming", which came out only a few weeks ago. There, one gets different figures of the incomes of farms and crofts and an income as low as £3 a week for the Scottish crofter.

1669
There are certain principles in the Bill which I do not like. Nobody has yet answered the first question on the Bill, which arises on Clause 9. That Clause states that
"Section twenty-one of the Act of 1955 (which relates to the duty of a crofter to work his croft in accordance with the rules of good husbandry), shall cease to have effect."
I do not want to be accused of repetition, but if one looks at that Section of the relevant Act, there are certain standards and tenets of farming which we know under the 1947 Act.
Why is Section 21 of the 1955 Act being withdrawn? I say that it is being withdrawn because, as the Economist said, the open market will now be the criterion upon which the value of the crofting land, when it is released from the needs of good husbandry, will be charged.
The Economist of 21st January, 1961, gaily welcomed the fact that this land was to be put on the open market. I have seen that sort of thing happening in Leek and other areas where Green Belt development takes place. We know the speculation that is going on. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) how there could be speculation in this land if there had been depopulation and no farming was being carried out on it.
The urbanisation of Britain which is now going on is throwing up problems. The prices of this land will go up four, five or six times on the open market, because the motorists are looking in Eire and Scotland for quiet areas. This Bill will result in the development of tourism, which nobody objects to, but we want to keep a balance and to learn that there is something more in life than arid efficiency.
Farming and crofting is a way of life. People from this walk of life have, for generations, served the Royal Navy and the fishing fleets. Yet these fine, virile people are to be swept aside because of this cry for efficiency and economy. Of course we want efficiency and economy, but not at the price of human happiness. That is not the way to true efficiency.
In the White Paper of the Report on Talks between the Agricultural Departments and the Farmers' Unions in 1960,
1670
it is stated that the National Farmers' Union asked that any procedures in agriculture should not prejudice the purposes of the 1947 and 1957 Acts. But this Bill prejudices those purposes. There is a tendency to squeeze the little man out of existence.
In my constituency, and in other parts of the country, big business is tending to break into farming and crofting and to work farm units and their marketing in groups. A new type of take-over bid is coming into agriculture, resulting in agricultural land being sold for building. The knowledge of that leads to speculation which no decent nation should allow and which, I am afraid, will be the result of this Bill.
Half the production of our agriculture comes from farms with 50 acres or less, and one-eighth of that half comes from crofts and holdings of 20 acres and under. Even if these people are unsubsidised and keep themselves by part-time work, it is still a way of life. I would have suggested that a constructive job for the Commission—it could have been done all over Britain had we not had such a vicious attack on the nationalisation of transport—would have been to have invested £50,000 in a minibus pilot scheme—vehicles carrying 10 to 12 people—in some of the Highland and hill farming areas. Such a scheme would bring fresh life and hope to some of the rural areas, and even the crofting areas and areas like those in the Leek constituency. That is one of the things brought out by the Jack Report on Rural Bus Services.
The Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society deals with this issue of farm economics in respect of small farmers and crofters on page 93 of volume 120. It says that we have justified our continued support of agriculture on the need to safeguard our food supplies in the event of war—God forbid that it should happen; there would again be a rush to open up the crofts, and even allotments —and to help our balance of payments. Every time we cut out a certain section of agricultural production we are increasing our indebtedness overseas and our balance of payments problem. This month's Economic Review shows that we have the largest balance of payments problem since 1951. We must remember that British agriculture—that includes

1671
Scottish agriculture and the crofters—contributes £300 million a year to our balance of payments.
The Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society says that agriculture not only saves imports and helps our balance of payments but also brings a certain stability to our way of life. It then mentions the question of the Common Market—this will be relevant, Mr. Speaker, and I trust that I shall not be ruled out of order—and the European Free Trade Association. The tendency now is for the City of London and big industry once again to revert to the old cry of between 1870 and the First World War, that being the shopkeepers of the world, we can import cheap food. The House of Commons has never fully discussed the argument about the Common Market and the European Free Trade Association—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Despite the hon. Member's plea, I must require him to relate his observations to the Bill.
Mr. Davies: I shall not mention it again, Mr. Speaker. It links them with the closing down of small-scale enterprises. People are worshipping at the shrine of vastness and big enterprise. But there is no guarantee. No farmers in the world are as efficient as ours and produce so much per acre as do ours at present in the commodities that are relative, naturally, to our climate. I do not expect us to grow bananas, but this part of the world can grow—
Mr. Prior: The hon. Member says that we have the greatest output per acre of agricultural produce of any country in the world—
Mr. Davies: I said that we have the most efficient output.
Mr. Prior: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the size of farms in this country is considerably larger than in the rest of Europe?
Mr. Davies: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Order. All this must be related to the Crofters (Scotland) Bill and exciting attempts to grow bananas in Devonshire and so forth are not relevant.
Mr. Davies: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
1672
I consider that the Bill will deny to the crofting communities the right to make their own decisions. The time will come when we shall be debating the possibility of amalgamation in British agriculture. This is the beginning of a Conservative plan of amalgamation and collectivisation of some of these areas. The connotation of "collectivisation" is not very pleasant to some hon. Members, but "amalgamation" is used openly to indicate the goal in British agriculture. This trend is already apparent. According to the Royal Agricultural Society, the number of farmers in the United States fell by 22 per cent. between 1940 and 1954, but the acreage of farms increased by an average of over 70 acres.
This is the trend which it is being attempted to introduce increasingly into this country. This Bill is the first example of it that the House of Commons has had since the present Government came into power. This is a new muddling with the Crofters Commission and the Commission is giving up the ghost as far as any constructive approach to agricultural problems are concerned. We have listened with great pleasure to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). On the Committee stage of the Bill he asked questions about ancillary employment.
Mr. Speaker: As far as I know, there has not been a Committee stage of the Bill. If there were there would be difficulty about quoting it to me. That is why I have to stop the hon. Member.
Mr. Davies: When the principle was discussed by the Scottish Grand Committee it was suggested that a first-class commercial man as a manager of crofting agriculture might solve the problem. I hope to heaven that if the Government are looking for such a person he is not one who will receive £25,000 a year and a golden handshake. That is not the way out.
These people need roads, a decent little transport service, and a good electricity supply. These are matters which ought to be undertaken as a military operation to raise the standard of living so that the crofter might earn more than the £3 a week which he earns at the moment. When the Commission which

1673
we are now discussing was set up in 1955 we were told that:
"This Commission will devote its entire energies to promoting the welfare of the crofting communities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 431.]
We were told that the crofter would be given security of tenure and compensation for improvements, and that the Commission would see that he paid only a fair rent. But I see from Clause 9 that he will no longer have security of tenure. There is no guarantee that he will pay only a fair rent. That will ultimately react throughout Britain and we shall see its results in all the small farming areas. It is right that someone who is not a Scot should raise this issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
4.31 a.m.
Mr. Harold Lever: I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) this far—that I agree with him in lamenting the doctrinaire obstinacy, blindness and destructiveness of the Government's handling of a nationalised transport undertaking. As I proceed with my argument, I hope that hon. Members will not hesitate to intervene, because I do not think that this is a party matter and the House may gain if someone with an altogether undogmatic approach gropes in a somewhat empirical way towards a proper understanding of the problem and how to deal with it. I hope that in the course of this groping I shall not give offence to my hon. Friends if I tread on any of their pet prejudices. They will have every opportunity to correct me, as I shall speak with great candour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leek claimed the right to speak because, by analogy, a Welshman representing an English constituency, he had problems similar to those posed by the Bill. Oddly enough, being a Lancashire Member, I cannot even claim to have hill farmers in my constituency, but by a much nearer analogy I can state my views.
In Lancashire, where I was brought up, we had a declining industry, the cotton industry, in which many thousands of people could not make a proper living for many years. We were besieged by much counsel and advice, and
1674
there were many debates in the House about how we should comport ourselves and conduct our economic life so as to make our export trade return and enable cotton workers to earn a good livelihood once again, even though it was obvious that that was not possible in the new world in which we had arrived.
The people who rendered the greatest service to the Lancashire cotton workers were not those who deluded themselves and the workers that it was possible to have a state of affairs in which the cotton industry could provide an adequate standard of living for its workers. By analogy, I warn the House that it is not necessarily those who have the most intimate knowledge of their problems and who are most deeply devoted to them and to their retaining their present way of life who are the greatest friends, in an objective sense, of the crofters.
The greatest friends of the crofters are not necessarily those who persist in arguing that in this day and age the crofter can be provided with a standard of living acceptable to the modern man in the United Kingdom. I am the last person to urge that these matters should be approached on a strictly financial basis and I sympathise with my Scots friends who have an intimate knowledge of the crofter and his determination to succeed in his traditional way of life in spite of adverse circumstances, just as I had sympathy with those who knew the strength of the Lancashire cotton worker and his genuineness of character.
But it is all very well to talk about preserving a sturdy way of life here and there by one subsidy after another in what my hon. Friend the Member for Leek called a military operation. The crofter is to be subsidised by cash, by minibuses, by hydro-electric schemes, by confiscation of the deer parks—presumably after due compensation has been paid at the public's expense—and so on.
The ordinary workers of this country are being asked to subsidise the sturdy way of life of film makers, white fishers, crofters in Scotland, cotton mill owners in Lancashire, farmers, spinners, weavers, breakers of machinery, creators of new machinery, steel masters, motor manufacturers—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Stockbrokers.
Mr. Lever: I do not think that they have applied for a subsidy—shipowners, shipbuilders, and so on. All these sturdy ways of life which are being heavily subsidised by the Government by the most elaborate methods are very fine, but we ought to ask ourselves whether some of these sturdy ways of life ought not to stand on their own sturdy feet or perish under the impact of economic development.
When I am told that the crofter's average income from his efforts is £3 a week, my reaction is that it is about time somebody considered reducing the number of crofters instead of making elaborate and expensive attempts to perpetuate the present number, and even to increase them.
Mr. Harold Davies: I think that my hon. Friend has missed the point. If a man wants to earn £3 a week, that is the income from crofting. Some of this is part-time, and I am justifying crofting even as a part-time existence. I made that clear. It is not being argued that we want to keep this so-called sturdy way of life and expect them to live. We want to develop it with electricity. If a man wants to be a part-time crofter, no one has the right to say that it is uneconomic because he earns £3 a week and he could earn £5 or £6 somewhere else. He has the right to live that way of life.
Mr. Lever: I am not clear how my hon. Friend thinks that his intervention in any way negatives what I have been saying. I gather that if a man feels like doing part-time crofting at £3 a week, the community owes it to him to drive hydro-electricity schemes through the remoter parts of Scotland, to ensure that minibuses are there to transport him for such recreational and commercial activities as he is minded to pursue, and to ensure that an adequate supply of electricity is there because television does not work by gas—though one is sometimes under the impression that it does.
Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that crofters in the Highland crofting counties sometimes have to pay more for electricity because of the remoteness of the areas in which they live?
Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend rightly points out that the crofter is a sturdy
1676
man who pays for his electricity, but, on the basis of paying its way, if there is not enough electricity to provide the charming part-time institutions which my hon. Friend the Member for Leek is so anxious should be provided for those who want the sturdy way of life, it is suggested that they should be subsidised by more conventional and modern activities.
The fact is that unsubsidised electricity will not arrive in Scotland to support the industries, nor will the industries arrive in Scotland to support the would-be part-timers unless the House digs its hand firmly into the fragile pockets of the unsubsidised workers in that diminishing number of industries where no subsidy is expected from the Government. All these sturdy activities will not be maintained unless we put our hands deeply into the public purse to support them.
It is all right talking about sturdy ways of life. I am always moved by my hon. Friend's natural gift of buoyancy, but the fact is that we ought to be asking ourselves quite honestly whether the purpose of hon. Members on both sides of the House is the preservation of picturesque poverty rather than the provision of modern amenities which can be honestly supported by the House in the interests of the people themselves. I again emphasise that it was no service to the people of Lancashire when various romantics went round explaining to them how with a little zeal, effort and modest Government subsidy the world's cotton markets could be brought back. In the same way I, a non-Scotsman, with little or no hill farming in my constituency, am entitled to say that hon. Members should consider whether the crofter is necessarily going to be benefited if we encourage in him illusions of what awaits him in the future if he persists in maintaining his croft.
I hope I am not being offensive to anybody, but as the debate went on it struck me that it was taking a somewhat odd course. If a couple of Maltese moved from Malta and set up lucrative brothels in the West End of London, anybody who opposed their move would be called a racialist and a fascist, whose point of view ought to be deplored, since it interfered with the free migration of citizens of the Commonwealth, but if a crofter

1677
proposed to leave his croft, where he earns £3 a week, and go south to England, where he will be welcomed; where no psychological or social problems would present themselves; where he could earn a somewhat better living, and where he would merely be following the traditional route, he would be helping in the depopulation of the Highlands, and that ought to be deplored, and the public purse should be raided once more to ensure that this depopulation ceases at the earl Lest moment. I submit that if crofters wish to transfer themselves to the southern parts of the United Kingdom it is not quite as great a disaster and tragedy as has been represented.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has my hon. Friend ever enjoyed the amenities of the Scottish Grand Committee? If not, will he become a member of it?
Mr. Lever: If I may reminisce briefly, in an innocent moment shortly after my arrival in the House, when it was my purpose to attend everything with great zeal and continuous application, I was asked if I would consent to become a member of the Scottish Grand Committee. I did so, and my zeal then abated somewhat, because I found the proceedings quite incomprehensible. Members representing Scottish constituencies speak with a different accent in Committee than when they are speaking on the Floor of the House, where they have to make themselves intelligible to the English.
Mr. Hughes: Members of the Scottish Grand Committee, in their turn, found my hon. Friend's arguments equally incomprehensible.
Mr. Speaker: These reminiscences are intriguing, but are not strictly relevant to the subject of the debate.
Mr. Lever: I will try to keep more directly in tune with the Bill. The essential problem is how far the population of the Highlands should be preserved, even if strict financial calculations are against it, and how far it is normal progress by the Scots to the South, where richer land and better industrial opportunities are available. I know with what sincerity and affection my hon. Friends defend the right of the crofters to persist in their present way of life, but it behoves us all, including those most emotionally affected, to consider the
1678
supplementary question: at what point should we cease to subsidise the present population in the Highlands?
Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend is misleading the House. Is he aware that the crofter could move south—although he would not like to—through the normal process of depopulation, and might go into the car industry, or the cotton industry, or into shipbuilding. He could have periods of unemployment, when he would be a drain on the State. But if he remains a crofter, working at some other ancillary job as well, he gets no unemployment. He stands on his own feet, and is not a liability, as he is if he moves south.
Mr. Lever: I do not think that my hon. Friend is facing the problem which I am urging him to face. The difficulty at the moment is that this is an idyllic dream —widely spread crofts in the remote areas of Scotland, each crofter with readily available part-time work in, presumably, some suitable light industry, which is not there at present, with machines powered by electricity, which is not there at present but which they are to have, and with several other amenities and facilities which exist only in the more hopeful minds of Scottish Members who, very understandably, want to see this sturdy, proud and inspiring way of life preserved.
Hon. Members must ask themselves whether it is really possible to give even the present population the standard of life which modern man requires. If we try to keep crofting going in some form in those areas, shall we condemn crofters, as it were, to fighting against the tide and condemn them to a level of poverty which is not acceptable to most modern people? As I think the elder Pitt said, poverty is no disgrace, but it is damned annoying. I think the same would apply to the crofters if we kept them there.
I wish to be perfectly frank. I am not being either progressive or reactionary. I have had this argument before. The facts are the facts, and one is entitled to recapitulate them without being charged with bias. I hold no brief for hunting of any kind, and still less do I hold a brief for the Duchess of Westminster or any of the great land owners of Scotland; but we must be careful that we rehearse the grievances of the present day rather than the bitternesses of the

1679
century gone by. I have no doubt that a great deal of the ruthlessness and terror which arouse the ire of hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who quoted Carlyle, did exist. But the very power and vehemence of the quotation made me ask myself whether my hon. Friend, to be strictly honest and objective, was recapitulating grievances of the past or reciting relevant grievances of the present.
Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend will concede what the Secretary of State refused to concede to me, that, while I quoted Carlyle, a voice from the past, I read also letters written to me a month ago by people farming in the area he is talking about?
Mr. Lever: I could not help observing that my hon. Friend seemed to be more alert than any other hon. Member in arithmetical computation. He very effectively floored the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) who intervened and spoke about the number of turnips which a certain number of deer would eat in competition with the number of turnips which a certain number of sheep would eat in the same period. I am very loath to compete in these calculations, but I noticed that, at the end of my hon. Friend's computation, the loss as a result of depredations caused by these various aristocratic play-boys—and, apparently, play-girls—amounted to about £500,000 a year. It is perfectly plain that £500,000 a year will produce an income of £500 a year for 1,000 people. That is all. We cannot say that that will have more than a fractional or marginal effect upon the lives of the people we are discussing. We are discussing the livelihood of 20,000 people, and, however anxious we may be to take the deer parks away from the people who, apparently, have no right to them, we should be under no illusion that we are solving the fundamental problems of the crofter.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: It should be made quite clear to my hon. Friend that we are not talking about 20,000 people. It is 20,000 crofting units, with the families on them. One can multiply that figure by at least five.
Mr. Lever: That reinforces my point. I say to my hon. Friend at once that I
1680
have never hunted in my life and I have no intention of doing so. I do not know any of the personalities concerned, and I have no wish to defend them. I do not like the idea of these areas being a playground for the rich; they ought not to have such a large playground. But we are not entitled to confiscate the property even of the Duchess of Westminster without compensation. If we are to acquire their deer parks, we shall have to pay for them, and before we accede to the proposition we should make sure what their deer parks will contribute to the problem. My hon. Friend has multiplied my argument by five by pointing out that 100,000 people are involved. It will be affected only to a minute degree by an extra £500,000 being made available to agricultural activity.
Mr. Rankin Mr. Rankin rose—
Mr. Emrys Hughes Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
Mr. Lever: I will give way to my hon. Friends in the order in which they rose.
Mr. Rankin: I agree that I quoted a Departmental Report and that the chairman of the Committee was Sir John Stirling Maxwell and that I referred to 1920. The figure which I gave was material to 1920. With the new techniques and the great change which has taken place in agriculture, production is much higher and the figure for that land, if put to proper use, would be higher.
Mr. Lever: I ask my hon. Friend to consider conscientiously and carefully, as I am sure he will, whether he thinks that a major contribution to the problem of preserving the way of life of the people of this area will be made by compulsorily acquiring the deer parks. If he thinks it will, well and good; that is a point of view.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) refers to a deer park, whereas my other hon. Friends referred to a deer forest. A deer forest is not like a deer park. My hon. Friend seems to be thinking of a place like Richmond Park where there are tame deer. A Scottish deer forest goes over thousands of acres of mountain and loch, and there is no comparison between it and a deer park.
Mr. Lever: My experience has not extended over the wild areas of Scotland, which offer these forests for the convenience of aristocratic hunters and huntresses and where deer run the range wild. I was using the wrong word. I had in the back of my mind, from the statistics which Lave been quoted, that millions of acres were involved and that it was rather different from Richmond Park. The fact remains that each of us must ask in all conscience whether a substantial contribution will be made by compulsorily acquiring the deer forests to the problem of preserving the way of life of 100,000 people in this area. A number of people would find some employment in the deer forests—
Mr. Harold Davies: I am tired of hearing this argument for preserving the way of life of a small group of people. We hear about this sturdy, industrial system of ours, and loans for Cunard liners, and about private enterprise in industry coming with the begging bowl far more than does agriculture or crofting. This is £50,000, not £50 million—which is the sum which private enterprise demands.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Davies: It should be said.
Mr. Speaker: But it may not be said in this debate, because it is out of order.
Mr. Lever: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it ought not to be said in this debate, but I have already said something of the kind in a way which I hope was relevant to the issue without any demur from the Chair. The difficulty is that in an intervention one is often protesting about something which has been mentioned in a speech. One is speaking of doors which have long since been opened and shut.
I know that hon. Members, and particularly Scottish hon. Members, feel strongly about deer forests and are very knowledgeable about them. I am tempted to quote the German philosopher who remarked that the more one knows, the worse one observes. I have the advantage in my powers of observation, having an almost limitless ignorance on the subject of crofting in Scotland. All that I am doing is to try to bring honest observation to bear upon it and to use such logic as I can to examine the problem in a way which will stimulate discussion in
1682
the House. This is an important topic, and no one must be alarmed by the fact that is is five minutes to five, because we only started the debate close upon midnight and my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), to whom we are all deeply indebted, led off the debate in a splendid speech which was stimulating to us all and widened our range of concepts as to what would and would not be relevant to this Bill.
I must confess that I do not recall a Second Reading of a Bill in which the Minister came along and merely said "I beg to move" without explaining the Bill. If I am ignorant of the subject, there is the culprit—the Minister. It was his duty to enlighten us. This concept, that the Bill concerns a small minority of Scotsmen and a few Welshmen in England, is complete nonsense. Any money required under the provisions of this Bill has got to be found by the country as a whole, and the House of Commons as a whole is responsible.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles at one point talked about the Commission's responsibility and lack of power. He was too delicate to remind the House that a Conservative Prime Minister once said that power without responsibility had been the prerogative of the whore throughout the ages. In this case, if we are to follow the advice of some hon. Members and leave this to the Scottish Members alone, who, after all, are only a handful in this House, this House will have responsibility without power, and that surely is the prerogative of the eunuch. We should take our responsibilities seriously, and when we have responsibility we must exercise our power.
I want to deal with some of the points in the Bill which seem to have aroused feeling. One relates to good husbandry. I share with my hon. Friends the opposition that they have to a Commission sitting and taking power to evict tenants because in the opinion of the Commission the land is not being properly looked after according to the rules of good husbandry. These questions cannot be decided in the abstract. It is quite right that in war time a nation desperately anxious to preserve its food supplies would take such

1683
powers, and perhaps continue them into the shortages of the peace, but it is unjustifiable that in 1961, so long after the war is over, the Government should seek to exercise a power of this kind in relation to these humble men in Scotland.
It seems to me that this can be justified only if we accept it as a sort of principle that the Government have the right to ensure that the national resources are everywhere fully utilised. Therefore, I cannot see how a Government who do not take to themselves such rights in far more important areas than the crofters' humble homesteads and crofting grounds in Scotland—I hope I am using the right word—are entitled to demand the right to expel these men on the ground that they are not farming a particular area of rock and heather in a way which pleases the Government. It is tyrannical, and I hope that the Minister will consider this point in Committee.
The Minister indicated a certain uneasiness of conscience, and here I want to acquit him of deliberate discourtesy to the House. He made a grave error in not explaining the Bill. I think he fell short of what was required of him, but I think he did it in error and not out of intentional discourtesy, because when he addressed the House later he did so very fully and was obviously concerned that we should have his views on the matter. I must confess that he struck me as being as open-minded as one is entitled to expect of any Conservative Minister, and I hope that he really meant that in Committee he will consider putting in the safeguards.
Roughly speaking, I understood the Minister to mean that this Commission had bamboozled him into putting this obnoxious Clause into the Bill, that he is now rather ashamed of it and wishes it were not there, and that, in Committee he will join with us in trying to find wording that will save his face and everyone's honour by rendering this Clause nugatory. I hope that we will achieve that purpose.
I will go so far as to say that I was tempted to enjoy the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), because it is always very comforting to see the Government
1684
attacked from their own side, especially when charges of untruthfulness or corruption are freely banded about. I must, however, play the role of trying to reconcile the Minister, who was very perturbed by what he heard from the hon. Member from Caithness and Sutherland.
The hon. Member was, I gathered, making a charge of corruption against the Commission, and produced documentation in support of the use of the word "corruption" obtained from two well-known dictionaries. Apparently, he did not refer to the same dictionary or dictionaries that the Minister had concentrated on, because the right hon. Gentleman used other definitions to attack his hon. Friend. There was a certain confusion in the use of language, particularly lamentable when coming from Scots Members, from whom we tend to expect the highest standards of education and the greatest possible care and precision in the selection and use of words.
I must say that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, whose sturdy independence is much admired on this side, as also is his proclivity for attacking the Front Bench on his own side, used the wrong word, judging by any quotation he gave to the House. Even granted the truth of what he said, there was no justification in using the word "corruption" as it is understood by the ordinary man in the street—implications of bribery and dishonesty and intrigue.
I would say that, at most, the hon. Member himself felt that there had been a certain tactlessness in one case and administrative inefficiency in the other, but, after all, if we were to use the word "corruption" for every administrative or political inefficiency of this Government where would the charges stop? The world outside this country would certainly conclude that our famed reputation for integrity and freedom from bribery had long since been lost.
It is sad enough that we have so much inefficiency, and sad enough that we have this Government, and sad enough that we should have to hear a Minister say, "No, my office is not corrupt—it is merely thoroughly incompetent". That is sad enough, without making matters worse by using words like "corruption". I hope that it will not go out from this House, at any rate on anything we have

1685
so far heard, that there is anything that would implicate the Commission, the Minister or his office in corruption.
I am not yet persuaded that the fundamental principle of this Bill has been properly considered. It has rather been taken for granted, because the Scots have had charge of the matter, that we should preserve the Scots way of life, and that to preserve a Scotsman in his existing croft and in his existing job must necessarily be what is called in the book 1066 And All That a "good thing", and must justify the expenditure of almost unlimited money, effort and intelligence.
At the risk of being tediously repetitive, I assure my hon. Friends that it is not callousness for them, their feelings or the people they represent so gallantly and well that makes me question the principle of the Bill and of extending still further the subsidies which have become so important a part of our national economic life. It is not lack of sympathy for them, but a feeling that their ultimate and enduring protection can derive only from finding a genuinely independent way of life which is not dependent upon debates of this sort repeatedly occurring in the House. We have had this with so many industries, a sort of triennial subsidy Bill, as it were, for fish, films and a whole range of matters. It is not good for people who work in the industries or even for the people at the receiving end of those industries. We cannot afford to run our country in that way.
At the same time, I emphasise again that I am not a person who sees only the strictly gainful calculation aspect of these matters. It is right that we should preserve farming within reason. It is right that we should try to ensure some of our food supplies. I often think, however, that it is wrong to justify these by the somewhat spurious argument about the need to feed ourselves in war and how useful this all was in 1898 in preserving the country from famine at a crucial point of the Boer War or even of later wars in which the country was engaged. It is plain that, in a serious war, the state of affairs will not be such that material advantage will result to our nourishment from the activities of the crofts, even in my hon. Friends

Division> No. 112.]

AYES

[5.10 a.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Allason, James

Berkeley, Humphry

Aitken, W. T

Atkins, Humphrey

Black, Sir Cyril

Allan, Robert (Paddlngton, S.)

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Bossom, Clive

constituencies. I am sure that they will do their best for us, but that will not be very relevant if we get involved in a major war.
In the circumstances, how do I stand on the Bill and on the Amendment? I am bound to declare myself in fairness to the Minister, who in the end, however slow a starter, eventually showed great concern for this matter. I have no enthusiasm for the Bill, although I believe that it is welcomed on all sides. I should have voted against it and for the Amendment had I thought that the real objection to the Bill was only the question of compulsory action against those crofters who were not carrying on their activities with due regard to good husbandry and all that sort of thing.
I hope that my hon. Friends will not resent it if I say that I cannot vote against the Bill. I am not able, however, to give the Bill my support, for the reasons which I have indicated. In all seriousness, late as it is, I beg the House, even if we allow the Bill to have its Second Reading, to give a little thought to the important matters which are at stake.
To conclude on a rather sour note, I think also that it is wrong that we should be asked to debate this subject at this hour of the morning. I am tempted to test even now, before sitting down, whether I could move, "That the debate be now adjourned" and that the House should sit again. I am not sure when one is allowed to move that if it is not a point of order, and it is somewhat add to do it at the conclusion of one's own speech. I was once told that it was in order in the middle of my speech, but I am not so sure that it would be so well received at the conclusion. However, I submit these considerations for the House. I shall abstain from voting on Second Reading and I shall await the Committee stage with interest.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 8.

Bourne-Arton, A.

Hendry, Forbes

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Box, Donald

Hill J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Pitman, I. J.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hint, Geoffrey

Pitt, Miss Edith

Brawis, John

Hobson, John

Pott, Percivall

Bullard, Denys

Hocking, Philip N.

Prior, J. M. L.

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Holland, Philip

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Hopkins, Alan

Quenneil, Miss J. M.

Channon, H. P. G.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Ramsden, James

Chataway, Christopher

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Irvine, Bryant Cadman (Rye)

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Healey)

Cleaver, Leonard

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Roots, William

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Scott-Hopkins, James

Cordle, John

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Shaw, M.

Corfield, F. V.

Kershaw, Anthony

Skeet, T. H. H.

Critchley, Julian

Kirk, Peter

Steward, Harold (Stockport. S.)

Currle, G. B. H.

Kitson, Timothy

Stodart, J. A.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Langford-Holt, J.

Studhoirne, Sir Henry

Deedse, W. F.

Leavey, J. A.

Olney, John (Wavertree)

du Ferranti, Basil

Litchfield, Capt. John

Turner, Colin

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

van Straubenzee, W. R.

du Cann, Edward

MacArthur, lan

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Duncan, Sir James

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Wall, Patrick

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Ward, Dame Irene

Elliott,R.W.(Nwcatie-upon-Tyne,N.)

McLean, Nell (Inverness)

Watts, James

Emery, Peter

Maddan, Martin

Webster, David

Farr, John

Maginnis, John E.

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Fell, Anthony

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Whitelaw, William

Finlay, Graeme

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Fisher, Nigel

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Mawby, Ray

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Gammans, Lady

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Wise, A, R.

Gibson-Watt, David

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

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Glover, Sir Douglas

Mills, Stratton

Woodhouse, C. M.

Goodhew, Victor

Montgomery, Fregus

Woodnutt, Mark

Gower, Raymond

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Woollam, John

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Worsley, Marcus

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

Neave, Airey

Green, Alan

Noble, Michael

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Pearson, Frank (Citheroe)

Mr. Chichester-Clark and

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Pell, John

Mr. Gordon Campbell.

Hasting, Stephen

NOES

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Manuel, A. C.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Lever, Harold (Cheatham)

Rankin, John

Mr. Swingler and Mr. Harold Davies.

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:
Mr. Speaker: I think the "Ayes" have it. Bill read a Second time.
Mr. Malcolm Macmillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether you heard a number of hon.

Division No. 113.]

AYES

[5.20 a.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Channon, H. P. G.

Elilott,R.W.(Nwcstle.upon-Tyne,N.)

Aitken, W. T.

Chataway, Christopher

Emery, Peter

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Farr, John

Allason, James

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Fell, Anthony

Atkins, Humphrey

Cleaver, Leonard

Finlay, Graeme

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Fisher, Nigel

Berkeley, Humphry

Cordle, John

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Black, Sir Cyril

Corfield, F. V.

Gammans, Lady

Bossom, Clive

Critchley, Julian

Glover, Sir Douglas

Bourne-Arton, A.

Currle, G. B. H.

Goodhew, Victor

Box, Donald

Dalkeith, Earl of

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Boyle, Sir Edward

Deedes, W. F.

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

Brewis, John

de Ferranti, Basil

Green, Alan

Bullard, Denys

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nalrn)

du Cann, Edward

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Duncan, Sir james

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hastings, Stephen

Members saying "No." A number did, however.
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear a number of hon. Member say "No." If in fact they said "No." I withdraw what I have done. They are entitled to a Division.
The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 6.

Hendry, Forbes

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Stodart, J. A.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Mawby, Ray

Studholme, Sir Henry

Hobson, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Hocking, Philip N.

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

Turner, Colin

Holland, Philip

Mills, Stratton

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hopkins, Alan

Montgomery, Fergus

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)

Hughes-Young, Michael

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Wall, Patrick

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Mott-Radolyffe, Sir Charles

Ward, Dame Irene

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Heave, Airey

Watts, James

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Noble, Michael

Webster, David

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Peel, John

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Whitelaw, William

Kershaw, Anthony

Pitman, I. J.

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Kirk, Peter

Pitt, Miss Edith

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Kitson, Timothy

Pott, Percivall

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Langford-Holt, J.

Prior, J. M. L.

Wise, A. R.

Leavey, J. A.

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Wolrige Gordon, Patrick

Litchfield, Capt. John

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Woodhouse, C. M.

Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh

Ramsden, James

Weodnutt, Mark

MacArthur, Ian

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Woollam, John

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Worsley, Marcus

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Roots, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Maddan, Martin

Scott-Hopkins, James

Mr. Chichester-Clark and

Maginnis, John E.

Shaw, M.

Mr. Gibson-Watt.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Skeet, T. H. H.

NOES

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Manuel, A. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

Mr. Swingler and

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Rankin, John

Mr. Harold Davies

Bill read a Second Time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
[Queen's Recomtnendation signified]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to the reorganisation, development and regulation of crofting in the crofting counties of Scotland, and to authorise the making of grants and loans for the development of agricultural production on crofts and on holdings comparable in value and extent to crofts, it is expedient to authorise:—

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of all expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act—

(i) in defraying any increase in the expenses of the Crofters Commission attributable to any provision of the said Act;

(ii) on compensation becoming payable, after the commencement of the said Act, under subsection (1) of section fourteen, or as the case may be, subsection (1) of section twenty-eight, of the Crofters (Scotland) Act,
1690
1955, in respect of a permanent improvement on any croft or on the subject occupied by any cottar, in paying to the tenant of such croft or to such cottar, as the case may be, the amount (if any) by which the sum which would have been payable by way of compensation in respect of such improvement if the said Act of the present Session had not been passed exceeds the compensation payable as aforesaid;

(iii) on any croft being declared vacant under subsection (5) of section eleven of the said Act of 1955 consequent on the death after the commencement of the said Act of the present Session of the tenant of such croft, in paying to the executor of that tenant the amount (if any) by which what would have been the value, immediately before the death of such tenant, of any permanent improvement on the croft if the said Act of the present Session had not been passed exceeds the value of such improvement immediately before the death of the said tenant;

(iv) in acquiring compulsorily any buildings or land, or any interest in land, which the Secretary of State is authorised or required by the said Act of the present Session to acquire in connection with the putting into effect of a scheme for the reorganisation of a crofting township, and in paying compensation to the owner of any such buildings or land, or to the holder of any such interest, as the case may be;

(v) which is administrative expenditure.

B. The payment out of moneys so provided of any increase in the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the said Act of 1955 attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session.

1691

C. The payment into the Exchequer of all sums received under the said Act of the present Session by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Maclay.]

5.28 a.m.
Mr. Stephen Swingler: I presume that we are to have an explanation of this Money Resolution, which is rather long and which appears in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has been here but is not now in his place, and whose name appears on the back of the Bill. I presume that there is someone on the Treasury Bench who is capable of explaining what this Money Resolution means.
Mr. Harold Lever: I should like not only an explanation but an assurance—especially after what was nearly a disaster on the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill, when we got a slipshod Money Resolution and the matter had to be brought before us again—that that fiasco of incompetence will not be repeated. I should like that assurance from the Financial Secretary, or Chief Patronage Secretary, or any other responsible member of the Government. Instead of the Committee being treated to a penitence for the errors in the Money Resolution, we were treated to truculence. In view of the lamentable way in which the matter was corrected, I am apprehensive, unless we have some explanation, that this Resolution may be as carelessly drawn as the previous one.
What adds to my alarm is the fact that the Minister seems to think that the Committee owes it to him to agree to the Resolution on the nod. I wish to ask you, Sir William, to protect the Committee from what I submit is an abuse of procedure. We ought to have some explanation—
5.30 a.m.
The Deputy-Chairman: There has been no abuse of procedure.
Mr. Lever: Perhaps I used the wrong word. I hope that you will forgive me, Sir William. I have no intention of using words which are not justified. You will appreciate that sometimes a normally precise hon. Member, not necessarily myself, oversteps the line in the use of words, which he would normally use. We had an example of that from the
1692
other side of the House earlier when the Minister very properly withdrew an un-Parliamentary expression he had used; a thing he does not normally do. We all know him to be the apotheosis of courtesy. On that occasion he went over the line. If I went over the line, I withdraw it.
If it was not abuse of procedure, a general attitude of contempt for the procedure of the House seems to be creeping in on the Government benches. Judging from the way this Resolution has been presented, unvarnished, unexplained and without any assurances, the Government are giving the impression that they hold the procedure of the House in contempt.
The precedure of the House is subtle and sophisticated, and this procedure is directed at strangling it at an early stage because of the tyrannical inclinations of the Government who imagine that they can use their majority to steamroller the Resolution through without any consideration for the views of the Opposition, and without any consideration of the reasonable objections which the Opposition may have. I should like to see the procedure of the House shown more respect than has been the case recently.
It is understood that the Government are only too ready to reach for the Guillotine. The Government are ruthless in keeping the Committee sitting until this late hour and in keeping up many hon. Members who want to go to bed. Having kept us up till half-past five to get a Second Reading which could more properly have been taken at ten o'clock if the proper time had been given to it, we are presented with a most complicated Money Resolution. The Minister was here to explain the botch made of the last Money Resolution on which we voted earlier has presumably gone home to a warm and comfortable bed and left the Committee to make the best it can of an almost incomprehensible Money Resolution.
We are entitled to something more than that. I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman will attempt a sort of amateur deputisation for the appropriate Minister, although it is very unfair that the burden should be placed on him.
Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order, Sir William. Is the

1693
right hon. Gentleman now intervening more or less to initiate a Closure? He does not need to rise again if he answers now.
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is not putting a point of order to me.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Hon. Members opposite must decide what they want. They first of all ask why somebody has not explained the Money Resolution and then, when I rise to do so, they tell me to sit down. They are confused at this early hour in the morning.
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Before the Secretary of State starts to explain the Money Resolution, Sir William, surely he should obtain all the points of order which will come to him.
The Deputy-Chairman: Points of order come to the Chair and not to the Minister in charge of the business before the Committee.
Mr. Maclay: Hon. Members opposite must straighten this out. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) gets confused. Hon. Members opposite ask me to explain the Money Resolution, and when I try to do so the hon. Member for Govan objects and his hon. Friends all stand up and want to talk. I do not see why I should not be allowed to speak occasionally in the debate. I am responsible for the Bill.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) said that this was a highly complex and difficult Money Resolution. When he spoke he did not have it in his hands, and I doubt whether he has looked at it, although I would not like to cast any reflection on him. I see that he is now studying it very carefully. I would say that this was a surprisingly clear, simple and easily understood Money Resolution. Sub-paragraph (i) authorises the Secretary of State to
"defray any increase in the expenses of the Crofters Commission"
arising from the Bill. Those words could not be more clear, and the hon. Member for Cheetham, with his very remarkable intellect, should not be in any difficulty with them. Paragraph C refers to:
"The payment into the Exchequer of all sums received under the said Act of the present Session by the Secretary of State".
1694
They are the clearest and most simple words imaginable. Subparagraph (ii) authorises the Secretary of State to pay to a crofter or cottar at outgoing any sum by which the compensation for permanent improvements that would have been payable to him under the old basis of valuation—that is, under Section 14 (4) of the 1955 Act—is greater than the compensation that is payable to him under the new "market value" basis of valuation, provided for in Clause 5 (2) of the Bill.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan Mr. Malcolm MacMillan (Western Isles) rose—
Mr. Maclay: I cannot give way. The hon. Member must let me explain some of the points that hon. Members have raised. In Subparagraph (iv) provision is made for the Secretary of State to meet the cost of acquiring compulsorily any interest in land which he is empowered or required to acquire in connection with the reorganisation of crofting townships, under Clauses 7 and 8. I do not expect any significant increase in cost arising from these provisions.
I could go on with the whole thing. Hon. Members should feel that this is a very clear, admirable and succinct Money Resolution, and I hope they will agree to it.
The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Manuel.
Mr. H. Lever: I had merely given way to the Minister, Sir William.
The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member merely gave way I am at fault. I assumed that he had finished his speech and I called the Secretary of State on that understanding. But the House is in Committee, and another opportunity may well occur for the hon. Member to be called.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not speak to the Money Resolution and explain it fully. It is not the usual kind of Money Resolution that we get. It is a very lengthy and complicated one. If I ask questions arising from the words contained in the Money Resolution I take it that I will be in order.
It begins with the words:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with

1695
respect for the reorganisation, development and regulation of crofting in the crofting counties of Scotland, and to authorise the making of grants and loans for the development of agricultural production on crofts…"
To what grants and loans does that refer? We are told that, under the Bill, there could be aid towards the erection on croft land of buildings for ancillary employment which may not be agricultural. They could be chalets or a weaving shed. Is the assistance limited to agricultural production, or is there assistance for ancillary undertakings?
In paragraph A (ii) appear the words
"in respect of a permanent improvement on any croft"
What exactly does that mean?
Next, I should like to have an explanation of what the Money Resolution is intended to cover by the words in paragraph A (iv),
"in acquiring compulsorily any buildings or land".
I understand that it could be directed to land in the sense of croft enlargement or the creation of a new croft, but what about buildings? Would it cover the acquisition of arable land or an estate which could be joined to a croft in order that enlargement could take place?
These are but a few of the questions which arise. It is, in my view, a very complicated Money Resolution, and there are many other questions which ought to be considered.
Mr. Rankin: What is the position of the landlord under this Money Resolution? According to the Bill, a landlord will now be relieved of his duty to pay compensation in the case of those crofts which are hard to re-let, and Parliament will assume the present obligation of the landlord. Unkind people may, of course, say what I would not say, that this is the Government giving a little gift to their Tory friends; but I do not make a point of that at the moment. It is no more than a truism about the Bill. I want to be quite sure that the Money Resolution provides that Parliament will have sufficient money to pay those sums which were formerly paid by the landlord.
5.45 a.m.
The second point concerns the improvements which will be made to the croft. The Bill helps to create more buildings and opportunities for tourists,
1696
which will mean the building of chalets. Is there any limit to the building of chalets on a croft, and when a chalet has been built, will it be regarded as part of the house or part of the croft? According to the answer to that question, how will it affect the compensation, if it has to be paid? Will it affect the compensation which would be paid for the improvement, whether the chalet is regarded as part of the croft or as part of an existing house?
Mr. Swingler: The Secretary of State purported to give an explanation of the Resolution. We should have been only to willing to let him speak on the subject at the beginning of the debate. We wish that he had done so on the Bill. We are only too glad that he intervened to clarify this matter.
How much money is involved? What increase in expenditure is expected? Will the Secretary of State give us some idea of how many millions we expect to vote? The Committee should know the answers to those questions.
I cannot agree with the Secretary of State that this Resolution is clarity itself. It may be that the Secretary of State, being well acquainted with the Resolution, will cope with it easily, but I ask him to read A (ii), which authorises him to pay out money, and reads:
(ii) on compensation becoming payable, after the commencement of the said Act, under subsection (1) of section fourteen, or as the case may be, subsection (1) of section twenty-eight, of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, in respect of a permanent improvement on any croft or on the subject occupied by any cottar, in paying to the tenant of such croft or to such cottar, as the case may be, the amount (if any) by which the sum which would have been payable by way of compensation in respect of such improvement if the said Act of the present Session had not been passed exceeds the compensation payable as aforesaid;
You will have mastered that immediately, Sir William, but I find it difficult.
Surely it is possible to give the Committee an explanaiton or, even better, in the spare time of the Scottish Office or the Treasury to devise a simple Resolution for the Order Paper instead of this long rigmarole. I expect that at this stage it is too much to expect that, but before we conclude may we have an explanation from the Secretary of State of the amount involved and the increase in the amount?
Mr. H. Lever: My hon. Friend has no legal training, and I am sure that he does not want to reflect on the draftsmen at the Scottish Office, who are very capable and eminently fitted for the difficult task which they have to perform. He may find it useful to have an assurance from me that that part of the Resolution which he quoted seems to me inevitably to be drawn in a somewhat complex way because of the complex objective it seeks to achieve. In the light of that assurance, would my hon. Friend withdraw his criticism against the draftsmen at the Scottish Office and focus it on the Minister or the Law Officer who is present and who could, if he had chosen, have given a proper explanation to the Committee earlier instead of the Secretary of State intervening in my speech to assure the Committee that it is all very simple. It is not simple, but that is not the fault of the draftsmen. I wonder if he would withdraw the criticism against the Scottish Office and apply it to both the Ministers.
Mr. Swingler: I am delighted to have that assurance from my hon. Friend whom I know to be extremely skilful in these and other matters. But I must point out to him that we have had tonight from the Secretary of State exactly the same kind of complacent assurance that we had the other day from the Minister of another Department, who commended to the Committee a Money Resolution which he had to admit later on was all wrong, and it had to be taken away and redrawn. No satisfactory explanation was given to the Committee. Most members of the Committee accepted complacently the Money Resolution which was all wrong, just as they accepted complacently the assurance that it was wrong—though I am certain that few understood why it was wrong—and accepted another Resolution which they passed, which only proves how often we do not know what we are doing.
Therefore, I am not altogether satisfied, in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State in this matter is in alliance with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), or has his confidence—
Mr. H. Lever: I wish immediately to say that I have no confidence in the Secretary of State, and I am not relying
1698
upon his assurance on this point. I am far from sharing the view of the Secretary of State. I share my hon. Friend's apprehensions in general, having regard to the very unpleasant experience we had about the previous Resolution to which he referred. I would even reinforce that by reference to a point of order which occurred earlier in the debate—I think it was yesterday—in which it was alleged, and I believe with justice, that the House voted £2,000 million—
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going far beyond this Money Resolution.
Mr. Swingler: It is noticeable that we have had a Law Officer here throughout the night. He has carefully restrained himself from taking part in the discussion, and it is also noteworthy that at the moment he has no intention of speaking on this Money Resolution. I can sympathise with him, because it may well be that in a week's time this Money Resolution will have to be withdrawn because it will have been found that it was not competently drafted or was not sufficiently wide, and another one will have to be produced which we shall be expected complacently to accept.
I can understand why the Lord Advocate does not wish to commit himself to the details of this Money Resolution. He prefers to leave it to the Secretary of State, so that the Lord Advocate can come along and make the apology later and move the next Money Resolution if some changes have to be made. But as it is the Committee which is involved here, I think we are entitled to probe this matter in the short time that is available and to ask the Law Officer who is present if he would give us his views and his assurance that this Money Resolution is correctly drawn and that we shall not go through another White Fish business.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The request of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) is perfectly reasonable. After all, this is Scottish legislation, and there are a large number of English Members here who are not acquainted with the complexity of Scottish law. We have the Lord Advocate whose duty it is to explain Scottish law for the benefit of

1699
Scottish Members and to give us his legal advice, which he often gives us very competently and with great experience both in legal matter and in legislative matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) who is a member of the legal profession, is mystified about certain provisions in this Money Resolution. He has been seeking my advice, and although I know the answers I do not think that I have been able to convince him, as he is more acquainted with the technicalities of the English law than those of Scottish law.
This is a complicated matter in which lawyer should explain to lawyer. I am sure that the Secretary of State can explain more or less to the satisfaction of the Committee the piovisions of this Measure, but when it comes to complicated legal technicalities we need an explanation from a trained legal adviser. That is exactly why the Lord Advocate is here. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham, who has taken such an interest in this debate. should go away under the impression that, by this Money Resolution, Scottish Members have secured some kind of victory and that a great deal of money will be provided by the English taxpayers to finance the provisions of the legislation.
I feel that my hon. Friend is under the impression that millions of pounds are going to the Scottish crofting counties as a result of this legislation—
The Deputy-Chairman: Order. When the hon. Member says "as a result of this legislation" he is going a good deal further than the Money Resolution.
Mr. Hughes: I think that I have made it clear that my hon. Friend is in some doubt about this, and feels that by means of this Money Resolution Scotland is getting away with large sums from the English taxpayers, and from his constituents. His apprehensions should be allayed.
In A (i) we find:
…"in defraying any increase in the expenses of the Crofters Commission attributable to any provision of the said Act."
Does that mean that the Government have accepted the point of view of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who pleaded
1700
for the appointment of a first-class commercial man to administer provisions of the Measure? A first-class man may be drawing a considerable salary. For example, if the Government have grandiose ideas about what finance is to be allocated to this new legislation they might decide to go to the I.C.I. for a first-class commercial man, and that would mean paying at least £24,000 a year.
We therefore want to be assured that hidden under these innocent-looking provisions there are not considerable increases in public expenditure. The purpose of Money Resolutions is to limit public expenditure, especially when we are at the time when we shall be told that we must not incur any greater public expenditure as it will lead to inflation. The point about a possible increase in administrative expenditure should be cleared up.
A (v) refers to "administrative expenditure". We are entitled to something more definite that such a vague phrase, which may well lead English Members to imagine that there will be an enormous increase in some way, and that the Scottish Members are trying to get something that, in fact, we are not getting. Indeed, the criticism that we get in Scotland will be, not that we are getting too much, but that we are getting too little. We should get some explanation to satisfy both hon. Members and the people in the crofting counties.
6.0 a.m.
There will be enormous interest in the financial provisions of the Bill and what exactly they mean in terms of hard cash in the crofting constituencies. I am sure that the speeches in the debate will be read in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for CentralAyrshire (Mr. Manuel), and in the Stornoway Gazette, the Oban Times, the Inverness Courier, The Scotsman and especially in the Scottish Farmer. There will be natural anxiety to know exactly what increased financial provisions will come to Scottish crofters and farmers.
There is considerable jealousy between farmers living in the South and farmers living in the north of Scotland. The provisions of the Bill do not extend to the south of Scotland, but the farmers there are always anxious to know whether crofters are getting more than

1701
they. There are grants to small farmers under the earlier Act. The crofters are watching vigilantly what the small farmers in my constituency get, and the larger farmers in my constituency are anxious to know what the small farmers in the North of Scotland are getting.
Does the Money Resolution contain provisions for adequately advertising in the columns of those papers the changed finance and provisions? Naturally, when people see that the House of Commons has spent a whole night discussing the financial arrangements for the Scottish crofters, something which, I believe, has not happened for fifty years, interest will be caused that here is something in which an enormous sum of money is flowing into the Highlands.
Therefore, instead of thinking in these vague, abstract terms, which are not very comprehensible to the Scottish agricultural population, we should have an attempt either by the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State for Scotland to explain not only to hon. Members, but to people outside. Has any step been taken to advertise and explain clearly what increased financial grants are available to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan)? As a result, in the Western Isles, the local newspaper will be full of all sorts of accounts of the increased financial grants that will come to the Highlands. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham will be read with great avidity. People will wonder why this interest is being expressed in money that is to go to Scottish crofters if there is no money coming to them.
There should be an attempt to reduce this verbiage to hard cash. What does it mean? I feel sure that once even the approximate sum is given by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Lord Advocate, my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles will go home to his breakfast having no great anxieties and apprehensions.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: In case I do not leave the Minister sufficient time to reply, may I ask, Sir William, at what time this discussion ends?
The Deputy-Chairman: At thirteen minutes past six.
Mr. MacMillan: The point on which I wish to address myself is a difficult one for me, and certainly for any crofter who reads the Bill. I refer to the establishment of the open market basis—
Mr. H. Lever: On a point of order. It seems that if my hon. Friend properly exercises his right to speak even for eight minutes on this topic, I shall be robbed of my undoubted right to address the Committee. Am I protected in any way. Sir William? I say with confidence that HANSARD will bear out that I said readily that I would give way to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Secretary of State will bear me out, as well as HANSARD, when it appears. May I be told whether I will be allowed to rise after 6.13 a.m. to continue the speech which, I respectfully submit, has been illegally interrupted?
The Deputy-Chairman: The position is that I have no option but to put the Question at 6.13. As for the hon. Member having a further opportunity to continue his original speech, which I understood to have come to an end but which he understood had only been interrupted, the fact is, as he will remember, that he himself had the opportunity of a very considerable and lengthy intervention in a speech of one of his hon. Friends, so he has not been hardly dealt by.
Sir Peter Roberts: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) is behaving like an irresponsible child, and that the behaviour of Members opposite tonight has brought their party into disrepute?
The Deputy-Chairman: The points of order have been excessive from Members on either side of the Committee.
Mr. H. Lever: Further to that point of order. Is it in order for hon. Members to raise bogus points of order which are offensive to their colleagues, who have toiled through the night, —
Mr. Rankin: While they were asleep.
Mr. Lever:—when Mr. Speaker has repeatedly reminded us that it is an improper procedure for such bogus points to be raised?
The Deputy-Chairman: In my experience, points of order have been raised on

1703
both sides of the Committee on all too many occasions.
Mr. MacMillan: The Secretary of State and I now have less than eight minutes available. Will he tell us how he is to set-up the market that is required to make the process of compensation operative? This is extremely important. How is the market value to be calculated when there is no market in existence, as is the position under the present law? There is no sale available to the tenant at present.
I hope that the Lord Advocate is addressing himself to this point, because it is difficult and intricate. At the moment, a permanent improvement erected by the tenant becomes the property of the landlord, and the tenant has no right of sale. There can, therefore, be no market. The tenant has the right to compensation only on outgoing. How can this open market be set-up for the purpose of the Money Resolution? How do we get out of this situation? We have created an unreal situation which we cannot get out of. How can we have an open market valuation when there is no such thing as the right of sale on the part of the tenant?
Mr. Harold Davies: Section 14 (7) of the Act to which this refers says that the amount of compensation payable under the last foregoing subsection shall be the cost as at the date of crofters quitting. It adds that the landlord shall be entitled to set off the amount so payable against any compensation payable. That is the point, and we have had no time to discuss it because of the Government's dictatorial attitude.
Mr. H. Lever: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) will allow me to make this point. He has touched on it, and I am very anxious to make it. The effect of this part of the Resolution is, briefly—I do not know whether the Committee realises it—that the tenant gets less compensation from the landlord. Who gains? The landlord. The landlord dare not let the tenant suffer this outrageous loss. Who pays the loss that the landlord would have had to suffer? The public purse. The Resolution is one to let the landlord have some compensation and to quieten the tenant at the expense of the public purse.
Mr. MacMillan: The general difference still remains that here we are talking in terms of something which, under the present state of the law, simply cannot exist. I am sure the Lord Advocate will agree with me. There is no such thing as a sale; there is no possibility of such a thing because the tenant has a right only to compensation for the improvements but has no property in the improvements themselves. May we have an answer to this?
Mr. Maclay: I find myself in a dilemma in that I have had all sorts of tempting questions dangled in front of me in the last few minutes, but, through no fault of my own, I find myself with only about a minute in which to speak. Perhaps I might in fairness say that, much as I should like to answer the very interesting question posed by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), it is really a Committee point and not a Money Resolution point. I have been tempted to go through the Bill, but—
Mr. H. Lever: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot accept the Motion.
Mr. Maclay: How many more minutes have Ito go?
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: As the Money Resolution cannot—there has been no argument to show otherwise—be operated at all because of the absence on the open market of the right of a tenant to a sale and, therefore, the absence of a market, I should like to move, Sir William, to report Progress, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), on the ground that the Committee is completely persuaded that the position of the tenant—
The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I must now put the Question.
It being thirteen minutes past Six o'clock a.m., three-quarters of an hour after the House had resolved itself into the Committee, The CHAIRMAN put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)).
The Committee proceeded to a Division—
Mr. H. Lever(seated and covered): On a point of order. I am aware that at 6.13 the discussion upon this very important Resolution falls and that you have no choice about bringing it to an end, Sir William. However, might I seek your guidance? Suppose that an hon. Member is in the middle of submitting a point of order when the time expires. Is it in order for the Chair then not to put the Resolution notwithstanding that the time has expired? I was about to submit a point of order but had no opportunity to do so because the time limit seemed to have expired and you put the Question—
The Deputy-Chairman: The position is that the Chair has no option but to put the Question after three-quarters of an hour, and that meant at 6.13. Complying with Standing Order No. 1A, I put the Question.
Mr. GIBSON-WATT and Mr. G. CAMPBELL were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to the reorganisation, development and regulation of crofting in the crofting counties of Scotland, and to authorise the making of grants and loans for the development of agricultural production on crofts and on holdings comparable in value and extent to crofts, it is expedient to authorise:—

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of all expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act—

(i) in defraying any increase in the expenses of the Crofters Commission attributable to any provision of the said Act;

(ii) on compensation becoming payable, after the commencement of the said Act, under subsection (1) of section fourteen, or as the case may be, subsection (I) of section twenty-eight, of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, in respect of a permanent improvement on any croft or on the subject occupied by any cottar, in paying to the tenant of such croft or to such costar, as the case may be, the amount (if any) by which the sum which would have been payable by way of compensation in respect of such improvement if the said Act of the present Session had not been passed exceeds the compensation payable as aforesaid;

(iii) on any croft being declared vacant under subsection (5) of section eleven of the
1706
said Act of 1955 consequent on the death after the commencement of the said Act of the present Session of the tenant of such croft, in paying to the executor of that tenant the amount (if any) by which what would have been the value, immediately before the death of such tenant, of any permanent improvement on the croft if the said Act of the present Session had not been passed exceeds the value of such improvement immediately before the death of the said tenant;

(iv) in acquiring compulsorily any buildings or land, or any interest in land, which the Secretary of State is authorised or required by the said Act of the present Session to acquire in connection with the putting into effect of a scheme for the reorganisation of a crofting township, and in paying compensation to the owner of any such buildings or land, or to the holder of any such interest, as the case may be;

(v) which is administrative expenditure

B. The payment out of moneys so provided of any increase in the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the said Act of 1955 attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session.

C. The payment into the Exchequer of all sums received under the said Act of the present Session by the Secretary of State.

Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received this day.

GOLD AND DOLLAR RESERVES
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]
6.19 a.m.
Mr. Harold Lever: I am sorry to see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The hon. Member is perfectly in order, if he so desires, in raising a point on which he requires the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but unless hon. Members have warned a Government Department that they intend to raise a matter on the Adjournment affecting that Department it is not fair to expect that Department to be represented to reply. Therefore, it has been the practice for the Chair to deprecate the raising on the Adjournment, without warning, of subjects to which an adequate answer cannot be given.
Mr. Lever: I am very loath to speak under a cloud of deprecation, as it were, but the Chief Patronage Secretary, who is here, is a responsible Minister of the Treasury and is paid a considerable salary as an official of the Treasury. The matter which I wish to raise is of some public importance and as I am speaking on the spur of the moment, without preparation, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman, who is paid to spend his time at the Treasury, should not also speak a little more extempore than is his wont.
After all, the right hon. Gentleman must be getting a little tired of his sole contribution to the oratory of the House being, "I beg to move, That the Question be now put", so gagging his fellow hon. Members from expressing their opinions, and the phrase "Tomorrow", from which one gets an impression of continuous procrastination.
Much as I would like to defer to the concept of giving the Minister warning, I cannot do so. It is right that some form of protest should be made against the way in which the Government take it for granted that the privileges of hon. Members, especially back benchers, can be taken for granted or ignored. We have had this process over and over again, and that is why I am speaking on the Adjournment.
Having kept the House up until this ludicrous hour in this ruthless way, even then with totally inadequate time to debate the very grave issues which we have been discussing throughout the night, the Government think that Ministers are now entitled to go home and the Chief Patronage Secretary thinks that back benchers will give up their right to the Adjournment.
Two extraordinary things have already happened during the course of the day. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), perhaps a little too exhausted to protect his own parliamentary rights after speaking so splendidly and with such clarity on the Bill we discussed during the night, asked my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) to give way so that a question could be put. I am sorry to say that an attempt was made to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles from
1708
exercising his rights as a Member. That was astonishing.
I hate to tread on sore toes, as it were, but I have to say this candidly. It was with the greatest reluctance that I followed my party in the complaint against Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Tonight, he attempted to prevent my hon. Friend from exercising one of the most preciously regarded rights of a back bencher. Having myself given way earlier—and I am not urging that this was done with intent, but the fact is that my rights as a back bencher—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is making me a little anxious lest he should find himself in the position of criticising the Chair, which leads to difficulties. I do not believe that on the Adjournment it is right to go back to a previous proceeding dealt with by the House in Committee.
Mr. Lever: If I have given anybody the impression that I am criticising you or any occupant of the Chair, nothing would grieve me more. I should like to say, in unmistakable terms, that that was never my intention. I thought that I had made it plain that it was inadvertence, but the fact is that I lost my right to speak.
I want to raise the question of the presentation of the gold reserves. It seems to me that the gold and currency reserves are of vital importance to the country. It is all right saying, "You should have given notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer". There were plenty of Ministers here who could have dealt with this question had they chosen to face the music and accept the rights of hon. Members to raise these subjects on the Adjournment. It is only a matter of convention that we give notice. There is no rule to that effect. I see that there are present hon. Gentlemen with conspicuous intelligence and experience who will perhaps repair the omission of the Minister.
This is a simple point. I will go this far to meet the hint which I have received from the Chair. I will try to make my argument within a short compass, and very simple.
We are a trading nation, running with inadequate reserves and constantly terrified by the position which will arise if foreigners become anxious about our

1709
balance of payments and the state of our currency and reserves. It follows that one of the reasons why we publish the state of our gold and dollar reserves is that foreigners shall know that we have adequate reserves to meet any likely commitment. It equally follows that we should see that our reserves should present as good a picture as we honestly can of the state of those reserves, but because of quaint doctrinaire decisions by the Bank of England the reverse is the practice, and the Bank of England constantly states the currency reserves of the country on a wholly inadequate basis, purely out of old-fashioned obstinate habit.
I am not without justification, even without warning, in using on behalf of back benchers our traditional right to raise matters such as this on the Adjournment and asking the Minister, or the Lord Commissioner of the Treasury, whom I see present, or any of his supporters, to deal with the point. I am raising.
Why do we constantly reveal our reserves in the worst possible light by leaving out of account the immense foreign investment which we possess; the immense dollar bond holdings which we possess; and the immense variety of other investments which are being made annually at some cost to our reserves? The least we should do if we are investing abroad is to see that the reserves bought by the labour of the people of this country are placed publicly to the credit of our people who have made the efforts by way of exporting capital—perhaps not altogether wisely. We ought at least to record the amount of this export of capital in the credit of the reserves.
Another great advantage would be that everybody would know how much we had invested abroad in dollar security and the like. Everybody would know that if the need arose in the interests of our trade, in the interests of expanding our industries and there was a run on our currency, the currency would not be defended only by the last busman's wage increase but that it would be defended by the dollar holdings held by private individuals.
Mr. John Rankin: As my hon. Friend is deploring the con-
1710
cealment of these other reserves, can he enlighten us by disclosing them, even if he can do it only approximately?
Mr. Lever: Nobody knows how big the reserves are. One of the reasons why I plead that we should register with the Bank of England all these dollar holdings and dollar securities and publish the figure with the gold and dollar reserves is that they are a large part of the reserves. I press for this because the public are largely in the dark about the extent of these holdings.
I asked a Question about this some years ago and got the most extraordinary reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that from the Canadian figures he had worked out our dollar holdings to be X million dollars. The point was that we had no statistics at the time, and the Chancellor did not know; he had to go to a Canadian source, which made a rough approximation of the size of our dollar holdings. This will not do. We need better information about the extent of these dollar holdings, and we should take them into consideration and announce them with the rest of the gold and dollar reserves.
This is a desirable thing, but it is being obstructed, for some reason, by the Bank of England, and, presumably, by the Treasury. I take it that the Minister is waiting to reply, although he looks intensely bored by the debate. This is a serious matter, and I hope that when I leave him time to reply he will address himself to these serious and fundamental matters.
Even the psychological disadvantages to this country are considerable in their economic consequences. It is not only the hard-faced men of Zurich who are responsible for this run on sterling; it is the ordinary people who are holding sterling in the course of their trading operations who are becoming apprehensive and are feeling nervous, because they think that our reserves are inadequate to sustain the existing volume of trade. One reason why our reserves have not increased in spite of our great efforts over the past fifteen years—
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: The Minister has paid very little attention to my hon. Friend. He has not taken a single note in order to give any answers on points of detail.
Mr. Lever: I can only hope that HANSARD will record the nature of the questions asked and such answers as are vouchsafed by the Government.
Mr. Rankin: The Minister may have a very powerful memory.
Mr. Lever: I plead earnestly with the Government to reconsider the whole question, when we have people rendered nervous about the state of sterling and we are moving into a period when this is causing a great deal of anxiety. There is no reason why the anxiety of the holders of sterling outside the country should not be allayed by letting them know the reserves that we have accumulated as a result of the thrift of our people. It is not generally recognised that since the war enormous sums of money have gone abroad by way of investment, because no proportion of the figure is included in the announced reserves, which are restricted solely to the gold and dollar holdings at the Bank of England.
This is very important at present, because voices are being heard urging this country to take a stand in supporting the idea of doubling or even trebling the price of gold. I am sorry that this artificial juggling, which alters nothing, should have been substituted for the kind of measure I am advocating, which has solid reality behind it, namely, to increase the amount of our announced reserves by disclosing the actual reserves held by the Government. Nothing would be added to our reserves by joining in the movement to increase the price of gold.
It is said that the Government ate thinking of supporting that move, but I cannot believe it is true, because the Government have a creditable record of co-operation with the United States Treasury which, in turn, has a creditable record in rejecting these desires to monkey with the price of gold—
Mr. Harold Davies: This is a vital point. This debate will concern the Common Market and the Free Trade Area. Statistics such as these are essential for an assessment of the real strength of Britain vis-à-vis the Common Market, E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth.
Mr. Lever: That is a little removed from the point I am making. It is more
1712
relevant to the strength of our currency until we have reached any kind of agreement which will protect all the currencies of the major trading nations, which is the ultimate goal of the President of the United States, and I think it is the goal of the Prime Minister when he discusses these matters, but in the meantime this move would be facilitated if we disclosed the true reserves held by the people of this country in gold and dollars, and dollar securities.
Mr. Rankin: While a great deal of money has been invested abroad, is it not true, nevertheless, that much of that investment today is now, perhaps, not realisable? How could we then count it as added to our wealth?
Mr. Lever: That would be a matter of assessment by foreign observers, but if, for instance, our total holdings of dollar bonds amounted, on current valuation, to 5,000 million dollars or more, even discounting some of that and even assuming that the outside world said that we could not realise all of it if we wanted to, it would represent an addition of a very substantial sum to our reserves, probably, even with a discount, greatly exceeding the total amount of our present gold and dollar holdings.
In other words, we are concealing the greater part of our reserves. We desperately need the confidence of the world, and we are in fact behaving in a way which is less likely to attract it, with really painful results, because, in our situation, it is vital that we should command world confidence for our currency. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that this is a vital matter to a great trading nation like ours. We must preserve in the world a feeling of confidence in the stability of our currency.
Recently, we had rumours of devaluation after the revaluation of the Deutsch-mark, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made earnest denials of any such intention on the part of the Government. I hope that he means it. There is no reason at all why we should devalue the £. If we had a better Government, there would be even less reason, but in fairness to this Government, I must say that there is not the slightest reason to devalue the £. The £ is not an overvalued currency. The trouble is that these denials,

1713
quite understandably, are taken by the outside world to be a mere matter of form.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, is almost bound to deny any pending devaluation until it actually occurs. What the world is watching is not words and assurances from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which count for nothing, but for facts. I mean no reflection whatever on the right hon. and learned Gentlemen. It is simply that the most honourable Chancellor is obliged to deny a devaluation even if he thinks it is coming, in the vain hope that he will be able to stave it off or prevent its premature disclosure. No Chancellor is bound to be absolutely candid with the world on these matters, and that is generally understood. I think it was Dr. Johnson who said that a man is not upon his oath when composing lapidary inscriptions, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is never upon oath when stating the Government's intentions with regard to devaluation or revaluation of the currency.
On the other hand, if assurances will not defend the £, actions will, and one action which could be taken, which is relatively simple to take, is to see that our reserves are properly proclaimed to the world so that the congealed industry and sacrifice of the people of this country—that is really what the investments are—are plainly shown in the balance sheet which we present of our foreign currency resources.
Exports of capital from this country since the war took place at no small sacrifice. In my view, they have taken place on too large a scale for health. They have played a very great part in compelling Governments, just as soon as industry has started to get into its stride, to take deflationary measures. We have been over-exporting capital and, as a result, so soon as industry gets under way, we find that we have a balance of payments crisis.
Mr. Harold Davies: It ought to have been kept at home to use in underdeveloped areas like the crofting Highlands.
Mr. Lever: I cannot quite perceive the connection between crofting and the export of capital. My hon. Friend is raising that tender question again. I agree that capital should have been kept here and
1714
used for industrial developments at home—
Mr. Rankin: Some of it.
Mr. Lever: A lot of it; but whether it should have been used to provide minibuses in the Outer Hebrides or light industry to supplement the part-time earnings of crofters is quite another matter. Without in any way reneging on our international responsibilities, much of the investment which has gone abroad should have been used at home, but if it has gone abroad let us at least have the credit for it in the balance sheet of the country's reserves which the Bank of England shows.
I gather from a certain taciturnity of expression on the Government Front Bench that it is unlikely that I shall receive a detailed reply this morning. I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for not accepting as readily as I normally would your gentle hint as to conduct, but I hope that you realise that that was not out of any disrespect for you or for the Chair. In the light of recent happenings in the House I felt it vital that all hon. Members should be jealous of all the rights of Members and the procedures of the House which, however little they are understood outside, we know all too well are part of the safeguards which have been developed for protecting democracy and the rights and liberties of the people.
The House has the most out-of-date procedure and rules of any Legislature in the world and yet it is the most durable legislative machine in the world and the most fitted to protect the democratic liberties and rights and traditions of our people.
6.42 a.m.
Sir Douglas Glover: The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) said that he would give an equal time to hon. Members on this side of the House to reply to him as he himself took, but I have been waiting here for nearly half-an-hour and he has left only about four minutes. It is typical of his way of being fair that he has taken nearly all the time available for the Adjournment and has left no time for a reply to his argument.
Mr. H. Lever: The hon. Member knows that one gesture of his hand would have brought me to resume my seat and to have left him ample time. He is not being fair.
Sir D. Glover: When the hon. Member speaks in the House he nearly always says many things with which many of us agree, and there is much to be said for the suggestion that we should disclose our hidden reserves. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will take great satisfaction in the fact that today this great country is once more a creditor nation and that our investments overseas have so strengthened our position that we are no longer suppliants but are a great trading nation with overseas investments probably as strong as they were before the war.
The hon. Member is not very wise, however, in trying to have these mobilised purely as a defence to the day-to-day currency exchanges across the counter. We have moved a long way in the last three or four years in increased liquidity through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and I believe that without disclosing these hidden reserves our position is strong enough for all the trade which we require to do.
I reinforce what he said about the £ not being undervalued and about there being no question of devaluation being necessary. We are capable of defending our currency in the world market without disclosing these hidden reserves. There are difficulties in carrying out a survey because the figures change from month to month and year to year as one bond is bought in New York and another is sold in South America. The investments are not necessarily static. But if we could find out to a more precise
1716
extent what the hidden reserves are, and use our publicity to let the rest of the world know that the money was there, I am sure that it would strengthen confidence in this country and help others to realise what a great part this country has played in the development of the world since the end of the war.
That has nothing to do with this disclosure or the strengthening of our own currency, but it would show that, for our resources, we have done more for the development of underdeveloped and developed countries in the last fifteen years than almost any other country. Our record is probably just as good as, if not better than, that of the United States of America. That will come as much of a shock to a great many nations. If they realise what we have done in the way of investment I think that it might be of some encouragement to the great German nation and, indeed, to every nation, much to the benefit of all mankind.
Therefore, although I think that the hon. Member for Cheetham rose in a rather facetious mood at the beginning of this Adjournment debate, I think that, as is so often the case, he has raised a matter of interest and importance, and I do not think that even at this hour of the morning we have done other than used the time of the House in a most valuable manner.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Seven o'clock a.m.

BRITISH ARMY
  Annual Camps (Regular Assistance)
  Annual Camps (Regular Assistance)
  Lands, Wales
  Lands, Wales
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund
  Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund
  Usworth Airfield
  Usworth Airfield
TRANSPORT
  Canals and Inland Waterways
  Canals and Inland Waterways
  Mobile Shops (Accidents)
  Mobile Shops (Accidents)
  Rural Transport (Report)
  Rural Transport (Report)
  Ambulances, Bristol (Sirens)
  Ambulances, Bristol (Sirens)
  Priority Vehicles (Warning Systems)
  Priority Vehicles (Warning Systems)
  Licensing Authorities' Report (Summary)
  Licensing Authorities' Report (Summary)
SHIPPING
  Yarrow Admiralty Research Department
  Yarrow Admiralty Research Department
  Coastal Fleet
  Coastal Fleet
  New Cunarder
  New Cunarder
  Collision, Portsmouth Harbour
  Collision, Portsmouth Harbour
ROADS
  B.4267 (Lavernock-Sully)
  B.4267 (Lavernock-Sully)
  Tyne Bridge
  Tyne Bridge
  A.1 (Gosforth)
  A.1 (Gosforth)
  Essex
  Essex
  Traffic Congestion, Putney
  Traffic Congestion, Putney
  B.4265 (Llantwit)
  B.4265 (Llantwit)
RAILWAYS
  Victoria-Walthamstow Line
  Victoria-Walthamstow Line
  Uneconomic Services
  Uneconomic Services
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Metal-using Industries
  Metal-using Industries
POST OFFICE
  Offices, Solihull
  Offices, Solihull
  Savings Stamps (Automatic Machines)
  Savings Stamps (Automatic Machines)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Reception, Northampton
  Reception, Northampton
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Bury St. Edmunds Exchange
  Bury St. Edmunds Exchange
  Kiosks, Wales and Monmouthshire
  Kiosks, Wales and Monmouthshire
  OMAN (REBEL LEADERS)
  OMAN (REBEL LEADERS)
  WAR CRIMINALS (LETTER)
  WAR CRIMINALS (LETTER)
  DISARMAMENT
  DISARMAMENT
EMPLOYMENT
  Feltham and Hounslow
  Feltham and Hounslow
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Radio and Aircraft Industries
  Radio and Aircraft Industries
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Clearance Order, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Clearance Order, Newcastle-under-Lyme
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
ROYAL NAVY
  U.S.S. "Proteus"
  U.S.S. "Proteus"
SCOTLAND
  West Fife Hospital
  West Fife Hospital
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Restaurants (Licences)
  Restaurants (Licences)
  Mini-cabs
  Mini-cabs
  Police Pensions Regulations
  Police Pensions Regulations

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

CHRONIC BRONCHITIS
2.35 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: 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 the percentage of all persons in receipt of sicknes benefit, in the following age groups: 50–54, 55–59 and 60–64, who are suffering from chronic bronchitis.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, medical certificates submitted in support of sickness benefit claims do not usually distinguish chronic from acute bronchitis. Of all persons in the three age groups mentioned who were receiving sickness benefit on May 30, 1959 (the latest date for which figures are available), some 11 per cent., 14 per cent. and 18 per cent., respectively were suffering from some form of bronchitis.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer: I appreciate the difficulty in getting these figures. But do they not show that bronchitis is a very considerable form of disability, particularly among middle-aged and those in later middle-age? Is it not a fact that many of these folk could be in work, sheltered work, were it available? The noble Earl mentioned yesterday that a Committee was to sit to consider this problem of bronchitis. Will that Committee have power to look at the aspect I have mentioned, to see whether it is not the case that many of these people could be usefully employed in sheltered work, rather than sitting ill, or nominally ill, at home because there is no work for them?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think it is the case that bronchitis is
852
more responsible than any other single disease for disability and that a great many people who suffer from it could usefully work in suitable conditions. But the resettlement officers of the Ministry of Labour pay a great deal of attention to this matter and do their best to help bronchitics. There are about 400 employed in the Remploy factories, and I have no doubt that a few hundred more are employed in local authority workshops, for which there are no analysed figures. The inquiry which I mentioned yesterday, and to which the noble Lord referred in his supplementary question, begins in June. It is being conducted by the Ministry of Pensions, with the help of the other Ministries concerned, and also, we hope, of the doctors and local authorities.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the Minister again. He spoke in terms of hundreds. I am afraid that the problem is measurable in tens of thousands of people who are suffering from this disease. The noble Earl did not answer my question about whether this inquiry would cover the provision of sheltered work for bronchitics in receipt of sickness benefit.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is no doubt the object of the inquiry. Its direct purpose is to get information.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could the noble Earl say what special provisions are made in those areas where the incidence is highest?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I would say that that would probably depend upon the local authorities. Remploy would no doubt try to do more in a place where it is known that the incidence is higher.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am inquiring about treatment in hospital.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, again I thank the Minister. This problem is too big, unfortunately, for Remploy and the local authorities, so far as we are able to ascertain. What is needed is the co-operation of private industry to provide places for these bronchitics whose working capacity is severely limited.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it certainly requires the co-operation of private industry, not only for the purpose of finding suitable employment but also in regard to registration as disabled persons. Very large numbers of bronchitis do not register, either because their medical practitioners do not advise them to do it—they do not think it would be worth while—or, maybe, because they think it is not much use registering since the opportunities of employment are not great enough.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to the responsibility of local authorities. Surely he is aware that the Ministry of Health are responsible for local hospitals, and I asked what special provisions they are now making in those areas where the incidence is highest.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the question which I had in mind, and which I think the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, had in mind, is how to employ bronchitics who are disabled. If the noble Lady wants detailed information about the health aspect of the matter, it would probably be better if she puts down another Question.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl certain that there is sufficient co-operation between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour as regards finding employment for bronchitics?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not know whether there is ever sufficient co-operation to achieve perfection between any two bodies of people who are engaged in the matter, but I do not know of any reason to think that there is any lack of co-operation which demands to be put right.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, may I follow that up by saying that there is evidence to show that the absence of information from the Ministry of Labour leads to non-employment of bronchitics who are employable?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for
854
giving me so much information. I only wish that I had given him a little more in return.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I ask one last question? The noble Earl said that one of the troubles is that general practitioners do not advise bronchitics to register. Will he encourage them to register, because that would be most effective co-operation?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that that is being done so far as possible; but the registration of disabled persons is, of course, entirely voluntary. We cannot make them register.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that there will be two statements at a suitable moment after 3.30 this afternoon, one by my noble friend Lord Mills, who will make a statement on the reorganisation of the British Transport Commission, and one by my noble friend Lord Newton, on doctors' prescriptions.

LAND COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and certain other enactments relating to the assessment of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisitions of interests in land; to the withdrawal of notices to treat; and to the payment of additional compensation and allowances in connection with such acquisitions or with certain sales by agreement of interests in land; with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DFENCE
2.43 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Carrington: to resolve, That this House approves the Report on Defence, 1961 (Cmnd. 1288).
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, towards the end of the last war, I found myself, rather to my surprise, in Athens on the night of the German evacuation of that city. To disguise the fact that I had only a dinghy load of troops under my command I had been "jacked" up to Brigadier for the occasion. So I hurried round to the top Greek General I could find to impress him with my exalted and, I must say, quite bogus rank. He only spoke French, so I proudly introduced myself to him, "Je suis le Brigadier Jellicoe". He was not impressed. Unfortunately, I had forgotten that in French "brigadier" means "corporal". However, I would ask your Lordships to remember, as I am only too well aware at this moment, that sandwiched between my noble friend the First Lord, who opened this debate so ably, and my noble friend, another "former naval person", who will close it, is a young corporal and not an old brigadier.
I think our debate yesterday was a good one. We had characteristic speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. May I add, in passing, since this is the first opportunity I have had of saying so from this Box, how much our Armed Forces and, in particular, the Navy, stand in debt to the noble Viscount? May I also thank those noble Lords who from this side of the House gave broad support—not uncritical, but always constructive—to my noble friend's Motion. Again I listened with particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I felt yesterday that he made an important contribution to what is badly needed in this country—dispassionate but searching discussion of the great problems of arms control and disarmament.
On our contribution to the strategic deterrent, I wish to say very little. Indeed, as becomes the corporal, I shall be leaving some of the broader issues of this debate, including the two noble Lords' Amendments (if those are broad issues)
856
to be dealt with by my noble friend the Leader of the House. My job, as I see it, is to try to clear away some of the underbrush and to answer some of the questions posed by noble Lords, so that my noble friend can follow majestically behind. But on our contribution to the deterrent I wish to say just this. I believe that Bomber Command is to-day a force of unparalleled efficiency. Both my noble friends Lord Merrivale and Lord Ampthill wondered whether paragraph 16 of the White Paper might not minimise the difficulties our V-bombers would meet with in penetrating to their targets. I can assure those noble Lords that the words in the White Paper:
"The force"—
that is the V-bomber force—
"has the capacity to penetrate to its assigned targets"
do represent the considered opinion of the Air Staff. Incidentally, having visited the headquarters of strategic air command at Omahah some eighteen months ago, I know that our special contribution to the heavy deterrent is very fully recognised by the responsible American military authorities. I believe we have been right to make this contribution in the past and that within the measure of our resources we should continue to do so.
My noble friend Lord Merrivale asked two rather searching questions about Blue Steel and Skybolt. Consistent with security, to use his phrase, I am afraid I cannot go into any detail about the operational availability of Blue Steel. The position is this. The firing trials of Blue Steel, which began in this country last year, are now continuing at the Woomera range in Australia; and, as the Memorandum accompanying the Air Estimates indicated, rounds are being made available to the R.A.F. this year for handling and maintenance trials preparatory to the introduction of the weapon into service. As regards Sky-bolt, I would refer the noble Lord to the assurance given by my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence in another place recently, that provided the development of the weapon proceeds satisfactorily—and we have every reason to believe it will—we shall receive it on time and without strings.
A good deal of attention was given yesterday to N.A.T.O. I was glad to note that none of your Lordships

857
queried the basic purpose of the Alliance or our membership of it. Nevertheless, there appeared to be a fairly general feeling on both sides of the House that we may have got the balance between the shield and the sword in N.A.T.O. (to use perhaps rather out-of-date phraseology) wrong. There appeared to be a fairly widespread feeling that N.A.T.O., as a whole, and the British Army of the Rhine, in particular, may possess too small a conventional capacity. The argument, as I understand it, is partly based on the strength, equipment and training of B.A.O.R. As regards strength, it is true that the Army of the Rhine is at present slightly below strength. As regards equipment, it is a question of some "jam" now and a lot more in the next few years. Broadly speaking, I believe it is true to say that virtually all the equipment, personal or otherwise, with which the soldier in B.A.O.R. was familiar in 1957 has been replaced, or will be replaced within two or three years. I repeat, all the equipment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, on that point, may I ask whether, in the course of the noble Earl's speech, we can have an answer to a point I put yesterday: that is, whether it is Intended that the personnel of B.A.O.R., which has been reduced progressively on two occasions, is to be further reduced in the current year?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I shall be wise to stick fairly closely to my brief here. But I should like to reply in this way to the noble Viscount. While the Army is being reorganised, we cannot sometimes avoid having units which are under strength. Nevertheless, it remains our intention to maintain the strength of B.A.O.R. as close to 55,000 men as we can in the circumstances, and we shall certainly keep N.A.TO. generally informed of the position.
Now a word as to training. It is true that major training exercises in B.A.O.R. often assume the use of tactical nuclear weapons. We possess those weapons in Germany, as indeed do the Russians. It would, we believe, be criminal stupidity in these circumstances not to train B.A.O.R. in exercises which assume the use of nuclear weapons. To do so, indeed, is an essential part of the deterrent. But from the fact that we do so
858
it should not be held—and I emphasise the word "not"—that B.A.O.R. is not prepared to fight a purely conventional battle.
In dealing with these rather mundane matters of numbers, equipment and training of our forces in N.A.T.O., I may be putting the cart before the horse. I suppose that the "64,000 dollar question" is whether, in the ordinary circumstances of nuclear equipoise, N.A.T.O.'s existing strategic concept remains valid. That strategy was evolved before the present balance of nuclear power between East and West was struck. As your Lordships know, we have taken the initiative in proposing to our Allies a comprehensive review, not of N.A.T.O.'s purpose or rôle—for that we do not in any way challenge—but of N.A.T.O.'s strategy, in which the whole question of the balance between nuclear and conventional forces, to which so many of your Lordships referred yesterday, and the provision of M.R.B.M.s and the control of N.A.T.O.'s nuclear armoury would be considered. So far we have reached the stage of defining the various problems which arise. We do not yet know what the answers will be, but I am sure that, in discussion with our N.A.T.O. Allies, they eventually will be found, although I would guess, in answer to my noble friend Lord Teynham, that these discussions, complicated and comprehensive as they are bound to be, are likely to take a little time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask a question on that last passage, which is very important? I have been looking up what the Minister of Defence said in another place about this question of strategic and tactical targets. I realise that the Minister spoke about the reappraisal in certain respects, but are we making any representations against the Norstad proposal that he should be given the right to use certain tactical weapons against targets even though they are inside Russian territory? Is that part of the matter to be discussed?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I must deflect that question a little, because the whole question is now between Governments, and I think it would be quite wrong for me in any way to prejudge it.

859
I should like to turn for a moment to our extra-N.A.T.O. commitments, and to touch again on the question of strategic mobility, to which many of your Lordships referred yesterday. In this context I would draw your Lordships' attention to an aspect of Communist world strategy which we ignore at our peril. In his speech of January 6 Khrushchev drew a sharp and significant distinction between world wars on the one hand, and what the Communists term "wars of national liberation", on the other. Khrushchev says that world or local wars are not inevitable. However, wars of liberation, guerilla wars, like those in Algeria or Laos, are, to quote his words: "Not only permissible but inevitable". They are "sacred", and Communists should "support such just wars fully and without reservation."
We should take these serious words seriously. They mean, as I read them, since Khrushchev speaks of support "without reservation" that the Communists reserve the right, as it were, to extend aid, including military aid, towards any movement which they choose to deem a movement of national liberation. They may calculate that their growing resources allow them to take greater risks than hitherto. Sheltering under the umbrella of the Soviet-American nuclear equipoise, they may feel more disposed to exert nuclear blackmail on us and our friends, friends, especially in areas deemed not absolutely vital to our security. Thus Communist policy may grow increasingly adventurous in selected soft spots. There are already straws in the wind; Cuba; the Soviet unilateral intervention in the Congo, and the Soviet air-lift to the Kong Lae forces in Laos, carried out, I may add, with the same Soviet planes, or some of them, as were used in the Congo. Now I do not wish to cry "wolf" or "bear", but surely all this means that we and our Allies must be prepared to meet increasingly powerful, and possibly dangerous, Communist pressures in those vast areas which lie to the South, in Asia, Africa and, indeed, Latin America, the middle ground between the committed West and the committed East.
The problem of these areas has been debated in some detail in your Lordships' House recently. I think we are gener-
860
ally agreed that the best deterrent—and I use the word "deterrent" advisedly—to Communist pressure and infiltration in these areas, is for us in the West to do all we can to ensure, by a wise political approach, and by generous, imaginative and co-ordinated policies of aid, that the innate desire of these new nations for independence rests on secure political and economic foundations. We should try not to expose the Communists to what I would call the Congo temptation. Yet we cannot be certain that political and economic measures will always suffice.
This is one of the many areas where our defence and economic policies co-exist with our general foreign policy. In many areas of the world to-day, the crust of stability is very thin, and dangerous and dynamic forces lie beneath that crust. In our small and highly-strung modern world, situations can get very quickly out of hand, as my noble friends Lord Bridgeman and Lord Bird-wood made clear yesterday. That is why, to use the words of the White Paper, we
"have to play our part in many parts of the world by maintaining conventional forces to prevent or contain minor incidents which might otherwise develop into major conflicts."
Unless we believe that little England is the destiny of this country, we must continue to discharge many world-wide responsibilities, political, economic and, if necessary, military, outside the N.A.T.O. area. We must do so either alone or as a member of the Regional Alliances to which we belong, or in the framework of the United Nations, as the case may be.
We cannot discharge these responsibilities unless our forces are well trained. well equipped, adequate in numbers and possess strategic mobility. I believe our forces possess the requisite strategic mobility, or have come a long way towards acquiring it. Two of the Services, of course, the Navy and the Royal Air Force, possess a high degree of built-in strategic mobility. For example, "Dreadnought" has an endurance inconceivable only a few years ago. A Valiant bomber, again as an example, using in-flight re-fuelling techniques, flew non-stop last year to Singapore, over 8,000 miles in 154- hours. Such mobility is naturally increased by the dispersion of our forces and

861
the network of bases on which that dispersion rests.
With mobility in mind, I am sure your Lordships approve the decision to commission H.M.S. "Albion" as a second commando carrier. I had the mixed pleasure of following the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, in this debate a year ago, and I was struck by his description of "Bulwark" as a fish without a tail. I am sure he will welcome the fact that there will soon be two fishes at sea. "Bulwark" and "Albion", and that they will acquire at least one tail in the new assault ship. Again, I hope that he will welcome the complementary decision of the Army to start replacing their old LST.s in the coming year with new, bigger, speedier and more efficient logistic supply ships. When executed, these decisions will considerably increase the ability of our Armed Forces to swim, an important matter in these days of Lord Ampthill's air barrier. Having served in one of the earliest commandos, I am very glad that we are planning to form a new Royal Marine Commando.
The same pattern applies in the air. The R.A.F. are continually carrying out exercises to practise and extend the mobility of R.A.F. squadrons and R.A.F. units. Detachments of V-bombers have regularly flown to Malta, Cyprus and the Far East. Mobility is also being extended by the increased use of in-flight refuelling, and last year a detachment of Javelins, your Lordships will recollect, flew to Singapore with the aid of in-flight refuelling.
To snuff out the candle of some local conflagration, troops on the ground are obviously needed. If the forces immediately available are not sufficient, there are theatre reserves deployed in the Midde East and in the Far East. Behind those stand in this country the three highly trained and well equipped brigades of the Strategic Reserve at a high state of readiness. May I say here that I was surprised by what the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said yesterday about the Government's alleged coyness about our troop dispositions. I confess I rather sympathise with his æsthetic inhibitions about the White Paper's strip cartoons. But then he went on to say with reference to the map on page 4 that the symbols in it were, and I quote his words [col. 843]:
"merely a protective device on the part of the Departmental Ministers to protect themselves form criticisms in this country".
862
This did surprise me. In both the Naval and the Air Estimate memoranda very full maps are included showing naval and military dispositions. In view of these I really feel the noble Earl was rather over-egging the pudding.
The steady growth of Transport Command has already greatly added to the mobility of our strategic reserves. The admirable strip cartoon at the back of the Memorandum on the Air Estimates illustrates the growth of this vital Command. For the strategic lift, Transport Command now has all its 23 Britannias, in addition to the 10 Comet 2s. Comet 4Cs are on order to replace the Comet 2s and we are now actively considering the possibility of further increases in the strategic Transport Force. Fifty-six Argosies are now on order for the medium-range force, the backbone of whch remains the very useful Beverley and that old friend, the Hastings.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that matter, can he say anything about the Britannics, when we may expect them in service?
EARL JELLICOE: I can say this; they are now called the Belfast, and we may expect them in service in what I think is now becoming the fashionable phrase, the mid-'sixties.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: One White Paper says in 1964.
EARL JELLICOE: I was being more cautious than the noble Earl, but it does say 1964, as he says.
Have we sufficient strategic and theatre air mobility? As in the United States, I think the straight answer must be, No, and that is why the Government, like the American Administration, propose still further to expand our air transport force. However, just because we have not yet got all we should like, we should not be blind to the very striking growth of Transport Command. In the last ten years its air-lift potential has expanded threefold, and it will continue to grow. I have often heard Transport Command referred to as the Cinderella of the. Royal Air Force. If so, she is growing up very rapidly, like that precocious young lady, Lolita.
My Lords, it is no good having mobility unless we have the men to be

863
mobile. Two noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, focused attention in our debate yesterday on the manpower problem. I would remind your Lordships that yesterday the First Lord stressed the advantages of volunteer professional all-Regular Forces. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, quoted Cromwell at us. May I quote Cromwell back at Lord Lucan? In a letter in September, 1643, to Sir William Spring, with which no doubt the noble Earl is familiar, Cromwell wrote "A few honest men are better than numbers". And as the First Lord said, the Government are mildly optimistic about the numbers.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked if paragraph 48 of the White Paper of 1957 stands. The answer is, Yes. He also asked if we were thinking of National Service. Obviously, in a matter of such importance it is only prudent for the Government to consider all possibilities. All courses of action must be examined, including some form of selective service. But I would again draw attention to all the other possibilities to which the First Lord of the Admiralty referred yesterday, and emphasise that we are planning for success in this matter, not failure. In planning for success, I quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that we cannot afford to ignore the youth organisations as aids to recruiting. We can, of course, explore this aspect in greater detail in our debate on the Army. Meanwhile, I would merely draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the War Office intend to spend 20 per cent. more next year, as compared to this on the Army Cadet Forces.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, emphasised (and I think I have his words right) that money is not the only thing that attracts men into the Services. I could not agree more. That is why, for example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War is encouraging adventure training in the Army. That is why, while maintaining discipline and smartness in the Army, he is making it crystal clear to all Army units that there is all the difference in the world between good discipline and smart turnout and pointless "bull". The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, also asked whether television advertising, which will play an important
864
part in the War Office's vigorous and enterprising recruiting campaign, will be paid for. The answer is: Yes, if these advertisements are on commercial television.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to touch on two aspects of Defence expenditure. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, complained that the Government had failed to live up to paragraph 72 of the 1957 White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the rising level of Defence expenditure as a threat to the social services. I should like to try to get the record straight on this. The expectation in 1957 was that the five-year plan would reduce the burden of Defence on the economy. No undertaking was given that expenditure would come down substantially. Indeed, the 1957 White Paper specifically drew attention to the reasons why reductions in manpower could not be expected to bring with them comparable cuts in expenditure.
The 1957 expectation has, in fact, proved accurate. The burden of Defence on the economy has been reduced in the last few years, whether measured as a proportion of the gross national product, in terms of the manpower absorbed by the Defence programme or of the proportion of the metal-using industry working for Defence, or indeed by any other of the criteria which can properly be used in measuring burdens on the economy. In simple expenditure terms, too, the five-year programme is achieving its purpose. In 1957 we faced the prospect of a steep rise in Defence spending in real terms; in fact, if we allow for price rises over the period, expenditure has been held steady, as the diagrams in paragraph 38 of this year's White Paper make perfectly clear. And this, my Lords, is despite two important facts. First, receipts in aid of the Defence Budget had declined by over £80 million between the 1957–58 and the 1961–62 Estimates, due to the fact that we no longer receive substantial sums from the United States and Germany, and also because the sales of surplus stores have fallen away. Secondly, there has been a change in the items covered by the Defence Budget since the 1957 White Paper which has added about £90

865
million to it. But for these various changes, none of which has been determined by Defence policy, actual expenditure for the coming year would have been less than in 1957–58.
LORD REA: My Lords, are we to assume that at the end of the five-year period the actual recurring expenses will be reduced?
EARL. JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that is too fast a ball for me.
LORD REA: I apologise.
EARL. JELLICOE: My Lords, we heard a pretty powerful—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl will expect us to accept in toto what he has just said. I must say that he has done his level best to explain the position, but it does not mean that it can safely be assumed that the new plan, when it is fully implemented, will further appreciably reduce the burden on the economy. I think that his explanations, and even excuses, show nothing approaching that satisfaction which was promised four years ago.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, then it must be a failure in my powers of advocacy, because I thought I made it perfectly plain that it had reduced the strain on the economy as measured by any of the ordinary criteria by which strains on the economy are measured. I will try out my measuring tape another time.
We heard a pretty powerful speech yesterday evening from my old friend, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. I had the impression that the two main considerations which he put to this House commanded broad assent: first, that it was necessary in the national interest that new weapon systems, when adopted in principle, should be carried forward to completion with all possible despatch; second, that the financial stakes are very high—he rightly drew our attention to the fact that some 40 per cent. of the total Defence budget, £650 million, goes towards equipment. Consequently, it is, as I think the whole House will agree, of vital importance that we should obtain full value for money. I can assure my noble friend that the views which he put to the
866
House yesterday will receive most searching consideration.
Meanwhile, may I just say this? The total expenditure on the development of a major new weapon system, like a guided weapon or an aircraft, may run into many tens of millions of pounds. We must therefore be as certain as we reasonably can be in this world of accelerating technology that, before we agree to the start of a full-scale development programme, we are backing the right horse and have got the right odds. The noble Lord drew our attention to the comments of the Public Accounts Committee on three guided weapons projects whose total direct cost finally proved to be many times the original estimates. The Govment are not prepared to permit this sort of situation to continue, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that they are right in principle in demanding the most careful examination of proposals for new projects.
That said, I should like, nevertheless, to reiterate that my noble friend's remarks will receive most careful attention and consideration; and I would draw his attention to something of which I am sure he is already perfectly well aware—namely, that a Committee, the Zuckerman Committee, has been at work for some time on these particular problems. They are near to the end of their investigations now, and I am certain that their Report when it has been completed will help to reinforce measures already taken to improve control of expenditure and to insure that we get the best possible value for money.
My Lords, I know that there were several—indeed, a great many—questions posed yesterday which I have not answered. Rather than detain your Lordships longer, I feel that it would be best if I or my noble friend the First Lord were to write lo any noble Lords left out on a limb. For my part, that I gladly undertake to do. I think it is now high time that the corporal left the parade ground. In doing so, I merely wish to state my, belief that our Defence policy is coherent, that the balance of our forces is, broadly speaking, right, and that these forces are highly efficient. I therefore ask your Lordships to reject the two Amendments if they are moved, and to accept my noble friend's Motion.
3.17 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like first of all to congratulate the noble Earl. Not only have we on this side, and I have personally, a great affection for him, but we have welcomed his many valuable contributions in the past as a critic of the Government. It is rather sad when these more forthright critics are silenced and brought into the silent Lobby of the Government. Luckily, there is always a continuing "refreshment" going on in the other direction. It is one of the most surprising things that, as soon as a distinguished member of the Government, especially if he is concerned with Defence, leaves the Government—this is particularly true of another place—he immediately proceeds to attack the Government with regard to their Defence policy. It is most fortunate for the Government this year that the noble Lord, Lord Head, is in a far distant "other place", so that he is not here to join his criticisms to those which have come, as the Government freely admit, from both sides of the House
Clearly, the Government must be aware of the seriousness of the criticism of their Defence policy. Although much of what I have to say will be critical, this does not mean that I, or anybody who is critical, thinks that this is an easy task. It is, as has been said before, one of the most extraordinarily difficult jobs to produce an effective Defence policy and to sustain it. Our first complaint is that the Government will go on pretending—although the noble Earl departed a little from that course—that all is pretty good; that we have the right plan and that, on the whole. we have not much to worry about. This White Paper really is a pathetic document when we remember the original grandiose words in relation to the first year of the five-year plan. Now we get a document which consists of little more than a notice on the door of the Ministry of Defence, saying, "Not at home", or, possibly, "In conference".
We should like them to come out of their conference and face the consequences of their attempt to carry out a policy much of which is already in ruins and I shall attempt to show later the way in which it is in ruins. And we are not helped by the fact—and I am sure
868
the noble and learned Viscount finds it as painful as we do—that there are so many terrible clichés and bits of jargon in the White Paper. There is the extraordinary statement in paragraph 28 that:
"At this time of rapid scientific development, even advanced weapons are almost sure"—
very careful!
"to be superseded by something still more advanced."
The noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, said almost the same thing in his exceedingly cautious speech. I do not think this is worthy of a statement that could be called a statement on Defence. It is, in fact, a soft-pedal on the five-year plan. The only good thing I have to say with regard to these publications is that the Service Memoranda seem to be very much better; they go into a great deal more detail. But I caution Her Majesty's Government, as did my noble friend Lord Lucan yesterday, to be a little careful about these cartoons. All kinds of interesting information might go in. We could have pictures of all eleven Ministers of Defence since the Defence Plan was created. They must not overdo that.
The main criticism we have of the Government springs from this attempt to have the best of all worlds. It is a temptation to all Governments outwardly to try to show this, although nobody knows better than Governments the impossibility of achieving it. I would start by referring to paragraph 8 of the Report on Defence, 1961, and draw attention to the difference between the statements in that paragraph and paragraph 31. That in paragraph 31 is a fairly modest statement. It says:
"How to keep our place, to preserve a proper balance in our effort, and to avoid the risk of deploying our limited resources of manpower and money over too wide a field has been the subject of much study."
But in paragraph 8 we get back to the original Sandys:
"The primary purpose of our defence policy is, therefore, that it should protect us, our allies and our friends against the whole spectrum of possible aggression and military threats, from the small local action which might be the beginning of larger and more dangerous adventures through 'nuclear blackmail' to nuclear war."
Her Majesty's Government cannot really suggest that it is possible to provide defence against the whole spectrum

869
of aggression right through to nuclear war itself. This may be a matter of misunderstanding, and I do not doubt that we can have a jolly time trying to interpret those words; but our complaint is that there are too many of these loose and rather pompous statements. The main issue between critics of the Government (and these are critics, again, on all sides) is, of course, the question of the deterrent. I, for my part, do not question that we now have a powerful deterrent force. I do not question that our V-bombers are equipped and able to deliver most devastating retribution. It is certain, too, that they are at a high standard of efficiency and that the reaction time is as good as, and may well be better than the Government have already claimed; and although there may be only 200, and only a proportion may get through, it is fair enough to argue that they represent a tremendous force.
Our criticism of the present position is not that we have not, at this moment, an effective deterrent, or contribution to a deterrent, or whatever the Government like to call it, but that it has been secured at the cost—and too high a cost—of other aspects of defence; and furthermore, that it will become a wasting asset (and nobody can be more aware of it than the Government) unless they are really going completely to eat the words in the 1957 Defence White Paper, where we had, in paragraph 61. the statement that:
"Having regard to the high performance and potentiality of Vulcan Victor medium bombers and the likely progress of ballistic rockets arid missile defence, the Government have decided not to go on with the development of a supersonic manned bomber which could not have been brought into service in much under seven years."
Our criticism is in regard to the development of the missile and the position that will exist at some time—to use the felicitous phrase— "in the middle' sixties". There is in the White Paper this year a statement that:
"Equally 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."
This, of course, is a piece of recent hindsight in relation to Blue Streak and is part of the epitaph of Blue Streak. But we have scrapped the main part of our defence policy in the scrapping of
870
Blue Streak, and, as one who in earlier years defended Blue Streak and has defended, and is still a believer in, the strategic Western deterrent, I would say I believe we have in fact scrapped our continuing contribution towards it. We Dave not in this House, this year, had any talk about an independent deterrent. I ask the Government to stop talking about an independent contribution. Cannot we just call it a contribution? There was an attempt last year by the noble and learned Viscount, as he may remember, to define what an independent deterrent was. I think we might just call it a contribution and have done with it.
The question is: what in fact is its value—and this is the test by which it has to be judged in the whole pattern of Western defence—in the main purpose of preserving our position and the position of the Western world? I do not myself regard it as particularly moral to say that one should disapprove of atomic bombs as opposed to other weapons, nor, indeed, do most of my noble and honourable friends in either House; and we may as well face the fact—and I am sure the Government and most of us will agree—that it does not make us any more moral because we are inclined to walk on the other side of the street from the atom bomb and dismiss it from our sight. But the question, and our criticism, is whether, in fact, this emphasis on the deterrent that we have sustained despite the collapse of the original main part of the policy, is right to-day.
I should like briefly to say something about the position of the Labour Party. If I am to accuse Her Majesty's Government of coyness in their statements, then we might as well face frankly the Tact that there are divisions in other Parties, as well, on other subjects, and that there a very profound division on this subject. It will do no good to the noble and learned Viscount to ask these innocent (and we all know that when he is innocent he is at his most mischievous) questions about the Constitution of the Labour Party. As a former Chairman of the Conservative Party, he knows perfectly well what it is. I should like to analyse the position of people critical of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and the range of criticism. There is the point of view of the pacifist to whom, I believe, most of us are sympathetic, and whose sincerity we recognise. Then there

871
is the position of the unilateralist who says that it will be a contribution to the peace of the world if Britain sets an example by opting out without agreement in regard to the use of nuclear weapons; and I do not propose to develop that point. Then there are those who are what are called "multilateralists". And finally, there are those who believe that the national advantage is best served by always pursuing a national policy which does not take full regard of the fact that we are part of a great alliance.
My Lords, there are signs still to-day in the Government, and particularly in the speech of the Secretary of State for Air in another place, that there are people who are harking back to this older view, a view which (as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in his most interesting speech yesterday suggested) has never been part of the British historical approach to these matters. As he pointed out, our defence has in the past always been based on the marginal intervention in regard to the balance of power. If you are going to choose a marginal intervention, the question is this: what, in fact, is the most effective part of it? The Government argue that the Americans welcome our nuclear deterrent. It would be difficult for them not to do so. We are their Allies, and a certain amount of politeness between Allies is reasonable. But it is interesting that much of the main support has come from air force commanders, who are inclined to support anybody who supports a manned aircraft. It is comparable with (and I shall have to be careful with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough) the position of those people who have a very strong devotion to the Navy and its deployment.
But the argument that the bomber will always get through, which has been used frequently in another place and is also matched by rather excessive statements, again from the Secretary of State for Air, about clawing down enemy bombers (and the Government are continuing to boast about Lightning fighters) leads us to a position in which we find a state of complete confusion. I say this in regard to our thinking. Again, it is very difficult to be clear minded. Even with the development of Blue Steel and, one year later—which we are told is all there is
872
likely to be in it if the Government's hopes come off—of Skybolt, is that really going to redress the balance vis-à-vis the ballistic missile? I accept what the noble Earl said about the hopes that we shall get Skybolt and that there will be no strings and no double keys, one round the neck of a Royal Air Force officer and another round the neck of an American officer, and that it will in fact carry a British warhead. But we still have not got it; and the Americans have not yet, so far as I know, completely decided that this is going to be part of their policy. If we do not get it, then the final residue of our nuclear deterrent contribution will be in ruins.
My Lords, we now have to consider, not what is going to happen this year only, but what is going to happen in 1970 or, according to the First Lord, in 1990 in regard to some matters. The truth of the matter is that the Government have no idea at all. They have no idea what might replace the manned bomber when it has served its usefulness. Another aspect of this blindness which has been shown in our national planning and thinking is in regard to the development of atomic weapons by other Powers. This is a genuine dilemma. The longer we go on, the harder it will be to head off the French. It may well be argued that nothing will head off President de Gaulle, but we are not making any attempt on this subject. We are making no attempt whatsoever, other than in the attempt to get agreement with regard to general disarmament, to stop or to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons.
We then come to General Norstad's statement in which he talks about putting nuclear weapons into N.A.T.O.; and the Government have, very rightly, not made up their minds on this point. It is a matter which we shall have to face up to. I must say, speaking personally—and I emphasise that this is a personal point of view—that I am not ready yet to oppose, in all circumstances, the idea of the strategic deterrent being part of the N.A.T.O. setup. But it is certainly too early to think about it now, and it is certainly not right at the moment to think of it as part of the European, or SACEUR, Command in N.A.T.O. Why should N.A.T.O., or SACEUR, to be more exact, need it?

873
I should like to know what might be its use.
Here we come to the problem of distinguishing between strategic and tactical weapons. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I think, adjured us last night to try to avoid talking about "nuclear" or "tactical" weapons. Unfortunately, the beastly things must have some sort of name, and we must therefore go on calling them something. I quite accept the statement, which I think was made in another place by the Government, that a tactical weapon is a weapon which, at that moment, you use tactically, and that a strategic weapon is one that you use strategically; and that this is perfectly clear so far as things like Polaris are concerned. But the difficult), is for the other side to distinguish. To put it mildly, it would be very difficult for a potential enemy tracking a Polaris into his own territory to distinguish between the military interdiction and a strategic onslaught. I think we might find it rather difficult to expect him to refrain from strategic retaliation, even if he himself were to call it military interdiction. I think, for this reason, that the use of Polaris on land must be "out" so far as Europe is concerned. I say this very reluctantly, because I have prejudices on this matter. I think that probably the future of the Western deterrent may well lie in the Polaris submarine under American control.
Here again, we have a statement on the use of these nuclear weapons from a Government spokesman:
"We believe it is essential N.A.T.O. forces should be seen to have mobile conventional forces and nuclear weapons from the smallest yield to the highest and that we should have the capability of using them in tactical interdiction or in strategical."
What does this mean, and how can we regard the Government as having a clear policy when we have statements of this kind, again, I may say, from the Secretary of State for Air?
I should like to touch briefly on the equipment of our Forces in Germany with regard to so-called tactical nuclear weapons. We know that the Army is under strength; the noble Earl made a rather shy admission of that. There are some rather stronger figures which I could produce. But it is a fact, which has been testified to by many people, that our Forces in Germany are exces-
874
sively dependent on short-range nuclear weapons, whether they be the 8-inch Howitzer or Honest John or the Corporal; and this is not true to the same extent of other countries. It is not true, I am told—and the Government will correct me if I am wrong—of the Americans themselves.
We understand, as has been made clear by Government spokesmen, that in the event of anything more than the smallest outbreak, these so-called tactical nuclear weapons will be called into use. This is something of which many people outside the House are extremely critical, as are other countries. It is not only a question, as someone suggested in another place, of a policeman being hit on the head in Berlin. There might be another kind of incident of the Korean type, even in Europe. There might be something in Greece; there might be something in North Norway, which is wide open in the event of a change in Russian policy. I do not think it is likely to happen, but this situation is what shield forces are for. It is wide open to a conventional military take-over. On the other hand, I would not make the suggestion—and it is no part of the official statements of the National Executive or the leaders of the Labour Party in another place—that we can at this moment take these short-range nuclear weapons away from our troops. We cannot do so. But we think we ought to step up the so-called conventional arms, and that these tactical weapons ought to be brought further back so, that they are not automatically called into use, as would be almost hound to happen to-day, with the inevitable development of (another curious term) escalation, which would lead on to an unleashing of the full, atomic fury.
My Lords, I should like to refer shortly to this question of the strength of our forces in Germany. We are in honour bound, and have been, to maintain certain forces in Europe. The original figure was four divisions. Then it was 75,000 troops. Later, it was whittled down to, I think, 65,000; then to 55,000; and subsequently, I think, it went down to 45,000. Now the number, nominally, is 55,000, although the Government know perfectly well, and we know, that I the number does not stand at 55.000.

875
The effect of this deficiency is far greater than the simple numbers, as the noble Earl and anybody with experience of these matters knows. A fall below establishment is a far more serious thing than the simple numbers that are missing. It affects the whole efficiency of the unit. It is no good Government spokesmen saying, as they did in another place, that it is normal for our Forces to be below strength and below establishment in peace time. These troops are meant to be in Germany, available, if necessary, for immediate action. They are there as part of a shield force to give us time, and possibly to prevent the outbreak of a full, strategic, atomic war. We, unlike the Americans, are below strength, and we are not fulfilling our obligations to our Allies in this matter.
The Government have been less than frank about recruiting. Last year they said that the target was 166,000 Regulars. Now it is this year; and last year's target was apparently 160,000, according to the White Paper. Are we really likely to reach our figure? Here I was mystified by a statement made by the First Lord, when he said that two or three years ago we expected to be 40,000, or possibly, 25,000, below the minimum needed, and that in fact we are going to do very much better. What I should like to know is: was it the same minimum, or was it the minimum of the Hall Committee, which said we ought to have somewhere round 200,000 or 220,000 Regular troops? I do not know whether, when the noble Viscount comes to reply on this, he can tell us. We should like to have some clarification.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient to say now—because when I come to reply, a lot of water will have flowed under the bridge—that it was the same minimum, the first of the alternatives put by the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful for that clarification. But we are, of course, faced with a dangerous situation. I am not going to go into this argument about National Service or selective service, which has already been widely canvassed. I think we are all agreed that the last thing we want is a reintro-
876
duction of National Service, and I should not be prepared, necessarily, to cross the Floor, as honourable Members in another place would, if the Government were to re-introduce National Service. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government have now to advance a little nearer to this bridge which they are refusing to cross. We have got as far as hearing that the Government might be prepared to face a reduction in medical and educational standards—this, I think, is an alarming prospect—and there have been suggestions, too, of more recruiting from colonial territories. I have no objection at all to recruiting from colonial territries; the only trouble is that it is apt to be extraordinarily expensive.
The Government must now take what I believe is the only way to attempt to meet our present commitments, and that is to put a tremendously greater effort behind increased mobility. A three-fold increase in the air-lift potential since Suez (I think it was) is not enough. We are told that it will be six times in an emergency. I do not know whether that means that Coastal Command will be brought into use again, whether it means the use of charter aircraft, or what it means.
EARL JELLICOE: May I interrupt? I think it means an increase in the utilisation of existing forces.
LORD SHACKLETON: I see. In other words, in an emergency, for a short period, they would be able to get this six-fold increase. My Lords, we have discussed this matter previously, and we know that the lift is still quite inadequate. We have had the figures with regard to "Operation Starlight", and the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, had some strong things to say on this subject earlier. We were told it was only 175 tons lifted. That figure has now been corrected since the White Paper was published and the amended figure, if the Government are not aware of it, is 600 tons. I do not quite know how this calculation has come about.
My Lords, where is the sense of urgency? Is the Belfast due in 1964, the mid-'sixties or 1967? Now is the time when we ought to have this; and it is now—I emphasise this, for it is the burden of our criticism of the Government—that we are falling behind on our

877
commitments. It might be well to the interest of the Western defence if, instead of trying to negotiate for Skybolt, we were to negotiate for a good supply of C130 transport aircraft, so that we could spread our vital Regular troops further.
We have an improved position with regard to mobility on the Naval side. We have the development of commando carriers. Again, we shall be debating the Navy Estimates, and I hesitate to go too far in asking the question: What are our large carriers for? But I feel that here is rather a striking example of the split in Government policy, in that they have a large Navy, trained and equipped for what might be called a conventional war—namely, anti-submarine war, even if it is with nuclear submarines—while our Army is at the moment equipped for a nuclear war. I have very grave doubts whether generalised submarine warfare is likely unless we are faced again by the full force of war—or is this a possibility? Do the Government in fact visualise this as one of the developments that might happen?
My Lords, I have not time to go into this question of commitments. I do not agree with the many people who suggest that our present commitments, or many of them, are necessarily a hang-over from colonial days. The presence of our troops in Africa, wherever they may be, may well be absolutely essential to the discharge of our responsibilities under the United Nations. But the painful fact is that we have not enough to go round; and, somehow or other, we have to solve this problem. I would sum up by saying that our main criticism is that there has been, as in previous years, and still is, too much emphasis on the deterrent. II: is a painful choice to make, but what is the most important contribution we can make—and again I emphasise this—to Western defence? Where is the shortage? It is surely not in regard to nuclear weapons: it is in regard to forces in the field. When the Government say that the main framework has not changed, I would reply that it has changed critically, and that our policy, or the carrying out of the policy, has not been adjusted to it.
My Lords, among many requirements we had was a reform of our Defence organisation from Mr. Duncan Sandys. I repeat what I think many noble Lords suspect: that this is a bit of a scramble
878
between the Services. This year, the Navy has got a bit more and the Air Force a bit less. It may be very difficult keeping these three Services going, but could not the Government contrive to take just a little wider look and study the situation against the background of our commitments to our Allies? Much of this difficulty clearly springs—and I say this in all sincerity—from the Government's fundamental unwillingness to face their relationship with Europe. We know that many of them believe in interdependence, and no one more so than the noble Earl who opened the debate today. But we still get statements like: "Our part of the air defence of Europe will remain under British sovereignty, and we can withdraw our fighters whenever we like."
The criticisms which are made are criticisms based on the need to judge coldly what is best for our country, and what is best for the world. I think we should concentrate further on improving N.A.T.O. There have been many criticisms of N.A.T.O., but here, my Lords, is a great Alliance: something of which we as a country should be very proud, and something which has played a unique part, in a way no other alliance in all history, I believe, has played, in preserving the sort of ideals of democracy for which we stand in this country. This country has played a tremendous part in building up N.A.T.O. I think perhaps our greatest contributions have not necessarily been only in the outward display of overwhelming force; they have also been in tactical spheres, staff work, and so on.
We have played a major part, but what is the balance that is best for the Western Alliance? The criticism which we have made is too wide, and has come from too many sources to be put down purely to Party political rancour. We know that the Government carry a heavy responsibility. The noble Earl has said that we get "a little jam to-day" and that we shall get some more to-morrow. The question is: have we enough jam at the moment, or enough material forces to deal with the situation? We were not ready at the time to cope with Suez. I am not going to go into the merits of Suez; but we know from the events which transpired that we were not ready. We in the Opposition—and this is one of the main reasons why we put down our

879
Amendment—believe that the Government have not only failed in their duty to ensure that we are ready to play our part in the Western Alliance now, but have also failed to produce any effective plans for the future.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it may be convenient if we interrupt the debate at this stage. My noble friend has a statement to make, and I would ask the House to consider this course.

REORGANISATION OF BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION
3.52 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat to you a statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. This is the statement:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the initial steps the Government propose to take in the reorganisation of the British Transport Commission under the proposals recently approved by the House.
"In accordance with the new arrangements Sir Brian Robertson will, with my agreement, retire from the chairmanship of the Commission with effect from 1st June, 1961.
"The House will, I know, share to the full the Government's warm gratitude to Sir Brian for his outstanding services as Chairman of the Commission since 1953 and for the devotion with which he has carried out his heavy responsibilities. Having regard to the terms of the appointment, the Government intend to take powers in the forthcoming legislation to enable the Commission to pay him, in addition to his superannuation award, a sum of £12,500.
"I have decided to appoint Dr. Richard Beeching as Chairman-designate of the new Railways Board. Dr. Beeching is a Director of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, and was a member of the Special Advisory Group on the Reorganisation of the Commission. To enable him to take
880
part immediately in the preparatory work which has to be done, I have to-day appointed him to be a part-time member of the British Transport Commission. On Sir Brian Robertson's retirement, Dr. Beeching will become a full-time member of the Commission and will also assume the chairmanship until, when the reorganisation comes into effect, he can become the first Chairman of the British Railways Board.
"I take this opportunity of thanking Imperial Chemical Industries for releasing Dr. Beeching for five years.
"I told the House on 30th January last that, in view of the special nature of this task of reorganisation, it might be necessary at the start to bring in a few new people at the top, and that the Government would need to pay regard to the special needs in their search for the best available talent and in considering suitable terms. The Government consider it fortunate that Dr. Beeching is prepared to interrupt his career with the Imperial Chemical Industries for a period of five years to take up this especially challenging task. It would not be right to expect him, in addition, to accept a substantial financial sacrifice, and I have decided, with the agreement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Dr. Beeching shall be paid, from 1st June next, his present remuneration with Imperial Chemical Industries, which is £24,000 a year."
3.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord for giving us a copy of the statement made in another place. I think the first comment one might be allowed to make (one must be brief to-day) is that we share the view of the Minister with regard to the services of Sir Brian Robertson. We do not know how he has managed to do as much as he has done, with all the political interference he has had for the last seven-and-half years. Therefore we do not think that the Government is being especially over-generous to him in the allocation they are making to him, although it is quite generous for the period involved.
However, I must say that it raises the other question, and that is what sort of

881
compensation, through this change in Government policy, is going to be given to other services of the Transport Commission. There is not the slightest indication yet, so far as I can tell, as to what will be done in that line. There are various degrees, periods and characters of services which have been rendered, and the Government may well be assured that, in view of the step taken here and the subsequent one which I will mention, there will be many anxious inquiries as to their intentions with regard to compensation for a change in a given situation which is entirely due to Government policy.
Now I would refer to the new appointment. I think, in the circumstances, it is an extraordinary position in which Parliament is placed. As to the academic qualifications and a certain amount of commercial experience of Dr. Beeching, there can be no question at all. But Parliament has to face a situation in which a salary is to be paid on a commercial basis, according to the standards of Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, for a period of five years, in order to carry out a reorganisation which is apparently to be conducted on lines unknown to Parliament. It is to be conducted under the control of a member of the Group who made the recommendations as to what should be done, and the Government have not thought fit to submit those recommendations or that Report to Parliament. The cost will be £24,000 a year, with no indication at present whether that is completely inclusive of all superannuation charges or compensation involved. My comment at this stage is that it may be said politically that the people at large have "never had it so good"; but according to the valuations which are placed by the Government, or even by the directors of Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, on an individual's services, I think a lot of people will think that it is mainly a class which has "never had it so good".
4.0 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in reply to the points raised by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, I may say that the Government reached agreement with Sir Brian Robertson, who is perfectly satisfied that the Government had no desire except to acknowledge his ser-
882
vices and deal generously and properly with him. I would say that the Government intend to take powers in forthcoming legislation which will enable them to deal with any other member who may have to be dealt with. These powers have not yet been decided. Therefore I cannot inform your Lordships any further than that the Government will deal properly with anyone who falls to be dealt with. The noble Viscount said that he did not know what the proposals were. It is true, as was said at the outset, that the Government did not propose to publish a Report which was available to them and was one of the matters taken into account in deciding what the reorganisation should be. But the Government did publish a White Paper giving their proposals and that was available to your Lordships' House.
As regards the question of the remuneration proposed to be paid to Dr. Beeching, I would point out that it is merely continuing for him the remuneration he now enjoys outside, as I explained to your Lordships; and it seems right, as my right honourable friend said in his statement, that Dr. Beeching should not be asked to suffer in this respect. He is being loaned from the I.C.I., and the Government are merely continuing his remuneration.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, if that position applies, surely it applies whenever an industrialist joins the Government. Yet the Government pay their Ministers substantially less than, perhaps half of, what is offered to Dr. Beeching.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord has said.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in view of the fact that the White Paper made a feature of encouraging railwaymen to believe that they might achieve the highest posts, can the noble Lord say what principles have governed the Government's decision in this matter in choosing, instead of an experienced railwayman like Mr. Grand, a gentleman, however distinguished and experienced in business, who apparently has had no experience whatever in railways and transport?
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say that I agree with what the noble Lord,

883
Lord Stonham, said? I welcome very much the fact that Sir Brian Robertson will be made an ex gratia payment for his valuable services from 1953. There is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord, though I do not know whether he can reply now. How is it that the statement which we have just heard was announced this morning in the Daily Express? Secondly, I do not doubt in any way the technical capabilities of Dr. Beeching, as he is a Technical Director of I.C.I., but I would ask the noble Lord what administrative or operational experience he can have of railways. The noble Lord said that he would be employed for a period of five years. This seems to be the period during which the major part of the reorganisation and modernisation will take place. I wonder whether the noble Lord will not agree that possibly somebody with great experience of the operational side of railways should have been considered.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he considers that this debate is in order?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was just asking myself that question. I am always reluctant to interfere with attempts by noble Lords who ask questions after an important statement has been made. If I may make a suggestion, I think that instead of putting a series of questions, one after the other, your Lordships should try to put them one at a time, because I have noticed more than once that when there is a long series of questions, with each sneaker saying, "Before the noble Lord answers" the last, and then asking something totally different, we begin to get out of order. I think that if my noble friend answers the two questions just put to him, it might be for the convenience of the House if noble Lords refrained from further comment until there was an opportunity of debate on Question.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I would say that it is indeed desirable that every encouragement should be given to those in the railway service. With your Lordships' permission, I would read what my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport had to say in another place on
884
January 30 last. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 633 (No. 42), col. 618]:
"A new structure and reorganisation can do a great deal to make railway problems manageable, but of equal importance is the quality of the men who will provide leadership, and the morale of staff and workers. The railways must have the best leadership available. There must be opportunities in all parts of the railways for those with ability to get to the top. At the start it may be necessary to bring in a few new people. The task is challenging, and I believe that the time is crucial. The task is not only running one of the biggest industries in the country, if not the biggest; it is the task of transforming its structure, its outlook and its finances. The Government will have to have regard to these special needs in their search for the best available talent and in considering the terms on which it can be obtained."
I think that that answers the second question of the noble Lord. Lord Merrivale. There are many people. and there will be many people, concerned in the management of the railways, and many people with great experience of railways, but what is needed at this time is to have as Chairman of the Railways Board someone who has already studied the problems and who, in the opinion of the Government, is competent to take over that charge.
The noble Lord referred to an announcement in the Daily Express. I wish that I could answer his question. I do not know. But this I can tell him: that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport will take all steps open to him to try to find out.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient for the House if my noble friend Lord Newton were now to make his statement, before we resume the debate on Defence.

DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS BY DOCTORS
3.57 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships of the statement being made this afternoon by my honourable friend the Minister of Health in another place.
The statement is as follows:
"The Secretary of State for Scotland and I recently asked the Standing Joint Committee on the Classification of

885
Proprietary Preparations, of which Lord Cohen of Birkenhead is Chairman, to consider if they could help doctors in prescribing by giving more guidance on proprietary preparations.
"The Committee has now reported and the House will wish to know its principal conclusion. The Committee advise that, while there should continue to be no absolute restriction on the prescribing of any drug which the doctor considers necessary for the treatment of his patient, he need not normally go outside the drugs and preparations described from time to time in the British Pharmacopœia, the British Pharmaceutical Codex and the British National Formulary, together with the drugs that the Committee classify as N (new drugs of proved value not yet standard), and P (drugs for which there is prima facie evidence of therapeutic value but where the Committee want further evidence before firm classification). The Report goes on to advise that a doctor who prescribes other preparations may be liable to be called on to justify his action if the cost of his prescribing is being formally investigated.
"The Report will be published and, in consultation with the medical profession, will be brought to the attention of all doctors.
"My right honourable friend and I are aware that the pharmaceutical industry may be apprehensive of the effect of this advice on its future progress and development; but we are sure that any such apprehension would be ill-founded. Many standard preparations are, and will no doubt continue to be, available only in proprietary form, or cost little more or no more in proprietary than in unbranded form. This, together with categories N and P, and the individual doctor's professional discretion, will continue to provide full scope for the products of the industry's research and development to find their reward."
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to welcome this recommendation of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead. I think that it will go some way towards reducing the cost of these expensive and unnecessary
886
drugs which are consumed in the country to-day. May I gently remind the noble Lord that the spokesman for the Opposition on health in another place recommended that, this should be done, so far as drugs included in the British Pharmacopœia, the British Pharmaceutical Codex and the British National Formulary and those classified as "N" drugs are concerned. But I realise the difficulties that his Committee have been under during the past years. I would only ask him about those classified under "P". Does he think that we are leaving the door a little ajar for the more unscrupulous drug houses to bring pressure to bear on the more gullible doctors? I always feel that the test of any drug is the clinical test.
The other question that I would ask—and I listened to the noble Lord carefully—is with regard to doctors being asked to justify their prescribing. Only those doctors whose costs are under examination will be asked to justify their prescribing. I expect the noble Lord knows that comparatively few costs are examined, and therefore it may be that only a comparatively few doctors will be asked to justify their prescribing. The other point that I want to make is this. I would remind your Lordships that there may be a great outcry from the more Right wing of the medical profession, because they will allege that to-day their freedom has been taken from them. I think those of us who understand these problems are quite happy that proper treatment will be given to every patient, because your Lordships should remember that the first health insurance scheme in the world was introduced in Germany by Bismarck at the end of the last century; and in Germany for many years they have followed, and follow to-day; the advice which has just been given. They are also prepared to examine the prescribing of any doctor who they believe has over-prescribed or has prescribed an unnecessarily expensive product.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it is rather difficult for my noble friend to bear in mind a great number of comments, and I was wondering if the noble Lord would permit him to answer the noble Lady.
LORD AMULREE: Certainly.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am obliged for the general welcome which the noble Lady has given to the statement. The first question she asked was about the risk being taken in including drugs in category "P" among those which the Committee recommend should be prescribable. So far as I know, the noble Lady need not have any fears about this being an unnecessary risk; and I would emphasise that this is a recommendation of a very distinguished Committee. With regard to her second question, I should like to make it plain that the recommendations in this Report in no way alter the present position: that if a doctor appears to be prescribing excessively he may be asked to show that any drug, in whatever category it is, was necessary for the patient.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to welcome the statement which has been made and which will, I am sure, give a certain amount of satisfaction to members of the profession who have wondered whether there would be some restriction on prescribing. I am pleased to see that if a doctor thinks that certain drugs are necessary for his patient there will be no restriction on prescribing them. Secondly I understand that the Report is to be published and circulated and will be available to members of the profession. I am sure that most of them will try to do what they can to keep down the cost of prescribing expensive drugs.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord.

DEFENCE
4.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, perhaps I may recall to the House that some time ago we were talking about Defence. I feel that this debate has been a little confused, for two reasons. The first is that the Government are not clear in their own mind as to what they want from Defence. They are guilty, if not of double thought, at least of double talk; and they certainly need no lessons from Mr. Khrushchev in that particular respect. As far back as 1957, in the
888
famous White Paper which has been quoted so often to-day and yesterday, the Government said this:
"The growth in the power of weapons of mass destruction has emphasised the fact that no country can any longer protect itself in isolation. The defence of Britain is possible only as part of a collective defence of the free world".
Later on it says:
"Provided each member nation plays its fair part in the joint effort, it is not necessarily desirable that each should seek to contribute national forces which are themselves self-sufficient and balanced in all respects."
I think that is an excellent statement of the case; and it is one with which I, and, so far as I know, all Members of the Liberal Party, would entirely agree. In the present Report on Defence, in paragraph 23, the Government re-emphasise this point of view and say:
"A narrow, nationalistic policy for the choice and production of arms makes no sense to-day."
Again, we entirely agree; in fact, that point has been made by more than one speaker in this debate. But the Government do not carry out the policy which they advocate—and this is where the "double thought" and "double talk" come in. I believe that we really have the independent deterrent mainly to satisfy the gunboat mentality on their own Benches and not for any real defensive purpose whatever. I cannot believe that a Government who set out these admirable statements of policy can at the same time desire to go completely against them, as they do with regard to the independent deterrent.
Quite apart from the points I have been mentioning, and its failure to draw this clear distinction, the White Paper does not deal with any of the pressing points which ought to be dealt with in the world of Defence to-day—particularly our relationship with N.A.T.O. and the various problems which the N.A.T.O. Commander-in-Chief, General Norstad, has put to the Parliaments and Governments of the Atlantic Alliance. There is no need for me to go over these points again for they were clearly stated in the debate in your Lordships' House as recently as January 25. That is less than two months ago. On that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, took part. May I say that he knew all about General Norstad, because he and I were sitting next to each other when General Norstad

889
made his famous speech. So he knows exactly the points I am referring to in that debate.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, speaking less than two months ago, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 227 (No. 29), col. 1266]:
"May I, in conclusion, say why I feel the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is so particularly timely? There are two reasons. The first is that the N.A.T.O. Powers are now confronted with a whole complex of unresolved and vastly important problems. There are the strategic and military problems to which much attention has been paid in this debate."
A little later he said:
"To my mind, all these problems are important and all are pressing; and their resolution is overdue."
My Lords, it was overdue on January 25 last. It is even more overdue to-day. Yet in his speech to-day the noble Earl gave no indication at all that anything was overdue: everything in the military garden, he said, was lovely.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is being quite fair on this. I have no intention of eating any words I said in public, and I do not think I have any need to do so. Because what I said at this Box about an hour ago was that a whole segment of vital problems was at this very moment under review by N.A.T.O. in the N.A.T.O. Council.
LORD OGMORE: What the noble Earl said on January 25 was that "their resolution is overdue." And it is bound to be more overdue to-day. Taking that speech as it was given, it must be a clear indication to all of us that the Government were guilty of considerable delay in coming to a conclusion on these various important points. On none of the points that were raised in General Norstad's speech have we had any indication from the First Lord, or from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—and I venture the prophecy that we shall have none, either, from the Lord President—as to what is exactly the British point of view on these important points.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like to know what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is trying to say. My noble friend has said that these things are being discussed in N.A.T.O. circles between Governments. Can the noble Lord really be asking us to declare in public a positive position, in advance
890
of our Allies? Is that what he is asking us to do? I just want to know.
LORD OGMORE: I will tell you what I am asking you to do; and that is to make up your minds on these points, and give a lead in Europe. Your own Back Benchers have said so. Just a moment; you can interrupt in a moment. Ask the Back Benchers who were at N.A.T.O. They will tell you how the other nations in N.A.T.O. consider that we have dragged our feet on military and other points for years past. When the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that resolution of these problems was "overdue", he meant it; and he is quite right. I am just pointing out that even now we have not been given by the Government any decision on these important matters.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think I am entitled to press the noble Lord on this point. I asked him about his main criticism of the Government, which seems to me to indicate that he thought some positive statement in answer to these questions should have been given in this debate or in the White Paper. Is it or is it not the view of the Liberal Party, for whom he speaks, that we ought to make statements of that kind in advance of discussion with our Allies?
LORD OGMORE: I should like to know who are dragging their feet. It is all very well hiding behind the fact that no agreement has been arrived at with our Allies. But whose fault is that? For all we know, it may be the British Government who are holding up agreement, and this may be just a smokescreen behind which the Government can hide. So I am not at all impressed by that challenge of the Lord President. I am not at all satisfied that the Government are giving the lead in military matters in N.A.T.O. which they should have done. On certain of the matters raised by General Norstad there is no objection whatsoever to the Government making their decision quite clear to this House and to the country at large. It is the sort of thing which can greatly affect this country, because no other N.A.T.O. country except the United States has the independent deterrent.
The Labour Party—and this is the second reason why I think the debate has been rather confused—have put up

891
seven policies on Defence, any of which you can choose. The Lord Chancellor will remember the famous Duck case, when the counsel put up seven defences and was asked by the judge which the jury was to choose. The counsel said: "You can take any one of them. I do not mind. Any one is as good as the other." That seems to me to be the attitude of the Labour Party: they have put up seven policies. But the official policy of the Labour Party is. of course, unilateralism. The noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council, whether he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek or asking for information, or whether he was simply trying to upset the equanimity of the Front Bench—and one can hardly accuse him of that—was quite right in putting that point to the noble Viscount Lord Alexander of Hillsborough yesterday. For we are entitled to know what is the policy of the Labour Party on this important issue.
As I understand the situation, the official Labour policy is unilateralism. The policy put forward by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, yesterday was, so far from unilateralism, that he wished to retain the independent nuclear deterrent; and he urged the Government to increase the conventional forces, particularly the Navy. The noble Viscount is quite logical in all this, because he has not changed. To be fair to him, he has always held those views, and he has quite conscientiously expressed them. But they are poles apart from the official policy of the Labour Party. One would have thought that the policies of the Labour Party would have been exhausted, but there was a new one from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who said that it did not matter having nuclear weapons so long as they were obsolete. I will leave it at that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, who, as I have said before, has left us for a less progressive position, has enjoyed himself very much on this point. But he had sufficient evidence of the Labour movement to know that it does not matter whether there is a division of opinion coming from the Left Wing or the Right Wing. We have a right to discuss it afterwards,
892
whether it has been passed or not; and we go on discussing it. What counts is what the representatives of the people in Parliament decide shall be submitted to Parliament.
LORD OGMORE: We will leave it at that.
So far as the Liberal Party are concerned, all I need say is that both the Parliamentary Party and the Assembly are agreed. We are agreed that we should not retain the independent deterrent, but should support the Western Alliance and N.A.T.O. to the full, and strive for a multilateral disarmament. That is quite a clear-cut policy. It was one supported not only by the Liberal Party, but by many other equally distinguished people, people of great experience in the Armed Forces and others.
I think, if I may say so, that the wind of change will before very long blow the Conservative Party along to that policy. They will not admit it, of course. We know how the Conservative Party changes. I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord, the present First Lord, or his predecessor (I think it may have been he himself) who two or three years ago, in one of these debates, answered a point I had made. I suggested that the Government should do what they are now going to do—that is, to fly troops abroad for exercises. We were told then that this could not possibly happen. It was inconceivable, that British troops could ever be flown out of this country abroad on exercises, because it would be so expensive and so administratively impossible that he wondered how anybody with the slightest idea of the Services, such as I assumed myself to have, could have possibly put up such an absurd suggestion. Now they are to do it. Not only that. They have made a training camp in Borneo, of all places, where they are now flying out troops for exercises—and I do not blame them; it is good idea. But they pour cold water on many suggestions made here, and afterwards quitely adopt them. I am quite sure your Lordships will see that in a year or two the Conservative Benches will adopt the Liberal policy on defence.
I should like to make one further point about conventional forces. This is the real crux of the question, as I see it.

893
If we are spending such a vast amount of money on our deterrent, we are not able to afford the quality or the numbers of conventional forces. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, quite rightly said (he gave the figures and I will not repeat them) in Germany they are neither equipped nor in sufficient number to keep our promise to the N.A.T.O. Alliance and to be really efficient as part of the shield forces. I would re-emphasise that General Norstad has said that the first requirement is to have conventional forces with a substantial conventional capability and that those forces must be adequate in quantity, in weapons and in what he called "survival posture" (I am not quite sure what that means)—and this on an urgent basis. This is what he said last November. To-day, the conventional forces are not in that position so far as N.A.T.O. is concerned, and our forces, unfortunately, are not sufficient in quantity or equipped with adequate weapons or in other respects as the Commander-in-Chief would wish. How are we going to get them? When are we going to get them?
One point has not been mentioned at all in this debate and it is a very important point. You can get the horse to the water; you can start him drinking; but he does not seem to drink very long. So far as the infantry are concerned—I am not quite sure what the figure is in regard to the other arms; it may be the same or it may be less or more—one in five of all recruits into the Army leave within three months. That is a very serious figure. I do not think it has been mentioned though I may be wrong—I gather I am. However, it has not been developed. Yet that is a very serious figure, because a loss of one in five, 20 per cent., within three months is an enormous wastage. However attractive our recruiting posters, and however great our recruiting efforts may be, if 20 per cent. leave within the first three months there is something radically wrong. Quite a number of the recruits leave because they are medically unfit, but only yesterday the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, told us that they were going to have another review of the medical requirements.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, what I said was that we should
894
not know until the end of this year what the position would be about the 165,000, but that before we came to a decision on the question of reintroducing National Service or some form of selective service there were other ideas which we ought to examine, among which was that of reducing medical standards.
LORD OGMORE: I have got the quotation. He says (col. 773):
"The shortages, we believe, will be only limited and temporary,"—
Why that should be so I do not know. There are no grounds for thinking that.
"and there are ways other than the reintroduction of National Service for dealing with them—for example, by adjustment of medical and educational standards, and further civilianisation. All those methods would be examined."
I am simply saying that as 20 per cent. now leave the Forces for one reason or another—quite a number of them on medical grounds; they are found to be unfit to serve—and as quite a number of them have to have three months' schooling as soon as they get in because their educational standards are so low, what hope has the noble Lord, by a reduction in the already low medical and educational standards, of increasing the number in the Forces? I should have thought that art attempt to reduce the standards either of physical capacity or of educational capacity, which are not high by any means, would be a retrograde step.
I mention this point because not only is it our great drawback so far as N.A.T.O. is concerned, but I do not agree with suggestions that have been made very largely in this country that we should cut down our overseas forces in areas other than N.A.T.O. I think it is most important in certain areas, most of which are mentioned in the White Paper, to retain troops on the ground. If we evacuate troops, as is suggested, from places like Gibraltar, Hong Kong and East Africa, I cannot see how the authorities in those places could be responsible for law and order. There are very few battalions scattered over the world, and to reduce the numbers any further would be disastrous. Another suggestion that has been made is that we should reduce the number of troops in the West Indies. So far as I know, there is only one battalion in the whole

895
of the West Indies, that vast area. Really, if it has come to this, that in order to supply the conventional forces that we need we have to remove the only battalion in the West Indies, then I think the Government's policy must be very wrong.
My Lords, I believe that in all probability we shall have to spend even more on the forces than we do at present, on their amenities—perhaps even on their pay. The fact is that I think we should find certain men going into the Army, whatever the conditions were, even if the conditions were very poor indeed. They are the natural soldiers. It would not matter really what conditions were like; there would still be the basic element in the Army, because they love soldiering—within reason of course. But in a labour sellers' market, which we have to-day, it is quite impossible to suppose that we can get the balance of the Regular professional Army without inducements better than the inducements of civil life. After all, the soldier, sailor and airman have to put up with restrictions on their freedom, with being moved to various parts of the world at short notice, which the civilian has not.
For all these reasons, we have to do better than the civilian employer does. We have to increase the inducement to the soldier, sailor and airman. That means, my Lords, that we can no longer—and this is the point I am making—afford the independent deterrent, which is merely a vestige of the gunboat era; it is merely a sop to Conservative Back Benchers. We ought to spend all the money we can afford for the Armed Forces on the soldier, sailor and airmen, and on the conventional armaments, and forsake the other, relying for protection on our situation as part of the Western deterrent of N.A.T.O. and other organisations of that kind.
4.40 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I would apologise for the fact that I was absent from the beginning of this debate. I would obviously not have been absent for any discourteous reason, but the date of the debate was advanced by a day and I had a longstanding engagement which it was impossible to forgo. I crave your Lordships' indulgence and I apologise, although I make
896
no apology for turning from the Armed Services to the Fourth Service, the question of Civil Defence. For all those who have been concerned in any way whatsoever with Civil Defence the implications of the White Paper of a further spending is a very welcome sign, because the spending of the greater amount of money will make a great deal of difference to Civil Defence in the whole of the country.
At the start, I must declare that I have a very real interest in this regard, inasmuch as I am closely associated with two auxiliary Civil Defences—the W.V.S., which is the Women's Auxiliary to Civil Defence. Many things have been both written and said about Civil Defence but, taking the United Kingdom as a whole, few people—too few—have devoted more than a most perfunctory attention to the whole question of Civil Defence, what it means, what it deserves from them and what it deserves from the nation. Those men and women—they are less than one per cent. of the adult population of the country—have in proportion done all they can to inform themselves of the rudimentary methods which must govern their work if any attack be made on this country. They have learned what will be required of them if ever they are called upon to serve the community in the event of attack.
They know that Civil Defence is in itself a worth-while form of insurance, a way of defraying one's responsibility to the community; that it exists to safeguard as far as possible, and to restore, that which remains in the community after an attack should nuclear war occur. They have learned that although casualties would be very heavy, survivors would also be great in number. Not only would it be necessary to cope with the horror of fire, the aftermath of blast and the problems of fall-out, but the continuation of life itself. The strengthening of the morale of the survivors must depend on the readiness with which Civil Defence members can undertake their commitments and can help to start some sort of of day-to-day life within the community. Those people who have joined Civil Defence have learned something of what to expect. Their training aims to teach them not only how they can use themselves and the members of the Corps, but how they can use those who are available at the time in any way that is possible.

897
Of course, it is true to say that if you were within a certain distance of a hydrogen bomb you would be instantly destroyed; but it is also true to say that if you are outside a given radius, you can survive if you know how to take the simple precautions that help to preserve life, and how to appreciate instructions in regard to "staying put" for a definite time. This country has been bedevilled from time immemorial by its weather, but it might be that in this regard it could be our greatest standby.
When I was a girl, the catchword of the day was "muddle through". We learned in the bad years of the last war that it was no longer a way to protect others; that in an age of specialised knowledge it is necessary to follow the trend, not slavishly but with common sense, of training for the job; and that is why training is to-day so much a part of Civil Defence—training, not just how to command, or how to deploy, but how to do and how to be. These are things that need to be done within a network of the necessary services. The value of communications and the speed with which their interruption must be overcome, the appraisal of situations and their full evaluation in relation to radio activity and fall-out, as well as of the other dangers, must be understood and techniques mastered.
Speedy action in taking cover and the keeping of people where there is most protection, however difficult; the full value of instant action and reporting in regard to fires; the assessing of situations in regard to local conditions, be they survivors that must be cared for, radio-active conditions which must be guarded against, food problems which must be accurately judged and reported, immediate situations which must be handled if life is to be safeguarded—all these are but a few of the phases that those who are occupied with Civil Defence must understand and for which those who join Civil Defence must be trained: training how to be, so as to provide the courage necessary to face a sudden holocaust, which would have as its object as much to destroy a nation's morale as to eliminate its life.
Civil Defence has many facets, and while extra expenditure will help in many ways, the ultimate worth of Civil Defence as a national service, its real need and its real strength, must always
898
lie in the numbers of reliable and trained volunteers it can count on; and this, in turn, must depend on the national interest and support shown by the leaders, not only of the community, but of the nation itself. People do not join Civil Defence because they like it. They join it—this is indicated by the figures as they are reported—because individually they have come to the conclusion that it is their duty to do so. This is a laudable and a right motive; but it has had the inevitable result that there are too many older people in Civil Defence, and this must be rectified if Civil Defence is to be what it should be.
The country is sadly short of wardens—the pivot post in Civil Defence. This type of responsibility has to be trained for, and should be assumed by those who are able to shoulder control and are of an age to face stress and strain. It is clear that the men and women who could do this work and do it well do not, as yet, recognise sufficiently its importance, because of the lack of support given to Civil Defence by those in high places. Industrial Civil Defence has made great strides, and excellent work has been done by those who have been organising it. But, just as there is a need for leadership from the centre for Civil Defence as a whole, so would industrial Civil Defence be benefited and greatly enriched if the captains of commerce, indeed the admirals of commerce, showed some sort of concern about it. Voices raised in the wilderness are apt to have only their own echo, and in this age of sound transmission the populace, if they are to play any sort of realistic part in this undertaking of Civil Defence, must have a louder clarion call than they are getting—a call to endeavour, a call to continuity of effort. That call must be made by the centre and not by their own well known protagonists.
The country as a whole is curiously unaware of what Civil Defence really means, and indeed of what it is trying to do. But it is even more unaware of what the potential threat is, and what conditions might have to be met. This nation may be slow—possibly it may be not only slow, but apathetic—but it is comprised of men and women who can never have their courage questioned; and if facts were faced, and if men and

899
women realised, or perhaps I should say recognised, that even if there were millions of casualties there would still be millions of survivors, they would then also realise and recognise that these millions of survivors are the people who are the responsibility of us all; and the only machinery so far devised to care for them on a post-attack basis is Civil Defence.
There can be no question at all that much more leadership has been needed in this difficult period of time when Civil Defence, which is something that everyone should acclaim, has become a thing almost not to be mentioned in public. Men and women have given their time, their energy, their everything, in order to keep alive something they believe in. And I think a great meed of praise should go to the little man and the little woman at the local level who have given of themselves in order not only to fulfil their Civil Defence duties but to face the tedium of training so that they would be able to cope with the situation were it ever to occur. It is true that training at the start was of a monotonous type, but this is gradually being rectified, and to-day training is more realistic than ever it was before; and this is indeed a step in the right direction.
It seems to me that too many people in the world feel that having an idea and passing it on to somebody else to carry through is enough. I long to see a practical solution to the problem of Civil Defence, and I think it could be achieved if everyone who could think would take the trouble to think through and not just "fluff" the thought, and if, having done that, they could assume the responsibility that they decided was theirs. It is obvious that the measure of responsibility would be the greater for those who had a greater evaluation and understanding of their own place in relation to others within the life of the nation. But if people throughout Great Britain were to evaluate their own responsibility to the nation and would then give this in a definite contribution to Civil Defence, a great deal of work would result for Civil Defence. The country would thus have a great strength on which to rely, the nation would feel that its leadership was good, and eventually Civil Defence would be so strong that poten-
900
tial enemies would hesitate to contemplate an attack. We have often been told that no nation ever attacks another if it is not sure of a certain percentage of success; and if, as a nation, we have a resistance strong enough to make it not worth while attacking us, surely we are paying a fair rent for our room on earth.
Responsibility for Civil Defence is delegated, as your Lordships know well, to local authorities. To my mind, this is right and proper, and I believe that many who have given a good deal of thought to the subject would agree that the responsibility for Civil Defence—which means responsibility not only for the service but for the training and keeping of the whole Corps up to date, should be delegated and decentralised. It is unthinkable that Civil Defence could be controlled from the centre. Delegation and decentralisation are the only hope for its proper working; and this delegation to regions, to counties and county boroughs, as corps authorities, is necessary because of the strength that could be invoked at the shortest possible notice. Local authority services, whether they be water, or sewage, housing or medical, welfare or other public services, are all closely concerned and need to be handled by those who have the value of experience as well as knowledge of the locality. But, even so, it is extremely difficult for local authorities to keep what is a national service at the level and standard of a national service without a great deal of central backing, central stimulus and central encouragement.
I understand well some of the many difficulties of any Government in this regard. I know from long experience that the timing of support from the centre is something which has to be jealously guarded. But I also know that the withholding of such stimulus can have an atrophying effect on local endeavour and can eventually stultify it to such an extent that the thing itself dies of inanition. Men and women, many of whom can ill afford it—and I do not mean in finance but in health, time and personal relationships—have been the backbone of Civil Defence in the lean years. They have kept the premiums of our national insurance paid in this respect, and I hope that if they can be strengthened in their resolve by a new stimulus, Civil Defence may look

901
to a realisation by all the members of the community of their duty to play their part.
Most people join the Services because they have a feeling that they would like to be in the Navy, the Army or the Air Force. But men and women do not join Civil Defence because they like it as a Service; they join because they believe it to be their duty to do so; and in a way I cannot help feeling that that is a much better reason. But that particular reason will not have its full worth unless the leadership of Civil Defence is strengthened by men and women who, devoting their time and their understanding to the philosophy which must be behind the undertaking itself, can give a really thoughtful steering to the future of the Service, so that it can be a strength to the country and eventually, through that strength, help to bring peace to the world
4.54 p.m.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, I wish to speak to your Lordships on the subject of Civil Defence, but not, I need scarcely say, with either the knowledge or ability of the noble Lady who has spoken before me. I, too, declare an interest, but not for myself—rather for your Lordships, because if this business goes wrong, I can only say you are all "for it", including the Front Bench opposite. I heard a lot of oratory this afternoon on the golden statue of Defence, but the subject on which I am talking is feet of clay. Oddly enough, in this Defence White Paper the foot of clay has at last got into the door. It has got its earthy foot another inch further into the door than it had last year. Last year there were three inches of script in the White Paper. This year there are four inches; and that, I am sure, is something of which to be proud.
Civil Defence also got quite a bit in Annex III. To me that has always been a queer term. I thought it was a kind of ladies' annex round the corner. That is on page 15 of the White Paper. It will be seen that in 1960 the Post Office were included, while this year they are not included in those figures. I am afraid I wasted a considerable amount of time trying to work out how the extra £3 million was coming to Civil Defence this year, but I think in the end I was satisfied. Your Lordships will notice also, that Civil Defence has none
902
of the pretty pictures, the cartoons which have been referred to this afternoon. Civil Defence has not even a place in what I would describe as the "phalanx" of the nation, on page 18, and that seems to me a very great omission.
Little things like these do not give one confidence in the co-operation between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, or, indeed, in the wish of the Government to tell the country how they really stand. Cannot we hope to have some more figures?—because, after all, they are, or can be made, encouraging. What we want in this business of Civil Defence is encouragement. What are the war duty establishments throughout the country, both in ordinary Civil Defence and in industrial Civil Defence? I know there are war duty establishments, because we have them in our county organisation, but we are not told, in this White Paper, what they are, or what is the present strength. Nor are we told anything of the relative functions of industrial and ordinary Civil Defence. There, also, I would ask whether the Government are really satisfied. I think not.
In 1960, scientific officers were referred to and the position with regard to them was said to be especially encouraging. I went away from that debate particularly encouraged, except that I knew that out of the twelve scientific officers we had only two in my county. We still have only two. We have lost one and found another. I believe my county is second in strength in the southern region, and yet we have only one-eighth of the warden strength. When one looks at it, that proportion is very small. One might say, for example, that we on the Liberal Benches would be the wardens for the whole of the Conservative Benches opposite—and, indeed, perhaps we are. One must realise that trained personnel cannot be produced all of a sudden. It is not a bit of good coming at the last minute and saying, "Let us have Civil Defence", because that is not possible.
Education is the basis of Civil Defence, and among the daily Press the Daily Mail, early this month, began to tell the people that they need not necessarily die if they should come into contact with nuclear fall-out, if only they will learn what to do. The noble Lady who spoke before me referred to the educational efforts of the "one in five" scheme of

903
the W.V.S., the Women's Voluntary Services. There is no doubt—I have seen them in action in my county—that the W.V.S. and their "one in five" scheme are doing a wonderful job of education, but only for women. Of course, the noble Lady knows perfectly well, as indeed your Lordships do, that the women have greater imagination than the men and so are very much more forthcoming. That is all there is to it.
The Minister of Education takes cover behind the idea that he must not interfere with what is taught in the schools. That is all very well, and, in theory, it is right. But he has Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, and they go round and have no hesitation whatever in giving their views about whether this or that is taught properly or taught in the right place. They are very firm about it. I suggest that, if it is really the Government's policy to get on with Civil Defence, the Minister of Education might add weight to his inspectors, who, at any rate, would be able to pass it on to the schools that they inspect. I do not know how many of these inspectors or, indeed, how many of the other members of the educational profession have attended a course at the Civil Defence Staff College. I expect it would be tactless to ask. But it would be a very good thing if they did attend. There was a nice course for your Lordships five or six months ago. It was most interesting.
I believe that the technical college is the right place—and the age of students there is right—at which to teach Civil Defence. I certainly believe that any student, man or woman, who accepts a grant to go to a university should be expected to give some personal service to the country in return. That seems to be a reasonable idea. Why should hundreds and thousands of students go and have a merry time and an admirable time at the universities, paid for by the country, or very largely paid for by the country, and in return give nothing, except, of course, their quality when they leave?
I am not altogether happy about the policy of paragraph 42 of this White Paper. It suggests that:
"available Service manpower could be effectively deployed to aid the civil power…".
I think that "available" is probably the key word there. I feel that the Govern-
904
ment's tongue is, so to speak, in its cheek in using that expression. I cannot imagine that any manpower, with our reduced numbers in the Services, could possibly be available to aid our civil power. We used to have mobile columns and National Servicemen. Now they have gone; the Services are reduced, and I believe they will be fully employed, if occasion comes, in minding the enemy. I would much rather read in this paragraph that Civil Defence will be available to help the Services with the enemy, for I think the Services will need their help to steer them through the columns of refugees and through the nuclear areas, the fall-out areas. Of course, they may have their schemes already; I do not know. Let Civil Defence realise, which they then would, that they are supporting the Services and the Civil Defence will itself become a more proud Service.
We read in paragraph 41 of the White Paper that
"this…programme will make possible improved progress".
I hope sincerely that it may be so. But, have no doubt, these schemes are dry bones, and they are expensive bones, unless the Government can breathe more life into them. Do your Lordships envy the new Inspector General of Civil Defence his job of inspecting his dry bones? I do not think it will be a very pleasant one, or very encouraging, at present. I hope that under the urge of this House the Government will take seriously the duty of giving the bones life.
5.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Swan-borough, I must apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I was unable to be present at the first part of this debate yesterday afternoon and for the same reason: that the debate was put forward at rather short notice and I had an appointment which I was unable to alter. I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Saye and Sele, nor, for that matter, the noble Baroness, on the path of civil defence; though I, like the noble Lord, welcome the fact that it has now four inches in the White Paper instead of three.
But, my Lords, I will come back, if I may, to the more military side of the

905
White Paper. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, opposite will be disappointed to find that I am not, in fact, going to tear it to pieces as he expected ex-Members of the Front Bench perhaps to do. I find it a balanced document. We cannot have everything: we must cut our coat according to our cloth. I think that the wise advice which serving officers who form the advisory body which advises the Government have given on the matter has certainly on this occasion been good and as balanced as one can get. If I had any criticism, I might, perhaps, say that I wished there might be more spent on anti-submarine work, in view of the remarks in paragraph 3 of the White Paper that
"The Soviet fleet of submarines is of great size."
But we are basing our defences wisely on N.A.T.O. Another point that I personally should like to see altered is this. N.A.T.O. itself should be extended on its flanks, particularly its Southern flank. We shall, one of these days, be outflanked if it ever comes to a shooting war. Also, while on the subject of N.A.T.O., I should like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what my noble friend Lord Birdwood said yesterday in welcoming the fact that German troops might exercise in this country. If we are going to be a part of N.A.T.O. and knit the countries of N.A.T.O together, and knit the German forces into the N.A.T.O. forces, then we must welcome Germany as in fact France, who suffered so much under her heel, has done already.
Bomber Command, I am glad to hear from the noble Earl in front of me, is in good heart. I am one who fully subscribes to the fact that we ourselves should have our own deterrent. It costs only 10 per cent. of the bill—I say only 10 per cent., but it is a large sum of money—and I regard it as 10 per cent. spent very well. Incidentally, the noble Earl was talking about being an honorary corporal, or an acting-brigadier, in the French Army. I think he is lucky that he was not for a few short seconds a marshal, because a maréchal des logis in the French Army would certainly be looked upon with great scorn by a corporal when washing out the ablutions and doing the other
906
horrible jobs that a maréchal des logis has to do.
My Lords, this has been a long debate, and I will not go into detailed criticisms, which I will reserve for the debates on the Estimates themselves, except to mention one point—that is conscription. In spite of the pessimism of noble Lords opposite, particularly on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I understand that the Government's plans are not going so badly as it would seem. I think it would be a very backward step to revert to conscription. The units themselves, of all three Services, are much happier without having in their midst men who have had to he dragooned into them. One man in a unit, if he is disgruntled because he has to be there, can be a source of very sore thought and feeling, and very bad for morale. Incidentally, I did not quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was talking about when he spoke of establishment, and of being up to establishment. I cannot believe that he did not have the same experience as myself in the R.A.F.; for no unit that I was in was ever up to establishment. That is one of the crosses that C.O.'s always have had, and always will have, up to a point, to bear.
The main burden of what I should like to say is on the subject of disarmament, both full disarmament and unilateral disarmament. The White Paper opens with the remarks
"There is only one answer to the threat to mankind posed by armaments. This is to reach a satisfactory agreement on general disarmament under effective international control."
With those words I, and I am sure all civilised people, heartily agree. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the attainment of this goal is not helped by propagandists of unilateral disarmament, whether they are merely people who walk down the street with banners or wherever they state their case, and in whatever form they do so. I do not say that they have no right to do so. 'This is a free country, and one has one's right to say what one feels and thinks. But it certainly seems a pity that they do not think for a bit before they propagand this form of activity, this proposition, which, in the eyes of the world—and, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel said, in the eyes of America—makes it appear that

907
we are becoming a neutralist nation. That, I am sure we are all agreed, is one thing which we are not. These people must not forget the words in paragraph 2 of this White Paper that:
"the strength of the Soviet forces remains formidable".
Formidable it does remain, my Lords. And one must remember that if it were not, first of all, for the deterrent, and now for N.A.T.O., those forces would be, and still could be, within a day's march of these very shores. Our strength against that is with N.A.T.O., and in combining with the Western and the Free World; and the last thing we must do is to give to the outer world this feeling that we are going, in however short a manner, towards neutralism.
On the subject of disarmament there is, however, one point on which I am rather pessimistic. We are hoping that one day, one day soon, we shall get agreement with the Russians (and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned this) to have full disarmament—and, of course, we had that startling statement by Mr. Khrushchev some time ago in which he suggested complete and utter disarmament at once. But it occurs to me, my Lords, that we ought not to expect that disarmament will hasten fast. I think it will hasten slowly, and for the reason that I cannot see how Russia can agree to disarmament unless China does, too; and, although it would appear that Russia can dictate to China, I frankly do not quite see that that in fact is so.
So, my Lords, I think there is no doubt that we must work towards disarmament, but we must not try to hasten it by advice for unilateral disarmament ourselves, because we shall only end up with the miscalculation of the 'thirties, when Hitler thought that we were "yellow".
5.16 p.m.
LORD HARDING OF PETHERTON: My Lords, I should like to begin my remarks by assuring the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that I most heartily welcome the decision to convert another carrier into a commando carrier and to build an assault ship. I fully agree that two fish sharing one tail is far better than one fish without a tail. I should infinitely prefer two fish, each with its own tail.
There are two other announcements in the White Paper which I also most
908
warmly welcome. I refer first to the statement in paragraph 15 in regard to the setting up of new Near and Middle East Commands on a unified basis, and I hope that the proposal to do the same in the Far East will not be long delayed. I am sure that that is a big step forward in developing our command structure overseas on modern and up-to-date lines. Secondly, I welcome very warmly the statement in paragraph 31 of the White Paper that we are to resort in future—and here I quote—to a system
"of preparing in the early summer of each year a full forward costing of the defence programme, covering the following five financial years".
In my own experience, immense sums of money have been wasted or misapplied in defence expenditure over the years by rigid adherence to the system of annual budgeting, and if the Minister of Defence can make a reality of the intention which is implicit in the paragraph to which I have referred, and can institute a system of five-year budgeting for weapons, equipment and building for defence purposes, he will, I am sure, be rendering an outstanding service to the Armed Forces and to the country. I also congratulate the Government most heartily on, at long last, having authorised the award of a General Service Medal for operations in Southern Arabia, and in that respect I would say, "Better late than never; but better never late".
Now I should like to address myself as briefly as I can to the more controversial questions of manpower for the Armed Forces, the balance between our nuclear and so-called conventional forces, and the extent to which our forces in Europe should be dependent upon or independent of so-called tactical nuclear weapons. That latter question I find the most difficult problem of all, and as it directly affects the second problem I have mentioned and has some bearing on the first I propose to deal with it first.
It has been argued in this debate—and similar arguments were advanced the other day in another place—that, irrespective of the target or the type and size of projectile, the use of nuclear weapons in a local or limited conflict would lead directly and inevitably to all-out nuclear war. To put it another way, it is claimed, as I understand it, that the integration of nuclear weapons into the

909
armoury of the land forces of N.A.T.O. has made it impossible for the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe to take any military action in Europe without precipitating global nuclear war. If that is so, it does, I fully agree, present us with a most serious situation. I know there are those—and I think there are many—who argue that if fighting breaks out between East and West in Europe the conflict cannot be limited in any case. I personally do not share that view. On the other hand, the cost of providing land and tactical air forces capable of operating effectively, without or with nuclear weapons, according to taste, seems to me to be prohibitive. What is more, and speaking professionally, I find it extremely difficult to envisage effective arrangements for turning what I would describe as a non-nuclear weapon force into a nuclear weapon force at very short notice if, unexpectedly, it is subjected to nuclear attack by the enemy. Then, again, how can any commander hope to maintain the morale and the offensive spirit of his forces if they are launched into battle without nuclear weapons against an enemy who may or may not be equipped with such weapons, and may or may not be intending to use them?
Those are some of the practical difficulties which seem to me to arise out of this question, and I wonder very much whether the use of nuclear weapons for tactical purposes in a local conflict would directly and inevitably lead to total war. Of course, there is always a risk that what starts as a local conflict may rapidly extend; but whether that happens or not will not, in my opinion, necessarily and always depend on whether or not nuclear weapons are used within the area of the conflict. It will depend, in my view, on whether or not the bone of contention is considered by the enemy to be worth the risk of suicide. In other words, it will depend more than anything else on the credibility or otherwise of our nuclear strategic striking force as an annihilating retaliatory instrument of war.
My Lords, throughout history war has been limited, sometimes by accident, sometimes by design. In this century there have been two examples of limited war—the Civil War in Spain, and the Korean War. Even the Second World War did not become total, in that poison
910
gas was not used by either side—I admit for different reasons—and some regard was paid to the so-called rules of war. I can see no reason to suppose that when both sides decide that it is to their advantage to localise the conflict, wars will not be limited in the future as they have been in the past. In fact, it is my belief that the factor of fear of extermination if the conflict is allowed to spread, provides a stronger reason than ever before in favour of localisation by both sides. Consequently, the all-important consideration in localising a conflict is, I submit, not whether or not nuclear weapons are used, but what type of nuclear weapons are used, and what targets they are aimed at: and, perhaps even more important than that, whether the door is left open for a settlement of the conflict which can be accepted by both sides. If the enemy can be made to realise preferably before, and certainly very soon after, fighting breaks out that he cannot have it all his own way except by recourse to total war, he is likely to compromise.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble and gallant Field Marshal a question? I am much obliged to him for the clear statement he has made, but is it not a question not merely of the size of the nuclear weapon in regard to a limited war, but also of what is your target? Is it merely an enemy target, or is it one involving a fall-out from a weapon which you fire at them and which involves the whole population? That is a very serious matter to consider, because once you have made an attack of that kind as the first structure, then we submit that you call forth back on you the heaviest kind of nuclear attack which you can expect.
LORD HARDING OF PETHERTON: My Lords, I find myself pretty well in complete agreement with what the noble Viscount has said. May I repeat what I said just now? I said that consequently the all-important consideration in localising a conflict is not whether or not nuclear weapons are used, but what type of nuclear weapons are used, and what targets they are aimed at. I would agree with the noble Viscount that if, for example, there was a local conflict in Europe between East and West, and in the course of that conflict the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in

911
Europe were to aim Polaris missiles at a target which was right outside the area of the conflict, even if it could be described as of an interdiction type, that would not be what I should consider to be the correct use of nuclear weapons in a local and limited conflict. The whole problem bristles with difficulties. Whatever weapon you use calls for great skill and discretion and, I would say, judgment and wisdom, on the part of the commander who is controlling the forces concerned, and perhaps even more important still, on the political aims of the Governments that support him, and on the directive which he is given by those Governments. But I cannot see any sound argument for saying that because a weapon used is in itself nuclear, it must necessarily lead inevitably and directly to total war.
That, my Lords, I submit, is the nub of the primary problem which faces N.A.T.O. to-day. In paragraph 21 of the Report under discussion, it is stated that a full study of N.A.T.O. nuclear strategy is being made. But from all I hear and know and have read of the higher direction of N.A.T.O., I, personally, am not very hopeful that the study now being made will provide satisfactory answers to this very difficult problem, having regard to the statements which already have been made and which I think have been referred to in your Lordships' House this afternoon, about the use, for example, of Polaris. I had the advantage of some recent discussion with the German General who is now to be the Chairman of the Military Committee of N.A.T.O. From that discussion and from what I know from past experience of the N.A.T.O. higher structure, both political direction and command, I would say that the whole of the N.A.T.O. organisation —the higher direction, the superstructure, both political and military—calls for reorganisation, and, indeed, revitalisation, to bring it into line with present-day needs.
However that may be, my Lords, I feel as certain as anyone outside the machine can be that to be an effective deterrent against military action on a local or limited basis, what I would call the shield forces of N.A.T.O. need to be equipped with the best available weapons, conventional and nuclear suited to their task (and I would em-
912
phasise those words, "best available weapons, conventional and nuclear, suited to their task"), and be up to strength and highly mobile and flexible, which I am afraid is more than can he said for the British contribution to the shield forces of N.A.T.O. at the present day. The same applies, in my view, to the shield forces of C.E.N.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O.
That brings me to my next question, the balance between our own strategic striking force—namely, Bomber Command and its ancillaries—and our so-called conventional forces, from which we contribute to the collective shield forces of N.A.T.O., C.E.N.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O., and from which we also provide the garrisons and security forces required in territories for which we are individually responsible. Although the Minister of Defence may not be prepared to admit it, since he took office there has been, in my estimation, a change of emphasis in favour of our conventional forces and their ancillary and supporting organisations—for example, Transport Command; and it is a change that I, for one, warmly welcome as a step in the right direction. The Report now before your Lordships' House carries that change a step further, but I wonder whether it goes far enough.
Speaking the other day in another place, the Minister of Defence said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 635 (No. 62), col. 1198]:
"The White Paper is the first to be written against the background of the probability that both sides now have enough nuclear explosive to destroy one another."
I would not challenge that statement. In fact, I should have thought that the Minister could have gone further and substituted the word "certainty" for "probability". However that may be, the deduction I would draw is that there is no longer any need to expend our resources on the production of nuclear explosives and we can now safely concentrate on the means of delivery and on keeping pace with future developments in science and engineering as affecting nuclear weapons, warning systems and the like. On the face of it, that should result in some reduction in the cost of our nuclear striking force. I accept that no one outside the highest official circles can find out, or be told, whether that is so or not.

913
I also agree that we should continue to maintain our own nuclear striking force—and I am deliberately refraining from the use of the vexatious adjective "independent" in this connection. I believe that we must maintain our own nuclear striking force, for the reasons set out in paragraph 10 of the Report, with which I find myself in general agreement. All the same, I cannot escape the impression that in these days of strategic nuclear sufficiency it should be possible to redress still further the balance between our nuclear and conventional forces in favour of the latter, and so provide the resources needed, for example, to accelerate the strengthening of Transport Command in the interests of mobility; to expand the housing programme even more than has been proposed; to subsidise adventure (which I believe will be of the greatest attraction to an all-Regular force); to provide for other measures calculated to stimulate recruiting, and last, but far from least, Ito provide both commando carriers with their necessary tail.
That leads me to my third question —manpower. Here I hope that I may be excused if, for obvious reasons, I refer primarily to the Army. In Table I of Annex I of the Report under discussion, the estimated total strength of the Army on April 1 next is shown as being 230,000. A year later, on April 1, 1962, it is estimated that it will have fallen to 198,000—a drop of over 30,000. During the following year there is likely to be a further drop of another 30,000, making a total drop of 60,000 in the course of the next two years. As the Army is already hard put to it to meet its current commitments, and a number of units in Rhine Army and Strategic Reserve are under-strength, and since there is apparently no intention of ducking our responsibilities in different parts of the world, I must say that I am puzzled by the equanimity with which the Ministers responsible appear to face the large reductions in strength which they estimate will occur during the next two years.
There will, of course, be a substantial saving of manpower in the training organisations when the change to an all-Regular Army has been completed, but that will not, in itself, be sufficient to compensate for a reduction of the order
914
of 60,000. What is going to happen in the next two years that makes this reduction acceptable? That is the question that I submit must be answered, in order to restore confidence in the Government's policy in regard to manpower for the Army.
From a professional point of view I am strongly in favour of an all-Regular Army. But I am even more strongly in favour of an Army that is free from the evils and weaknesses that stem from overstrain through under-manning, and I am most strongly opposed to accepting men who are mentally or physically substandard in order to provide the numbers required. As in so many of these matters, no one outside official circles can determine with accuracy the precise strength required. But my estimate is still, as it was last year, that during the next few years, at any rate, the figure of the manpower required for the Army to enable it to carry out its commitments without overstrain—unless the Government have it in mind to make some drastic reductions in commitments which they have not yet disclosed—will be nearer 200,000 than 160,000. I realise that this is not the time to go into the details of this question, which would he more appropriate for discussion in the debate on the Army Estimates. All I would say, therefore, at this stage is that by some means or another the Army's manpower problem must be solved. If, once again, through inadequate manpower, the Army is allowed to drop back into the state in which it was between the two world wars, it will take a very long time to recover.
I have nearly done, my Lords, but before I sit down, there is one other and quite different point to which I should like to refer, in the hope that it is not out of order to raise it in this debate. During the past eight months I have been horrified to read of the intolerable position in which the troops of the various national contingents that comprise the United Nations Forces in the Congo have been placed. I am not suggesting for one moment that there is, or ever could be, a military solution, to the Congo problem. But I dread to think that British troops might find themselves at some future date in a position similar to that of some of the contingents in the Congo, with no clear political direction

915
and with no proper command and staff organisation at their head.
I know that the whole question bristles with difficulties, but I would urge Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in this matter, if they have not already done so, by pressing for a thorough and comprehensive study by the United Nations Organisation of the whole business of the employment of armed forces under the direction of the United Nations and of the command and staff organisation needed to enable them to operate effectively. The military setup in the Congo at present appears to be nothing less than a shambles.
In conclusion, may I repeat that warmly welcome the setting up of the new unified commands in the Middle East, the introduction of a five-year costing system and the plan to build an assault ship. I consider that the most urgent problems facing us in the field of defence to-day are, first, to play our part in improving the capability of N.A.T.O., C.E.N.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. generally—and particularly N.A.T.O.—to deal effectively with local incidents and limited aggressions; and to work thoroughly and hard and very deeply on this question of the use, or otherwise, of nuclear weapons in limited aggressions in Europe. Next (I do not mean in order of importance), I regard it as important to redress the imbalance that I believe still exists between our own nuclear striking force and our so-called conventional forces; and finally, we must solve the Army's manpower problem—and do it quickly.
5.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the speech which we have just heard from the noble and gallant Field Marshal will, I am sure we should all agree, be invaluable to the N.A.T.O. Governments who have to go into consultation on the matters which he raised at the outset of his speech. It was a speech characteristic of him and one which those of us who had the good fortune to serve with him and to know his wise and practical vision would expect. I think we have been wise to give two days to this Defence debate, because it is the only opportunity we have of considering as a whole the problems of the Minister of Defence and the three fighting Services and the problems
916
of supply and all the inter-related topics. And what topics are not inter-related and inter-dependent? Certainly foreign affairs, Commonwealth affairs and economic affairs are all matters which are inter-related and, therefore, within the scope of this Bill. Your Lordships need not be alarmed, because I do not propose to cover the whole field. I shall never, I hope, forget some advice given to me by Mr. Balfour forty years ago on the Treasury Bench in another place when, I regret to say my Lord President, a Law Officer, was talking at quite interminable length. Mr. Balfour said to me: "My dear Philip, it is always desirable to tell the truth, but it is seldom, if ever, necessary to tell the whole of truth." I certainly have tried to follow that advice.
I support the Motion and the White Paper. I do not think I disagree with anything in the White Paper, except that I must admit that I share the anxiety of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, about manpower. If I have a criticism at all it would be this: that the White Paper should contain a little more. The Services are rightly anxious about security, but there is, at any rate, one place where inter-Service security is remarkably effective, and that is in the information which is given to Parliament. The White Paper is a Bowdlerised edition that I think would pass any censor. But I do not complain unduly about that. I have been a Service Minister, and I have also been in charge of security. Ministers must be careful. We, on the sidelines, while I hope we speak with a sense of responsibility, need not be quite so inhibited. I should like, first, to deal with a few specific matters, which though they relate to individual Services yet are of importance in the combined structure and plan. That will lead me back, I hope in not too disjointed a sequence, to the Motion itself and to the challenge in the two Amendments upon which we shall be invited to vote.
Let me take first the air. Some of us have been pressing for many years that throughout the present decade our deterrent would be largely dependent upon our long-range bombers. We were told that we were old-fashioned and unimaginative. Old, some of us certainly are; but some of us have had experience of developing and producing new

917
weapons, though much simpler weapons than those which are developed to-day, and we know something of the delays and frustrations which are inevitable. I am sure the Government are right to pursue their bomber programme.
I will come to the value of the independent deterrent at the end, but for the moment let me assume that we should have a deterrent. If so, what should it be? I do not think I underestimate the dilemma of Service Ministers. As old Service Ministers on both sides of the House will agree, there is always the duty to be forward-looking and imaginative. I hope that when I was a Service Minister I did not wholly fail in that when we ordered the Spitfires off the drawing board and banked so tremendously, and happily successfully, on radar. You must be forward-looking and imaginative, but at the same time you have to be realistic in what can be done. The better is so often the enemy of the good.
I think that the Government, on the whole, if I may respectfully say so, have been just about right in this bomber programme in both respects. We know that we have the right bombers and the effective missiles (there is no doubt about this, I think) that they can carry; and we have our own developments in that respect. I should say myself—though nothing is certain—that we have the best bet on Skybolt, with our own warheads. I am sure, therefore, that the provision of bombers is the right policy for ten years. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton (we have both always been great advocates of inter-Service co-operation), I welcome the evidence of this increased cooperation between the Services: the combined commands, the commando carriers and the landing-craft. That co-operative working and integration is at least as necessary in small outbreaks as in large. I welcome the development in Transport Command, and that it is increasingly able to meet the needs of the Army strategic reserve in mobility.
What we used to call the Britannics have now, by a process of baptismal regeneration, become Belfasts; nobody will begrudge Northern Ireland that change of name, particularly if they come forward up to date. I think I was right when I suggested to my noble friend that 1964 is given in one of these documents
918
as the date for these, but we should like to be sure that that is a firm date. Then I would ask (although one does not always want to be asking for more) whether ten are enough. Certainly ten is a great improvement on what we had before; but I would not spoil a ship for a ha'p'orth or tar—though it is, I realise, a bit more than a ha'p'orth. After all—I think this is a glimpse of the obvious —the essence of a mobile reserve is that it should be mobile, and I hope that whatever is the necessary or right number of Belfasts will be provided. In passing, I should like to congratulate the Royal Air Force on the reduced accident rate. That, I think, is a tribute to efficient training and effective equipment.
Most of us heard—I had to read it, because I had to go—an extraordinarily interesting speech last night from my noble friend, Lord Caldecote. He speaks with great practical knowledge as a producer of some of the best aircraft which this country has ever seen, and as a great engineer. I thought many of his suggestions were very wise and well within what he was pleased to call the Constitution. I will give him a precedent which 1 hope may strengthen his hand in his approach. When I was at the Air Ministry I am afraid I did not always pay quite as much regard to the Treasury as I ought to have done. I accidentally doubled the size of the shadow factories in the teeth of a Cabinet decision to the contrary. It was a fortunate mistake on my part. In order that we should not be held up in matters of finance, my noble friend Lord Bridges, who was then a senior officer in the Treasury, came and was bedded out in the Air Ministry. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, will bear me out that this was very effective in getting things through quickly. I remember Lord Bridges—Sir Edward Bridges as he then was—passing £30 million in one morning, and I certainly think we got value for money.
What my noble friend Lord Caldecote said leads me to say a word or two about research. Research is all important. I think it is the most difficult of all the problems with which the Minister of Defence and his colleagues have to deal. It is very easy to criticise. There has been a great deal of criticism in both Houses about the amount of money

919
which has been wasted on Blue Streak, and so on. Of course, it is the right and the duty of Parliament to criticise. But I think it is difficult, if not impossible, for Members of Parliament to criticise research projects with any accurate knowledge. Indeed, I am sometimes inclined to think that Ministers themselves are a little handicapped in the same way. But, after all, no one can tell with any certainty how a project will turn out, and one must take chances. All research is in the nature of a gamble.
I should like, if I may, to suggest certain lines on which I think Members in either House can usefully criticise the expenditure on research. Parliament can, and should, hold a Minister to account for how he places his research and development contracts. I would suggest, at any rate, three things which the Minister should do. First of all, he should insist on firms giving better estimates. I must say that looking at the escalator of expenditure from estimates which have started down at a few millions and suddenly risen up to £1,00 million, it seems to me there must have been a certain amount of rather loose estimating. The Minister should get the best estimates the firms can give. My second point is that he should have—and he should have it in the contract —the right to review when successive sums are reached. My third point is that he should avoid "time and line", the percentage on cost contract. That is a terrible incentive to extravagance.
I am preaching now what I practised myself in, I agree, what were easier contracts, but the whole time I was at the Air Ministry I never placed a single time and line cost-plus contract, whether it was for aeroplanes, air frames, shadow factories, aerodromes or anything. Of course, in ordering off the drawing board, you ordered machines without the faintest knowledge of what they were going to cost. You could make a guess. What we did was this—and here let me take a concrete example. Suppose we thought that a Spitfire would cost £10,000 —in the end we got the price down lower than that, but nobody knew what the first lot which were made were going to cost. What we said was this: "We shall have to pay you what it costs." We did that with all the things we ordered in that way. We said, "We will pay your actual
920
cost, but we will not give you a percentage on your cost: we will give you a fee." Taking, as we did, 7½ per cent. as a reasonable fee, and estimating the cost of the article at £10,000, we paid the actual expenditure of the firm, whether it was £10,000 or £15,000, plus the agreed fixed fee. But the firm never got more than the fixed fee. I know it is more difficult now. Apparently you cannot tell within tens of millions of pounds what something is going to cost. But I still think the Government would be well advised to consider how far that principle could be adopted. My experience was that the better the firm, the more willing they were to play on those lines. I do not think any of us can reasonably complain if an experiment fails. "'Tis not in mortals to command success." But what you must do (and it is much the hardest thing of all) is make up your minds when to cut your losses.
However much we may differ on the details of defence, we shall all be agreed in this: defence, foreign policy and economic policy are inevitably, inescapably, linked and inter-dependent. In our debate last year on March 10 I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 221, col. 997]:
"Foreign policy, economic policy and defence are all interdependent. We cannot isolate one from another; we cannot put any one of those elements into a watertight compartment. We cannot draw closer together in integrated defence, which is vitally important, in integrated defence in strategy and in integrated defence in the common use of weapons, which is hardly less important, if the N.A.T.O. countries are to drift apart in economic policy. I do not think it is too much to say that if the N.A.T.O. countries were to split into two conflicting economic camps the N.A.T.O. Alliance could not long survive as an effective defence organisation."
When I said that, I do not think any noble Lord disagreed with it. It was perhaps about the only thing in my speech with which all noble Lords did agree. But it is certainly not less true to-day, and it does not become less true and less urgent with the passage of time. I sincerely trust that all our partners in N.A.T.O. will realise that fundamental truth, as I am sure our own Government do.
I come back to the Amendments and the issues on which we are to be asked to vote. The Liberal Amendment is more detailed. In substance, it invites us to

921
abandon our own deterrent defence and to shelter behind others. We collect but we do not subscribe: rather a novel Liberal principle, I should have thought. The Labour Amendment is understandably less specific. I suppose, indeed, we cannot know until the autumn whether the Labour Party are going to come out in favour of unilateral abandonment of the defence of this country. The Leader of the Party and the Leader of the Opposition in this House wage a stout fight against that; and more power to them in that fight! Incidentally, I would say in passing that I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, ought to have a little private tuition from, say, Mr. Frank Cousins on the Constitution of the Labour Party before he attends the general meeting, or soviet, or whatever it is, in the autumn.
For my part I have no doubt that nationally and internationally it is essential that we should have our own nuclear deterrent. The position of this country as an independent nuclear Power gives her a strength and an influence in disarmament conferences, and particularly in seeking agreement on nuclear tests. Frankly, I could not at all follow the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that we had no moral right to ask other people to desist while we had the bomb. On the contrary, I should have thought we could make all the more convincing case when we came into disarmament discussions or discussions about stopping tests. I am sure the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, was profoundly right when he said that it was quite ridiculous to suppose that if we gave up our independent, but interdependent, deterrent it would stop other countries, China for example, from proceeding with whatever she is doing. I should not confine that —nor, I am sure, would be—to a potential aggressor; I am sure it is equally true of our own Allies. Does anybody suppose that if we suddenly stopped unilaterally General de Gaulle would stop whatever experiments he thought it was right to conduct, and to conduct to a finish? Anybody who believes that really would believe anything.
Of course, collective security is essential, but we are also responsible for our own defence, and it is vital that we should have that defence and the means of delivering our countervailing weapon, a means swift, certain and devastating in
922
its retaliation. That is our shield, but it is also, I think, our most effective contribution to collective defence. The main Opposition say it is not for them to tell us their programme. Indeed we appreciatc—and I say this honestly, with sympathy—that they cannot tell us what their programme is. But I must equally say that this country is not only entitled but will insist upon knowing, and knowing in good time, what that policy is and whether they are going, many of them much against their will, to abandon the essentials of our defence. I believe the Government are holding firmly to those essentials, and that, so far as I can understand them, both the Oppositions would shirk or abandon some or all of them. In those circumstances, I unhesitatingly support the Government.
6.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in a Defence debate. I suppose there is no one alive who did more to prepare us for war than the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I need hardly say he was treated disgracefully by the Conservative Party, following the rule: if you have got a good man, keep him out of office—as with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for so long—or get rid of him. It, of course, got rid of the noble Earl before the war, so that he was not able to complete the splendid work which undoubtedly he was doing. It is always a great pleasure to listen to him.
I think if I may say so—and he knows my respect for him—the noble Earl was making rather a tired joke when he referred to the Labour Party conference as some kind of soviet. I think perhaps he will take it from me that the relations between Labour leaders to-day—he mentioned the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and others—are probably a great deal better than the relations between the leaders of the Conservative Party. I do not know whether Lord Listowel and Mr. Cousins sit down to cards together—I have no reason to suppose they do not, or cannot, or are not keen. But we have the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, saying he would not sit down or stay down at cards with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. So if we are talking about dissensions I think we must point out that to-day,

923
whatever the position might have been a fortnight ago, the Government are in a weaker position than noble Lords on this side have ever been. We are not bringing the sort of charge against the Government that was brought by the noble Marquess last week against the Minister for the Colonies. We are not saying that they have "outwitted" anybody: we say that they are incapable of outwitting anybody. We do not say they are "too clever by half"; we say that they are not half clever enough.
However, it falls to my lot, in this friendly atmosphere, to speak last on this side on behalf of the official Amendment. I have little doubt that our noble Leader will carry us into the Division Lobby, and we shall await his guidance as to our official attitude to the Liberal Amendment, which has many features that attract us. I cannot say that my old friend—and I hope he is still my old friend—Lord Ogmore, assisted us very much in supporting that Amendment by a series of rather derisory remarks about his old colleagues; but as one who is himself a political convert I can assure him that the first few years are the worst, both for oneself and for one's friends, old and new. I need not tell the noble Lord that, because he has, of course, out-smarted me, as he has done the job twice, so to speak, against my single contribution. I must say in fairness, as he twitted us a little dialectically, about our policy, that many of us are anxious to support him. But whether we shall be able to after his speech is something upon which we shall receive guidance before the close of the debate.
The technical case—if one can put it that way, but in fact there is a very profound question of principle behind it —has been powerfully stated by a number of speakers from this side of the House: by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in the first place; by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I think I shall not be accused of rather tedious "flannel" if I say that Lord Shackleton, one of the younger Peers, has established himself in the last year or two as an outstanding speaker.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, agrees.
I do not want to try to draw in the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, on any political side. I have no doubt that if I did so he would repudiate any political leanings whatever. But certainly many things he said, and indeed it seemed to me most of his arguments, were very closely in line with what was said by Lord Shackleton; and that, coming from a great authority like the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, certainly gave us extra strength. In particular the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, emphasised the point that the imbalance which exists between the nuclear and the conventional weapons should be redressed without delay in the conventional direction. While there were other points in Lord Shackleton's speech, I suppose that was perhaps the most outstanding of all his points, and it seemed to receive very strong support from the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton. I am sorry not to be able to draw into the argument the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, because if there is anybody, apart perhaps from the late Lord Baden-Powell, who has built up a voluntary movement in this country it is the noble Baroness; and we were all pleased to listen to her to-day.
As I say, the main arguments have been placed before the House, but in case there are those who have not heard them, I will quote one sentence only from Lord Shackleton. The same points were made in other ways by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, by Lord Listowel and by Lord Lucan, who of course all spoke most effectively. But Lord Shackleton emphasised the fact that while the whole framework of the situation had changed in recent years the Government's policy has not been adjusted to meet this change. They are carrying out a policy which in fact has already been established; and on the question of the future they have no plans at all. I am simply quoting the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton. But if one could put something in a nutshell and explain to the noble Earl why we are dividing against the Government, as I imagine we shall be doing, that sentence and what was said along with it, set it out as shortly as possible.

925
But I want in these few remarks of mine, to strike slightly new ground in this debate—though it has been often struck in earlier debates, and would be struck much better to-day by the noble Earl. Lord Attlee, who has just come come back from India, than by myself. With one sentence in the White Paper we can all agree. It has been referred to most favourably:
"There is only one answer to the threat to mankind by armaments. This is to reach a satisfactory agreement on general disarmament under effective international control. The Government intend to press for this by all means in their power".
We all agree with that statement, and I think we all particularly applaud the decision to put it at the very beginning of the White Paper. I feel that that is in fact right. But what I do question is the energy, the enlightenment and the imagination of the Government in pursuing this aim.
After 30 years of argument about disarmament one thing surely is plain. No country will surrender its means of national defence, such as that may be, without accepting some alternative security. I have no doubt that 1 speak for many in this House when I say that the reduction of national armament will depend before all else on the pace at which an International Police Force is established. That is something that has been said for many years in the Labour Party, and I have no doubt by many others outside it. In the nuclear age there is an additional and overwhelming argument for an International Police Force. This is a point which can be made in a Defence debate where, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said, foreign policy, economics and defence are all intertwined. So I make no apology for dealing with it.
We have had references to the Nuclear Disarmament Movement. There was a critical reference. The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, did not, of course, dispute the right of that Movement to propound its ideas. He said that we are a free country. I myself regret that in this House there are not one or two champions of nuclear disarmament who are at least vocal in the cause. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has spoken along these lines; but I think we have sometimes omitted this point of view—which is one that appeals to many people in this country—from our discus-
926
sions just because it is not usually put forward in this debate. Be that as it may, it seems to me, and I have no doubt to many others, that there is a kind of moral dilemma if we simply carry on as we are and hope that the balance of terror will avert the coming of another war.
I suppose that almost all of us to-day —perhaps everyone in this House—and leaving aside a number of high-minded people outside this Assembly, would agree that the country must he adequately defended, so far as that is possible, by military means in the present age. But so long as nuclear weapons are possessed by our side (whether the nuclear weapons are possessed by us or by our Allies is, from the morale point of view, unimportant) we deem it impossible, in an age of national sovereignty, that our country should be defended without nuclear means so long as other people have nuclear weapons. Yet how can anybody as a Christian conceive himself actually pressing the button that would use this weapon? No doubt some people can and some people cannot. For me, it is a quite intolerable moral dilemma; and I believe that it cannot be solved so long as it is approached in purely national terms.
There is a bounden duty, it seems to me, on anybody who calls himself a Christian or a humanist, or who claims any ethical standards at all, to work unceasingly in this age for the transcending of national sovereignty by the institution of world government. Of course that is a far-reaching ideal but, in the concrete, from the point of view of defence, which we are discussing to-night, the vital step is the transfer of nuclear armaments, in the first place, and then of important national armaments, to an international body or authority which would use them, if at all, only through the agency of an International Police Force.
On that point I became particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, was saying about the Congo and the need for organising, if I understood him aright, a force of that kind on a better footing, should the need arise in future. I hesitate to labour an egotistic recollection of which the noble Lord is perhaps unaware, but in 1957 I myself was chairman of an

927
all-Party committee which drew up and published a detailed plan for a small international force. We had expert Service advice, and it was approved by certain Service leaders afterwards. In fact, that plan was welcomed as a valuable contribution—I am talking of 1957 —by the Foreign Secretary of the day, then Mr. Selwyn Lloyd. That particular plan, for which, remarkably, I, as chairman, was rather responsible, although I had guidance from elsewhere, was praised by a good number of noble Lords in this House in 1957. So that, if I may say so, I am supporting the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton.
A good many people, some of them Service chiefs, have been at work on this problem for a number of years. Under persistent pressure from all sides of politics the present Government have allowed themselves to reach a point where last Monday the Lord Privy Seal in another place said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 636 (No. 72), col. 980]:
"Her Majesty's Government support the principle of a United Nations permanent force, while recognising the practical difficulties of administration and the financing that such a force would create."
He went on to say, in answer to a supplementary question:
"We have pressed it, but we have not yet had full support for it."
This is not a Party point. I do not think it would be difficult to find many people concerned with this problem in all directions. But most of us would say that this pressure for a permanent International Force was almost invisible. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, had even heard of it: at all events, he did not reveal any sign that he knew that this was a national policy. Therefore, I do not think we can take it that we can expect the man in the street in this country, let alone anybody in any other country, to be aware that this has been a matter on which the Government have exerted pressure.
Last year the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who was then Deputy Leader of the House, aroused widespread public interest by declaring himself personally in favour of world government. At that time he said that he was outside the "inner defence circle". Perhaps tonight he can tell us whether he is inside the
928
"inner defence circle", or whether his elevation has left him still in the cold. At any rate, he was, he said, in a relatively uninstructed state last year. Tonight he will speak probably with greater information. But the noble and learned Viscount said that last year, and thereby aroused a lot of interest. Therefore I wish to ask him (I have given him a little notice) what he will say about that same matter this year. Last year he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 221, col. 912]:
"As I contemplate the hideous weapons on both sides, which even in my partially informed state I know to have been invented—and here I speak only for myself"—
he spoke personally last year—
"I regard either a world authority or total disarmament, in the long run, as the only rational objective"—
In case anyone should wish to suggest (and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount would not wish to do so) that he was then talking of world authority and not world government, the noble and learned Viscount said later, in column 918:
"For me at least, as I have said, world government and total disarmament, remain the ultimate aims."
I hope that as Leader of the House, inside the "defence circle", as I would imagine him to be, he will be able to speak for the Government and not just offer a personal view in endorsing that support for world government.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party have not been idle, with my noble friend Lord Attlee giving us a very strong lead, speaking on this very subject of world government all over America, in Europe and recently in India. Last year, 168 Members of Parliament and Peers called on the Labour Party to take the action necessary to write world government, as a specific object of policy, into the Party constitution. Then, world government featured in a statement from the National Executive last year: and in the statement recently issued on behalf of the three organs of the Labour Movement, world government is referred to in Article 1, which I quote:
"The only final guarantee of lasting peace and freedom is to replace the anarchy of power politics by world government."
That has now been stated in a most unequivocal way by the Labour Party. In case someone asks whether there is not another view in the Labour Party, I would

929
say that to the best of my belief there is no other view on this paragraph of the document issued by the majority of twelve "wise men". There is another document subscribed to by a minority which accepted the first four paragraphs, and this paragraph, as one of its objectives. Here, I am referring to the Crossman document. So it is clear that in the Labour Party world government is now Target No. 1.
I am most anxious not to claim a monopoly of Socialist wisdom in this field, and it would be positively dishonest to do so. The chairman of an all-Party group for world government is a Conservative Member of Parliament, and as recently as March 3 last, in another place, a Conservative M.P. moved a Resolution, which was seconded by a Labour M.P., calling for the creation of an International Police Force of 20,000 men. Leading Liberals, from Mr. Clement Davies downwards, have been untiring on behalf of this cause. But if Her Majesty's Government wonder why we in the Labour Party at least take such an extraordinarily poor view of their efforts to protect us from annihilation, I would call attention to the remarks made by way of intervention by the honourable gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the same debate in another place on March 3.
After listening to eloquent pleas for a world authority and a World Police Force, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons Vol. 635 (No. 66) col. 2025]:
"This was part of the Western disarmament plan and was re-embodied in the proposals put forward at the 1960 Ten-Nations Disarmament Committee, which showed that the Government are fully behind these proposals."
I regard that statement as misleading. No doubt the noble and learned Viscount is hoping and working for this, but to say that the Government are really pressing hard for an International Police Force at the present time is not consistent with anything known to the public. I myself would say that until they come out openly and press at the United Nations for the immediate establishment of an International Police Force and at the same time show themselves ready to offer a base to such a Force, they cannot be acquitted of the charge of flirting with this tremendous subject while we hover on the brink of annihilation.
In conclusion, whilst it is not surprising if some of us are twitted about
930
public arguments which are taking place in the Labour Party, I thought the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who is usually so extremely fair, was unfair in one respect, in that he seemed to imply that we were not putting forward any policy at all. There is the statement to which I have referred which no doubt will go before the Labour Party Conference; but to say that we have nothing to offer would he misleading.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords I appreciate that and all the documents which have apepared, that of the honour- able gentleman Mr. Crossman, and Mr. Cousins. What I intended to say—and I believe I am right in this—was that until the Conference (and I beg your Lordships' pardon for having called it "Soviet") takes place next year which, under the constitution of the Labour Party, settles the policy of the Party, it is impossible to say what is the policy of the Labour Party. I believe that it was fair to say that.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think it is impossible ever to say precisely what is the policy of the Opposition. When noble Lords opposite were in Opposition and we were in Government, they were much more "cagey" than we have been about statements of policy. I speak as one who served in two Ministries of Defence, and I never knew what the policy of the Opposition was; and in that sense I do not think it would be wise to come forward with a detailed plan. But here is a policy which has been set forth by a great majority, the leaders of three governing bodies of the Labour Party, in regard to world government, the particular topic with which I was trying to deal; and so far as I am aware there was absolute solidarity and unanimity on that.
The truth is that these problems are enormously difficult. It was said of the father of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe —and I was very pleased to hear the noble Earl speaking to-day—that he was the only man who could have lost the First World War in an afternoon. I suppose that could have been said of the noble Earl; he could have lost this debate in an afternoon. He certainly did not do so. I think he put up a very good show, although, in a sense, the debate was already lost. It is no good pretending that on technical

931
aspects, which have been dealt with by other speakers, or on the aspect with which I have dealt, we have any confidence in the noble Lords opposite. We look upon them charitably but as, politically speaking, a delinquent team. Delinquents, as my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and other experts will agree, can be divided into three main classes: the aggressives, the perverted and the inadequate. I am not accusing noble Lords opposite of any aggression, except towards one another; and that, of course, is their own affair. But I do not think they suffer from any other kind of aggression. Their only perversion is to suffer from a kind of delusion of popularity which I do not think will last much longer. But I am afraid that we, from this side, with all the sympathy in the world, must dismiss them as totally inadequate to perform the duties which, with all their patriotism, they are seeking to perform and therefore it will give me very great pleasure, as it will my colleagues, to go into the Lobby in support of this censure Motion.
6.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords the remarkable speech to which we have just listened, if it illustrated nothing else illustrated the extraordinary unsuitability of a Motion of censure for a debate of this kind. If I may, I will revert to that topic, but I will say here that my own view is that in matters of defence it is far better that this House should regard itself, in a sense, as a Council of State, with each Member of it contributing, as very many Members of it have contributed in the last two days, to the better understanding of the subject, than to try to divide itself into two or three Parties who will vote "Content" or "Not-content" when the truth is—and everybody knows it—that differences of opinion on this subject are almost infinite, some of them amounting only to differences of degree, others to differences of kind.
The position of the member of the Government who has to answer the debate is, I think, a little spoilt by the fact that an unsuitable Motion of censure has been moved. Because I think one would want—I certainly should have liked—to deal in much greater detail than I am going to be able to with a
932
number of the very constructive speeches to which we have listened from all sides of the House. But when the Leaders of the Opposition Parties, exercising their undoubted right, put down censure Motions, of course the Minister who has to reply for the Government has to concentrate on the censure and neglect to an almost, to me, intolerable degree the detailed suggestions and criticisms which have come forward from speakers whose main concern was with the nature of the problem and its solutions rather than crude Party differences.
But, my Lords, I think that, before I embark upon this stormy sea, the House will forgive me if I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House who have taken part in this debate. I may perhaps be forgiven on this occasion for offering a special word of thanks to noble Lords on my own side of the House, and particularly, perhaps, as his speech is still fresh in my mind, to my noble friend Lord Swinton. Once more he has given us of his best, partly in assisting me in replying to the censure much more shortly than I should otherwise have had to do, but, not least, in putting before the House the fruits of his experience, in regard to which, if I do not reply in detail, I will only say this: I will draw my right honourable friend's attention especially to what he has said, which seemed to me most valuable.
I should like also especially to mention the noble and gallant Field Marshal who spoke from the Cross Benches. I do not think that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was right in seeking to compromise him with the Opposition at all. I myself will not seek to embarrass him by praise from the Government. But I should like to say this: so far as his contribution was concerned, his firm support of the nuclear policy of the Government clearly makes nonsense of both the Amendments before the House. Although it would be almost impertinent to comment in detail upon his criticisms, I will, if I may, at the appropriate moment, say something as regards his criticism on manpower.
Then there were the two speeches we have listened to this afternoon from the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, and from the noble Lord, Lord Saye and Sele, about Civil Defence—most appropriate, if they will allow me to say so,

933
and most welcome in reminding us of the essential nature of this Service. In particular, if I may say so, what the noble Baroness said deserves to have very wide publicity indeed, both as illustrating the need for Civil Defence and as illustrating the fact that it is both necessary and desirable as part of our total defence effort. It would perhaps be wrong of me to mention every speech that we have heard. I will refer later on to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I shall, I hope, refer in the course of my remarks to those of my various noble friends who have so kindly given support to the Government in what they have said.
But, having said that, I should like to examine a little the main currents of argument with which noble Lords from the Liberal and Labour Benches have sought to support their several Amendments. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe has already pointed out that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in support of the Liberal Amendment really proceeds from a false premise. His whole case was, I thought, a trifle ignobly based upon expense, and he was saying that the whole of this expense was growing to a stage at which our national economy could no longer bear it. The noble Lord is wrong in point of fact. Page 9 of the White Paper establishes quite clearly that the relative burden on our economy is, as my noble friend pointed out earlier this afternoon, growing a little less rather than a lot more. This, of course, is a complete answer to that part of the noble Lord's case. If I may be allowed I will revert to his case about the deterrent at a slightly later point in my speech.
From the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition we heard, as we often do, a splendid Right Wing Die-hard Conservative speech; and very splendid it was! It was not, I think, a pure coincidence that, despite the well-merited cheers with which it was greeted from his own side, the loudest cheers of all came from the 15-inch guns of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who happened to be sitting on the Cross Benches at that time. And they were, of course, well merited. The noble Viscount's case was quite different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, was saying that we really cannot afford so much on defence, and let us cut
934
out the nuclear deterrent because this is contrary to interdependence and we cannot afford it; let the Americans bear the burden. But the noble Viscount, in his splendidly Conservative speech, was saying that we have really let the Forces down too much. You were given, he said, magnificent Forces by us in 1951; they are now fewer in number, there are not so many ships—and perhaps we have not got the money either, if I may adapt the ancient song to modern conditions. He was advocating, by implication, an expenditure on our Armed Forces which would have been very much greater, certainly, and would have been more like that in the situation of 1951 immediately after the Korean war.
My Lords, in answer to the noble Viscount I would simply say this. What I now say is not intended as a criticism at all of the Labour Party policy when they were in office or of the policy of 1951, in 1951, to which he referred with, such pride. But I would tell him, plainly and bluntly, that if we were to attempt to defend this country with the large forces based on National Service, or the weapons ancillary to them, which we had in 1951, we should be doing only a little: better than if we sought to defend this country with the forces that went into the Crimean War. Because it is literally true that in these ten years the whole conception of military power and military action has been absolutely revolutionised. Rightly or wrongly, we have been given the military advice to do approximately as we are now doing. We have been told that, in the current military situation, it is better to have small, mobile, professional Forces such as we are trying to build up than to have the large forces which the noble Viscount is complaining that we have been running down. That advice may be wrong, but it is the best advice that we can get. The only complaint I have to make about the noble Viscount is that he seemed to fail to realise at all that it had come from professional military sources. He regarded it as a form of weakness on the part of the Conservative Party and not a form of weakness on the part of their military advisers. My Lords, that really disposes, I think, of the noble Viscount's approach to this matter.
It is, of course, true, as the noble and gallant Field Marshal and other speakers

935
have said, that in getting our mobile professional Forces of a smaller character we are finding difficulty in recruiting. This has been made very clear in the White Paper, and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe made no attempt to conceal the fact: but that would never drive us back to the policy of 1951. What it must do is to lead us, at the end of the year, as my noble friend said, to review the situation then, and to get the small, mobile, professional Forces we want by some means appropriate to the getting of those Forces; and I am afraid that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will be no nearer satisfaction—the satisfaction of a return to the policy of 1951—at the end of 1961 than he is in March, 1961.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if I may say so, the policy in 1951 was not exclusive of the use of nuclear power, which was a part of the equipment of the two main partners in N.A.T.O., the United States of America and ourselves. But we also had the troops, and it is since 1951 that you have so let the economy run down that you can no longer afford that joint effort which we were then able to produce.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The picture of the economy of 1961 being so much below the economy of 1951 is an attractive one, but I will not pursue it this evening.
Before I come on to the question of the nuclear deterrent in the strategic role, to which the noble Viscount has quite properly referred—and I make no complaint about that—I should like to take him a little further into the question of the revolution in weapons, because a great deal of the discussion during the two days we have been talking about this vital subject has revolved around the question of the revolution in weapons which has taken place. I am going to talk about only one aspect of it, and to some extent I must even now frankly confess that I am expressing my own judgment of the matter, although I think it is worth while doing so, despite the fact that I could not claim to be doing much more than that. The aspect I want to refer to is the advent of the tactical nuclear weapon
936
to the battlefield. This is what has really, in many ways, revolutionised the situation.
About that, broadly speaking, two different points of view have been put forward in your Lordships' House. One was that of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and other speakers, who said yesterday that it was certain that the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield would inevitably escalate to the extent of strategic nuclear weapons, with their devastating and world-destroying effect, and he said that everyone was agreed about that, As to that last statement, he happened to be inaccurate, because the noble and gallant Field Marshal—who, if he will allow me to say so, probably knows far more about this particular subject than anyone else in the House—happened to hold directly the opposite view and to expound it with very great force this afternoon.
Now, on that point, I will say only this for myself: I, to some extent, stand mid-way between those two positions. It has never been proved to my satisfaction as certain that these weapons would escalate. I have the doubts of the noble and gallant Field Marshal on that point. On the other hand, I would defy anyone to say that it was certain that they would not; and the practical deductions to be drawn from the latter proposition might, in practice, bring me a great deal closer to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, although in theory I am much closer to the noble and gallant Field Marshal. This leads me to what, to my mind, is by far the most relevant point in considering the White Paper, which is the relationship between conventional and nuclear forces.
I agreed with my noble friend Lord Bridgeman when he said that this particular distinction is one which does not, in point of fact, any longer conduce to very clear thinking about the subject; and I noticed that when the noble and gallant Field Marshal referred to the two sides of our effort, the conventional and the nuclear, he was in fact using those words in a sense very different from that used by any other speaker. He made it absolutely clear that what he described as the conventional forces (on which he desired, with other speakers, to see a greater emphasis), included forces in the hands of which there would be nuclear

937
tactical weapons. This illustrates the very point which I am trying to make; and it also, I think, constitutes an answer, both to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in what he said yesterday, and to some of my noble friends, who demanded an increase in the conventional forces, not in the sense used by the noble and gallant Field Marshal but in what I might call the older and even more conventional sense.
Here, again, I must say that I speak only for myself, but when I was First Lord, nearly five years ago, I had formed the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that within tin years of that date it would not be possible to consider the kind of event to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred this afternoon in the course of his interesting and valuable speech. You could not, I believe, consider the possibility as indefinitely continuing that something like the Korean, encounter would take place on the Continent of Europe. I do not think it is valuable to state in any detail why I came to that conclusion then. I will give two reasons only for it, and will say that I still believe that I was right, and that if in any sense I was wrong I believe was wrong only in the sense that when I gave to myself a period of ten years it ought perhaps to have been written down a good deal less than that.
My Lords, I think that people tend to regard nuclear and conventional weapons rather as one might regard two alternative nibs to a fountain pen. If you want to screw in a nuclear nib, you can write a letter, and then, if it does not suit your handwriting, you can take it out and screw in a conventional nib. My Lords, it is not like that at all. The lines of communication, the deployment, the tactics and the composition of a force which has nuclear weapons of a tactical character are fundamentally different, I should have thought, from those of one which has only conventional weapons; and I would say that, whatever may be true about the possibility or danger of tactical nuclear weapons escalating to the strategic nuclear scale, the danger of a heavy conventional assault escalating at least to the tactical nuclear scale was infinitely the greater of the two.
At the risk of pursuing this personal view of mine—it is a little too long, but I still attach great importance to it, and
938
I will therefore do so—I simply ask the House to consider this point. Suppose one was the commanding officer of a Communist force about to commit an aggression across the Continent of Europe. Both sides are in fact, as we know, equipped with tactical nuclear weapons, supported in the background with weapons in the megaton realm. How are you going to deploy your forces for the attack? How are you going to form them up in the forming-up places? How are you going to put your lines of communication? Surely, knowing that, on the other side, there are tactical nuclear weapons, you will have to adopt that degree of dispersion which is necessary to shield your force from an annihilating blow from one of those weapons. If you do that, where are you going to get your fire power to mount an attack unless you use your own tactical nuclear weapons in support of your attack? I would say, without doubt, that a great deal of thinking in this debate, demanding a reversion to conventional weapons, is as out of date as the demand that we should revert to the shape of the forces in 1951.
Now, the conclusion which I draw from this fact—a very serious conclusion; and again I speak personally—is this. I draw the conclusion that when I sought to speak last year, as I did, in opening this debate, in the sense to which, in part, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was referring, I was not, as some people thought, putting forward some rather starry-eyed moral view of my own. I was stating, in what I regarded as logical terms, the very view which has been reiterated by every responsible Government on both sides of the Iron Curtain, including the Russians, that we are faced with the necessity of preventing a war altogether., if by war you mean any thing on the Korean scale, and excluding only the type of encounter which was referred to by, I think, my noble friend Lord Bridgeman yesterday as "checking relatively small incidents", and which has been referred to during this debate, as "brush fire stopping", or "police action", or "bush fire stopping". I believe that to be the only logical conclusion of the revolution in weapons to which I have been referring.
The object of our defence policy is not to win a war; it is not to fight a war;

939
it is to prevent a war, and that policy will have failed unless it succeeds in that object. It is necessary to point this out, my Lords, because the kind of armed force, the balance between the nuclear and the conventional and between the tactical and the strategic, which would be required for the purpose of preventing a war is not necessarily the same as that which you require for fighting it. The deterrent (as it is called) has succeeded so far. My right honourable friend the Minister of Defence was quite right in saying that in another place in the comparable debate. It has succeeded so far in preventing a war in circumstances in which, I would venture to say, but for the terrible nature of modern weapons, it is only too probable that war would have broken out in the last ten years. To that extent the policy is a success.
But what I said last year, and what I say this year, is that it is not infallible, and when I contemplate, as I contemplated last year, and as we now contemplate again this year, the kind of weapons, tactical and strategic, which are in existence, I cannot but think that unless a means is found of bringing armaments to an end within a measurable time, sooner or later the weapons will be used, and whatever degree of escalation there may now be feared will take place, whether the first weapons which are used are conventional, or tactical-nuclear. That only underlines what I said last year and what the White Paper says in paragraph 1, that our policy ultimately is based upon the need for disarmament.
When I said that, I was not seeking, as the noble Viscount said and as he reminded me yesterday, to avoid discussion on the White Paper. I was raising what, to my mind, is the most important item for discussion on the White Paper, and it is from there that we need to go. It was precisely because, if you are going in for general disarmament, you must have general disarmament with inspection and control, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said in the course of his speech in regard to the Sixth (I am afraid they are called "Pugwash") Conference. It is precisely because you have to go in for inspection and control at the same time that I referred in plain terms to a world authority, primarily to police the
940
inspection and control of the disarmament which is necessary, if we are not to get into the situation which I have described. And I went further for this reason: because I think if you have disarmament without any form of international force, you will in fact have created a political vacuum like the Congo; and political vacuums like the Congo would inevitably lead to the danger of rearmament and war at the precise moment when confidence was returning. It was for that reason that I said last year that that is what I believed. My Lords, I still say so this year. I do not think it is suitable, even in a debate of this importance, that I should speak as a spokesman of the Government and use words in the foreign policy sphere which are better spoken by the responsible Foreign Office Minister. But, so far as I know, this is the kind of thought in which we believe, and it is the kind of view, I think, to which one is driven logically by a contemplation of the sense of the White Paper.
My Lords, it is in that context that I would ask your Lordships to consider the policy revealed by the White Paper. It does not, of course, offer absolute security to the people of this Island. I do not know of any policy that would offer absolute security to the people of this Island at the present time, and I should not, therefore, think that it was a criticism of our policy that it did not. On the contrary, I would say, with sadness but with complete conviction, that nobody could guarantee, even if we took the right decisions upon the material available, that the material has in every case been adequate; or, alternatively, that even if we took the right decisions upon adequate material, that it lay in the power of a single Government in this country to guarantee success. Despite taking the right decisions, we might easily be overwhelmed with disaster.
What does emerge from the policy is this. It must be seen in the context of our foreign policy, in the context of our economic policy, in the context of our aid to underdeveloped countries, and in the context of the determination and character of our own people. It is true, for the reasons given best. I thought, by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, that inside that policy, so far as weapons and arms are concerned, we think we should retain a nuclear component.

941
My Lords, I have not been able to follow the Liberal Party in their suggestion that that nuclear component is inconsistent with interdependence. On the contrary, it fits into the pattern of the alliances; and I may say we are a member of more than one alliance, the membership not identical in every case. It therefore behoves us to have forces which are available for all three. It tits into the pattern of defence, and it is, I should have thought, an important, perhaps even an indispensable, part of the effort of the total alliance. I cannot see why this is said to be inconsistent with interdependence. It is part of interdependence. The Americans have infantry, but we do not, for that reason, seek to abolish the Brigade of Guards. Because they have infantry, we do not say that we cannot afford infantry too. I cannot see that to our more advanced and sophisticated arms the same argument need not apply.
On the contrary, I should have said, quite frankly and bluntly to the noble Lords in the Liberal Party, that if we want our alliance with the Americans to be healthy—and nobody wants that more than I, being both by blood and extraction half American, although by loyalty wholly British—we must at all costs avoid the kind of picture of Britain which Americans are only too ready to paint: a tourist attraction, with conventional uniforms, techniques and skills, eking out what dollars we can earn by selling whisky and motor cars. If there are to be advanced technologies, in war or in peace, Britain and Europe must have their share of them. I should be the first to ask that these technologies should be abandoned altogether, if we could make a success of the nuclear tests conference; but so long as they exist, the idea that we should content ourselves with something obsolete, and shelter behind the advanced technologies of America, is not only ignoble but ultimately can undermine our friendly relations with our Allies.
I should like to deal with two other arguments put by noble Lords opposite. It is said that this attitude is inconsistent with what I might call our attitude on the fourth Power question. We are giving a bad example to Ecuador and the Argentine, to quote two countries referred to by the noble Lord opposite.
942
I do not think that that is so; and even if I did, I do not think that it would be conclusive. The one sure goal to rid the world of the fear of the spread of nuclear arms is to secure success in the Test Ban Conference between the three great Powers. We cannot, with any degree of respectability, go to the smaller Powers and say that they cannot do this, so long as the great Powers already have the weapons and are quite unable to agree amongst themselves over their control.
If we are concerned with lessening the fourth Power problem, we must concentrate on succeeding in the big Power problem which revolves round the Test Ban Conference. If we are to influence our Allies and our potential antagonists, our place in that Conference, and our influence there, will depend on the maintenance and, if I may say so, the maintenance in efficient form, of that part of our Defence effort which consists of the nuclear deterrent. This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, seems to think, an intolerable burden. The White Paper shows that it is not a very large proportion of our Defence effort and my own view, for what it is worth. is that if we out it off, we should have to substitute different forces with different weapons, but with something equivalent in the way of hitting power, which would cost us a great deal more—though I would not say that we must exclude what the noble and gallant Field Marshal put forward: that we should put more emphasis on one rather than the other. And I was very glad to hear him point out that, during the tenure of office of my right honourable friend, a change of emphasis was, at any rate to the experts, discernible.
There is only one other point on this that I would make to the Liberal Party. It would be vain to suppose that if we took their advice, we should save any money at all. As good Allies and loyal friends, we must devote at least as big a part of our gross national product to external policy—whether it be aid to under-developed countries, the stamping out of malaria, or support works—as to put us in proportion to our main Allies. Should we decide to abandon one part of our Defence effort, we should be in honour bound to spend the same amount of money and effort on some other aspect of our external policy. After all,

943
America spends on external policy a higher proportion of her gross national product than we do. Let nobody ever say that they can afford what we cannot afford.
I would say that, adopting the policy of the White Paper, we must bend our efforts towards world peace—and this is what gives added force to what my noble friend Lord Kennet said yesterday. Last year, there was (and this is largely the explanation of my making the speech I did) a reasonable chance of those efforts bearing fruit. It is not for me now to recapitulate the circumstances which destroyed the hopes I then entertained, but, for some of the reasons that the noble Lord has given, I would say that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that those hopes might reasonably rise again this year. Therefore, let us not abandon them. If we do go on with them, and those wishes realise themselves, let us not delude ourselves that the future is going to be any easier—but at least it is going to be a future.
We shall have to face the challenge of the statement of the 81 Communist parties. That will involve, believe me, at least as much of our gross national product as our policy on arms does now. We are not going to get off a lot of money by saving on these weapons. But at least mankind will have an assured future and secure, sooner or later, a situation in which the value of our own
moral standards and our own way of life can be measured against Communism in objective terms instead of in terms of relative force and mutual terror.
7.10 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Amendment moved—
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 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 to-day,' 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.")—(Lord Rea.)
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 81.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville-West, L.

Rea, L.

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Samuel, V.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Amwell, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Archibald, L.

Listowel, E.

Silkin, L.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Lucan, E.

Taylor, L.

Burden, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Terrington, L.

Carnock, L.

Nathan, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Colwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wise, L.

Crook, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dalton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Bossom, L.

Conesford, L.

Ailsa, M.

Boston, L.

Congleton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Amory, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Crathorne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carew, L.

Crookshank,V.

Atholl, D.

Carrick, E.

Digby, L.

Auckland, L.

Carrington, L.

Dundee, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Chesham, L.

Dynevor, L.

Bathurst, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Birdwood, L.

Coleraine, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Blackford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ferrier, L.

Foley, L.

Jessel, L.

Robins, L.

Fortescue, E.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Long, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Freyberg, L.

Lyell, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Furness, V.

Margesson, V.

Saltoun, L.

Gage, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Savile, L.

Goschen, V.

Melchett, L.

Sinclair, L.

Gosford, E.

Merrivale, L.

Strang, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Mersey, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Mills, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Hastings, L.

Milverton, L.

Swinton, B.

Hawke, L.

Newall, L.

Tedder, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ormonde, M.

Teynham, L.

Ironside, L.

Perth, E.

Torrington, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Radnor, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Resolved in the negative, rent disagreed to accordingly.
7.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the ("That") and insert
("this House has no confidence that the policy set out in the Report on Defence (Cmnd. 1288) will provide effectively for the defence of Britain."), —(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 80.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville-West, L.

Rea, L.

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Samuel, V.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Amwell, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Listowel, E.

Silkin, L.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Lucan, E.

Taylor, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Terrington, L.

Carnock, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nathan, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Crook, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wise, L.

Dalton, L.

Peddie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ironside, L,

Ailsa, M.

Crathorne, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Crookshank, V.

Jessel, L.

Amory, V.

Digby, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Long, V.

Atholl, D.

Dynevor, L.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Margesson, V.

Baden-Powell, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bathurst, E.

Ferrier, L.

Melchett, L.

Birdwood, L

Foley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blackford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mersey, V.

Bossom, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mills, L.

Boston, L.

Freyberg, L

Milverton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Furness, V.

Newall, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gage, V.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Carew, L.

Ormonde, M.

Carrick, E.

Goschen, V.

Perth, E.

Carrington, L.

Gosford, E.

Robins, L.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Harding of Petherton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

Saltoun, L.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Savile, L.

Congleton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sinclair, L.

Strang, L.

Swinton, E.

Teynham, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Tedder, L.

Torrington, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Teviot, L.

Waldegrave, E.

On Question, Resolution agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Second Report from the Select Committee, made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.