Sitting of 14 March 1962

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

    Young Ratings (Desertion)
    Mr. A. Brownasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many Royal Navy personnel, being persons under the age of 21 years, were found guilty before naval courts of desertion, absence without leave, and similar service offences, during the period 1st January to 31st December, 1961, or, alternatively, during the last twelve months for which figures are readily available; and how many such persons were sentenced to dismissal from Her Majesty's service and to a term of imprisonment which was served in a civil prison.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): During 1960, the latest period of twelve months for which comprehensive figures are available, 211 ratings under the rate of 21 years were found guilty of desertion. It would take an enormous amount of research to provide the corresponding figures for absenteeism and other "Service offences". Forty-four ratings were, however, dismissed and sent to a civil prison following conviction of desertion, improper absence or other "Service offences"
    Mr. P. Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1961 in Exeter prison alone there were eleven of these lads serving prison sentences and that these sentences were nearly all Service sentences for such offences as being absent without leave or being improperly dressed? Does not my right hon. Friend think that something should be done about this? Is there a law which forbids him to send these personnel to military prisons?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: People are sent to these places only if they have already been dismissed the Service. In 90 per cent. of the cases they have already served one or more periods in a naval detention centre. However, I agree with the spirit of what my hon. Friend said; even then it is not right that they should go to civil prisons. At present, there is legislation which is shortly to be amended. When it is amended we shall be able to send them to military prisons.
    Mr. Willis: How do these figures for desertion compare with those for the other Services?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot say without notice.
    Sir J. Maitland: How many people were sent to prison for being improperly dressed?
    Mr. Orr-EwingOne young man was sent to prison for being improperly dressed but in this instance he had already committed two much more serious offences. It was thought that this was both flagrant and provocative. In spite of the fact that his misdemeanours had been pointed out to him, he seemed to be clearly under the intention of committing an offence of this sort. It was not a case of "accidental improperly dressed" but of "studied improperly dressed". He has been dismissed the Service.

    Admiralty Employees, London
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why he proposes to transfer the place of work of 400 Admiralty employees from Pinner to Earls Court.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The staff are in the Navy Works Department in temporary buildings at Pinner. We are concentrating in the main building in Whitehall and Earls Court staff previously working in Whitehall, Queen Anne's Mansions, Rex House and at Pinner. This concentration will increase efficiency, and is I think, in accordance with the spirit of the recommendations of the Select Committee which looked into the Admiralty Headquarters Organisation in 1960.
    Mr. Stewart: Is it in accord with the policy declared by the Minister of

    1291
    Housing—that office staff should wherever possible be moved out of central London; and is there any consultation between the hon. Member and the Minister of Housing before a decision of this kind is taken?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: In this instance the Ministry of Works owned the building at Earls Court. I understand that there is consultation between the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Housing about these matters before a movement of this sort is made.

    Armaent Depot, Charlesfield
    Commander Donaldsonasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements were made for the disposal of the Naval Armament Depot at Charlesfield in Roxburghshire; what sum of money was obtained for the property; if he is satisfied that proper arrangements for those who became redundant have been made; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The property was advertised in the Press. The built-up area was sold as a unit. Much of the remainder was resold to the representatives of former owners as agricultural land. The Roxburgh County Council acquired the small site of the water supply system.
    It is contrary to Government practice to disclose prices paid for transactions of this nature.
    With regard to the third part of the Question the answer is "Yes".

    Royal Marines
    Mr. Wallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many Royal Marines are now serving in Her Majesty's ships; and what percentage of the Corps this represents.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The number was 1,536 on 31st December, 1961. This was 17 per cent. of the Corps' strength.
    Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend say whether that includes the Commando "Bulwark"? Does he not agree that it is extremely important for the Royal Marines to maintain close contact with the Royal Navy and that as high a percentage-as possible should serve in Her Majesty's ships?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: This figure does include the Commando "Bulwark", and I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that it is desirable that this association should continue and increase. In fact the figures for the last three years have shown an increase—17 per cent., and 13 per cent. in the year before.

    Ground-to-Ground Missiles
    Mr. Wallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what naval ground-to-ground missiles are being developed for the Royal Navy.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Seaslug Mk. II is being developed to have a surface-to-surface capability. This capability will be incorporated in future naval guided weapons systems as appropriate. The primary anti-surface strike weapon is, however, the aircraft. Naval aircraft are now to be fitted with the air-to-surface Bullpup.
    Mr. Wall: While there may be practically no requirement for a ship-to-ship missile, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of providing adequate means of supporting landing operations? Would Seaslug perform this function?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that in this connection it is not so much Seaslug, but we should be equipping our Commandos with the SS11, a French guided missile. I shall have more to say about this in my Estimates speech starting in about an hour's time.

    Personnel, Dockyards
    Miss Vickersasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many men serving in the Royal Navy are still employed in Her Majesty's Dockyards in the United Kingdom; and in what capacity they are serving.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: One hundred and fifteen officers and about 50 ratings. Apart from Admirals Superintendent, Captains of the Dockyard and Queen's Harbour Masters, these numbers are made up in the main of managers of the engineering and electrical departments and their assistants.
    Miss Vickers: Is that a decrease on the numbers? Is it still the policy of the Government to keep naval officers in the dockyards?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think the previous year the number was 112, so it is a small, insignificant increase. It is our policy to associate naval officers with the dockyards, partly because that gives them experience in dockyard work which is valuable to them when commanding ships, and secondly in specialist departments like the Weapons Department, where a knowledge of the operational requirements can be extremely helpful.
    Mr. Willis: Is it true that the number of higher officers in the dockyards, as a result of this reorganisation, is likely to increase?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid I have not studied the reorganisation in detail but perhaps the hon. Member would like to put a Question down, because that does not arise on this Question.

    Channel Buoys, Naval Ports
    Miss Vickersasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what are his arrangements for ensuring that the channel buoys in the approaches to naval ports in the United Kingdom are in their proper positions.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The positions of channel buoys placed by the Admiralty in naval ports are checked at least every six months, and each buoy is lifted for maintenance and inspection once per year.
    Miss Vickers: In view of the recent incident in the estuary leading to Devonport, may I ask my hon. Friend when the buoys were last checked?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have not got that date with me, I am afraid, but I should like to make the point that the whole of this case is sub judice.
    Mr. Paget: Sub judice?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, because the summary of the evidence has to go to the Commander-in-Chief first and then it has to be sent to the Board of Admiralty, and I think it would be wrong for me to comment, because, no doubt, this factor is one of the factors which will be taken into account.
    Mr. Paget: Whether it is sub judice or not, ought it not to be the duty of harbour masters to check harbour buoys regularly, not just once a year?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I said that they were checked once every six months. This has been found to be satisfactory in the past. The Question refers to channel buoys, and channel buoys are checked every six months. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, this is normally the task of harbour masters. This matter, again, is being looked into and also is sub judice.
    Mr. Bellenger: Although this matter in particular which the hon. Lady has raised is sub judice, nevertheless, in the interests of justice, will the hon. Gentleman see that the supplementary question which she has put, and which the hon. Gentleman was not able to answer, is answered in some way, so that the evidence which the hon. Lady wants to elicit, presumably on behalf of the officer who was court-martialled, is made public?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the hon. Lady could put down a Written Question even today so that I can get her the Answer about the last date when these buoys were checked under the existing regulations.

    Polaris Base, Holy Loch
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent officers and men of the Royal Navy now co-operate with the American naval authorities at the Polaris base in Holy Loch.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Co-operation between the two naval authorities continues as required over the whole field of United States naval activities in the area and is first class.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many men are permanently employed in connection with the American submarines in the Holy Loch?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am not clear from the hon. Gentleman's question whether he means United States naval men or United States civilians or British civilians or British naval men. It does not arise directly out of the Question. I myself have visited this site, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is in the area quite often. I would say that cooperation is absolutely first-class and has

    1295
    been steadily improving over the year during which "Proteus" has been on station.
    Mr. Rankin: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us, as to the remuneration and pay of our boys, do they co-operate on a lower rate than that of the Americans?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Our men are normally paid the rate for the job, which I think is a fair arrangement. It makes no difference whether the personnel are serving on the Forth or the Clyde or in Wales or anywhere else. The hon. Member should consult the Estimates for rates.
    Mr. Rankin: Our boys are doing the job at cheaper rates than the Americans.

    Armaments Depot, Newton Noyes
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will now make a statement regarding the future of the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Newton Noyes, Pembrokeshire.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am afraid I have at present nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member last week.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the Civil Lord aware that there have been some unfortunate rumours about this establishment and that quite a lot of workers are involved? Will the Government make a statement as early as possible? Secondly, will he see that, if there are any changes, they will be spaced out over a long period of time?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I certainly hope that it will be possible for a statement to be made on the whole matter as early as possible. We will certainly look into this question. Should there be a change, we will try to phase it over a long period to see that the least possible disturbance is caused to those employed.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Air Trooping
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Secretary of State for Air what proportion of air trooping was carried out by Transport Command, and what proportion by contract with civilian companies, in the 12-month period up to the latest convenient date.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): During the twelve months ending 31st December, 1961, Transport Command carried about 4 per cent. of the passengers trooped by air, and civil operators carried the balance.
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the Report of the Estimates Committee on trooping. Can he tell us how the inter-Departmental inquiry is going and when he expects its report with regard to the fuller use of Transport Command planes for this purpose?
    Mr. Taylor: Following the Report, we are now investigating this matter in detail. Whether it would be an economic proposition in principle has also to be examined in the light of statistics which we have and those which may emerge from this inquiry. Earlier statistics show that it may well be uneconomic.
    Mr. Shinwell: What is the reason why only 4 per cent. of the trooping is carried out by Transport Command? Have we not got planes available? Or is it for some other reason?
    Mr. Taylor: During 1961 Transport Command provided a great deal of emergency capacity for the Kuwait airlift and the standbys which followed it. That necessarily restricted its flying along the regular routes. There was also, among other things, the British Honduras disaster. In addition—this is a new point—during 1961 we changed to complete air trooping for North-West Europe where Transport Command aircraft do not regularly fly. For the purpose of comparison with earlier years, Transport Command in 1961 carried 6 per cent. of air trooping of passengers on routes other than those to North-West Europe.

    American B70 Aircraft
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent he has given consideration to the possibility of using bombers similar to the American B70 in the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: There are no plans to use bombers similar to the American B70 in the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Under-Secretary tell us how far he has studied the possibilities of this aircraft, and could he

    1297
    give us an idea of how much this astronomically costly aircraft would cost in British currency?
    Mr. Taylor: This must be a hypothetical question. The aircraft is an experimental aircraft doing new work in the United States. As I have said, there is no intention of introducing it into service in the Royal Air Force.

  SCOTLAND

    Health Centres
    Mr. W. Baxterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the provision of health centres throughout Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Experimental developments in this field are considered when suitable conditions provide an opportunity. This depends on local circumstances, especially on the way doctors in a locality wish to organise their practices, as well as on the financial resources available.
    Mr. Baxter: Is the Secretary of State aware that only two health centres have been built in Scotland since the Act of 1947 was put on the Statute Book? While the provision of health centres in England is the responsibility of the local authorities, in Scotland it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland appears not to have carried out his responsibilities and duties under the Act has forced local authorities to build clinics at very considerable cost to local ratepayers. What action is the Secretary of State going to take to provide the necessary health centres in Scotland, and, where clinics have been provided by local authorities, to give them financial help with them?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member has got in a most useful speech on this subject.
    Mr. Manuel: A jolly good one.
    Mr. Maclay: First of all, the facts. It is correct that there are two health centres at present built. Another is building at Cumbernauld, and we have a diagnostic centre in Edinburgh. So the answer is two plus one plus another
    1298
    diagnostic centre, which is four. The hon. Member has gone into a very complex subject which I think would be altogether more suitably considered in debate rather than in Answers to Questions.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the possibility of using smaller hospitals in small towns which could offer the same amount of services as would be provided by the rather more expensive health centres, and ensure co-operation of local doctors as far as possible in the work of the hospitals?
    Mr. Maclay: I note the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion with interest. He will be aware, of course, that there are interest-free loans to enable doctors to equip premises for group practice. It is a complex subject.
    Mr. Baxter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Kilsyth has been on the list for a considerable number of years? I have personally interviewed successive Secretaries of State to see that a health centre was to be built in the town of Kilsyth. Will the right hon. Gentleman now face up to his responsibility and the promises which have been forthcoming with regard to the health centre at Kilsyth? Will he see that a health centre is now provided?
    Mr. Maclay: I can see no prospect of providing for a centre at present at Kilsyth. This is a question of important priorities. The hon. Member knows that we have a great many urgent jobs to do.

    Department of Agriculture Estate, Dunragit (Smallholdings)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the assessed rental in 1950 of the farm of Kilfillan on the Department of Agriculture estate at Dunragit; what will be the total annual rents receivable from the smallholders on the said farm as from May term, 1962; and what the latter figure represents as rent per arable acre.
    Mr. Maclay: The assessed rental in 1950 of the farm of Kilfillan on Dunragit estate was £410. The total annual rents as from Whitsunday, 1962, for the seven

    1299
    equipped smallholdings formed on Kilfillan will be £1,544 but this figure may be modified as a result of appeals by two of the tenants to the full Scottish Land Court against the rents fixed for their holdings by a division of the Court. The figure of £1,544 would represent a rent of £4 per arable acre inclusive of houses, buildings and other fixed equipment provided by the landlord.
    Mr. Brewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these smallholdings throughout Scotland form a very important rung in the farming ladder for agricultural workers to become farmers on their own account and should not his Department, therefore, make quite sure that at any rate the rents are not more than the average rents in the district? Would my right hon. Friend also say whether his Department takes into account the average price of milk, Which is now about 2d. a gallon lower than it was eight years ago?
    Mr. Maclay: I agree that these smallholdings are a very important rung, but it is of interest that we have had no difficulty in letting the holdings to which my hon. Friend refers. The price of milk cannot be a determining factor in the rental provisions which are based on the rents generally obtained for comparable subjects.

    Quarry Plant (Contract)
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the contract for a new quarry plant at Thornhill Quarry, Portsoy, Banffshire, was awarded to an English firm, when an Aberdeen firm with great experience of this work would have undertaken the contract and thus given employment in a development district.
    Mr. Maclay: This matter is one entirely for Banff County Council who will, I am sure, have taken all the relevant factors into consideration.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is very important that particulars of these tenders should be issued widely, particularly to local firms? Where, for example, the tender between an English firm and an Aberdeen firm in a development district is almost comparable, would it not be better, as a matter of public policy, that
    1300
    the contract should be awarded to the firm in a development district, which has great experience of this work?
    Mr. Maclay: Naturally I am only too pleased when Scottish firms, particularly local ones, succeed in competition in quality and prices. This is a matter essentially for the local authority, and it would be dangerous to hold the view that we should be restrictive in the placing of contracts. Scotland has a great deal to gain from selling out of Scotland as well as in Scotland.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is not this an example of a conspiracy on the part of the Scottish Office to divert trade, industry and employment from the north of Scotland where it is badly wanted and where the work could be well done? Will the right hon. Gentleman take urgent steps to change this unpatriotic policy?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that this is a matter essentially for the local authorities. At one moment hon. Members opposite tell me that I interfere too much with the local authorities, but when local authorities do not do what hon. Members want, they tell me that I ought to interfere.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: In view of the vast number of circulars to local authorities which are issued by my right hon. Friend's Department, does he not think that, in view of the large sums of money already taken in principle for development districts by the Government, they should send a circular to local authorities saying that, where the difference in a tender is not very great, preference should be given to local firms which have great experience of this kind of work?
    Mr. Maclay: I am quite certain, first, that this is a matter which should be left to the local authorities; and, second and very important, that we shall not do what we want to do in Scotland if we become restrictive in our policy. While I hope that Scotish firms will win this sort of contract in competition on quality and price, I shall not say that they should be given undue preference if their quality and price do not match up to those of others.

    Welfare Foods Distribution Centres
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of welfare foods distribution centres in Scotland at 1st April, 1961, and at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Maclay: The arrangements for distributing the welfare foods are entirely a matter for the local authorities and they do not report the details to me.
    Mr. Millan: Has the Secretary of State seen the report only last week that eight of these centres in Edinburgh are to be closed down because of reduced demand following the higher charges for welfare foods, and is it not obvious that if this process goes on the whole system will be completely destroyed? When is the Secretary of State going to revise this disastrous policy?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman refers to a statement in the Press. I am told that the Corporation's health committee has recommended the closing of eight distribution centres, but I have not seen myself that the recommendation has been accepted by the parent body. The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question widens the whole issue.
    Mr. Hoy: Is not the Secretary of State aware that the result of the Government's decision is to increase the charges for commodities obtained at the health centres? In view of the fact that this may have repercussions on health centres in Scotland and other parts which will not be for the good of the country, will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the matter?
    Mr. Maclay: That is completely hypothetical. There is no evidence that the health of the country is going to suffer in any way by the decision of the Government.
    Mr. Manuel: How can the Secretary of State be so complacent about this breakdown in a vital and important service? Is he not aware that in every constituency there are thousands of wage earners who get £9 a week or less, and that it is these families that are now being deprived of these nutritious foods? Will he remember the deplorable housing conditions of thousands of people
    1302
    in Scotland and do something to help the children who live in those conditions to get away from the unhealthy environment in which they are forced to spend the tender years of their lives?
    Mr. Maclay: The distribution of these welfare foods is not related to these conditions. These particular vitamins are available from other sources and are now being taken up. The hon. Gentleman referred to needy families not getting welfare foods. From answers to previous Questions, he knows that the increase in free provision is considerable.
    Mr. Manuel: No.

    Glasgow Sheriff Court (Agents for the Poor)
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he is aware that the Poor's Roll solicitors in Glasgow have been working to rule since 1st March; and what immediate steps he is taking to remedy the breakdown in the Poor's Roll system.
    Mr. Maclay: I am aware that the agents for the poor in the Glasgow Sheriff Court have decided to satisfy themselves as to the circumstances of applicants for their services. As regards the second part of the Question, I am unable to add to the reply that I gave the bon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) on 9th March.
    Mr. Millan: When is the Secretary of State really going to do something about the immediate situation in Glasgow? Is he aware that poor defendants in Glasgow are now being denied legal aid, although agents for the poor are making themselves available, simply because no one is bringing the provisions of the arrangement to their notice? Is he aware that two defendants who applied for a Poor's Roll solicitor last week were remanded in custody for six days? Is not considerable injustice being done to poor defendants in Glasgow, most of whom had previously the benefit of Poor's Roll solicitors? When is something to be done to meet the immediate situation which arises from the Secretary of State's own dilatoriness?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about this arising from my

    1303
    own dilatoriness. This is an extremely complicated question and I am very concerned about the facts that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. The decision to work to rule is one deliberately taken by the agents for the poor in the full knowledge of the Government's acceptance in principle of the Guthrie recommendations. I have no power to compel the agents to revert to their old methods of working. The Guthrie recommendations axe extremely complicated and will take a lot of working out before we can legislate.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Is it not the case that agents are standing by to act where they are needed provided that the affidavit on means is filled up? Is it not the case that if forms of affidavit were made available then the Poor's Roll agents would be on full duty? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to make sure that these forms are made available through police channels before a case comes within the purview of the court?
    Mr. Maclay: Unfortunately, some complicated factors are involved in this form of affidavit. I am in close touch with a number of people about this problem at the moment.
    Mr. Millan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at the earliest opportunity.

    Flood Damage, Galloway and Dumfriesshire
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the amount of damage suffered by flooding in Galloway and Dumfriesshire since the beginning of October, 1961.
    Mr. Maclay: I regret that comprehensive information on which a reliable estimate of the kind desired by my hon. Friend might be based is not available. My Department has, however, received applications for assistance under the Agricultural Drainage Scheme and the Farm Improvement Scheme for works made necessary by flooding which are estimated to cost nearly £33,000.
    Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of the damage has reached a considerable figure and that many people have been seriously affected financially? When the Minister of
    1304
    Housing and Local Government distributes the well-deserved contributions to Sheffield and Cornwall, will my right hon. Friend fight for us so that we in south-west Scotland shall have something too? Will my right hon. Friend see whether the agricultural drainage grants which can be of some help can be extended to some non-agricultural properties, because the coast protection legislation does not seem to be of any assistance at all?
    Mr. Maclay: I will consider the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. As to the former, I will watch the position carefully and see whether we can justify the payments which he suggests. My hon. Friend will be aware of the statements made about the relief of flood damage in the past. I am watching the position closely.

    Forth Road Bridge (Toll Charges)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive from the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board the proposed schedule of toll charges; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclay: In terms of the Forth Road Bridge Order, 1958, the Joint Board is required to submit its proposed schedule of toll charges to me not more than twelve months nor less than six months before the probable date of opening of the bridge. At the same time the proposed charges will be advertised publicly so as to give all interested parties an opportunity to study them and to submit representations if they wish.
    Mr. Woodburn: While agreeing with the Secretary of State that this is "in the bond" and that these agreements are the agreements, may I ask whether he is satisfied that we shall not have hundreds of cars cluttering the entrance to the bridge at both ends in the summer because of the complications of taking these tolls? Would it not be wise at this stage to have a conference of all the bodies concerned, including the Government, to see whether some more sensible method can be devised to meet the cost of building the bridge so that traffic can flow freely and we shall not have this stagnation and this cumbersome hold-up?
    Mr. Maclay: I do not think that the hon. Member need fear a serious holdup of the type which he describes. Like me, he must have travelled over many toll bridges, and I do not remember anything more than a marginal hold-up.
    Dr. A. Thompson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the high level of tolls on this bridge will divert industrial traffic at a time when we need to attract industry into Fife, particularly in view of the closing of the Rothes colliery? Is he also aware that the high level of tolls on passenger traffic will rob Fife of the chance of becoming a commuter area for Edinburgh?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member is assuming figures when none of us has any idea what they will be.

    Tourists (Tax)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now reached a decision regarding the proposal to impose a tax on tourists in Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. As I explained to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) on 7th February, I propose to await the Scottish Tourist Board's views before attempting to come to any conclusion.
    Mr. Hoy: Am I not right in understanding that these views have been put to the Secretary of State? There is nothing very complicated about this. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman come to a decision?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member must not ask me to decide questions which are of some interest and are highly controversial before I have even heard any arguments about them. I certainly do not intend to make any decision before I have at least seen the suggestions of the Tourist Board.
    Mr. Hoy: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he came to a much more serious decision over drift-netting for fish without an inquiry? Would he not like to apply that principle in this case?
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question.
    Mrs. Slater: Will the right hon. Gentleman give very serious consideration to this matter? Is he aware that
    1306
    many of us from England enjoy going to Scotland for a holiday and that it would be a grave imposition if, because of a tourist tax, people were prevented from enjoying the grand mountains and lochs of Scotland?
    Mr. Maclay: I am glad to see that the hon. Lady is working gallantly for the good of Scotland, as the Tourist Board is trying to do.
    Mr. Tiley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if Scotland does not want visitors, the Yorkshire dales always welcome people?

    Apprentices (Day Release)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he accepts the recommendation of the Toothill Committee that day, or block, release should be made compulsory for apprentices; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclay: Prior to the issue of the Toothill Report I invited the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council to appoint a committee to consider the legislative or other measures that might be adopted in order to secure the progressive development of part-time further education by release from employment. Its first Report has just been completed and I shall take full account of the Toothill Committee's views in my consideration of it.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have been waiting for a long while for something to be done about this matter? Would he consider that part of the recommendations of the Toothill Committee where it is suggested that, instead of waiting on a complete scheme, the right hon. Gentleman ought to make a start by taking one trade to begin with and developing that?
    Mr. Maclay: I am awaiting the chance to consider properly the Report which I have just received. I will bear very much in mind what the hon. Member has said when I am considering it.
    Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for a long time Scotland has lagged completely behind England in day release? Surely the Secretary of State should have sufficient information without having to wait for

    1307
    the Toothill Committee or any other Committee to report to take a decision which is of such importance to Scotland, where we need many more apprentices to be trained in order to attract further industries to Scottish areas.
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Lady will be aware that over a period I and other Scottish Ministers have made a series of speeches on this subject. She is also aware that quite complicated issues are involved in which the trade unions and all other possible interests must be consulted before we move into a scheme the result of which we cannot be sure of until we know how the different interests will react.
    Mr. Brewis: Has there been any improvement in the day-release figures for Scotland recently?
    Mr. Maclay: I have not the figures with me but I will certainly send them to my hon. Friend.

    Certificate of Education (Advanced Grade)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce an advanced grade of the leaving certificate.
    Mr. Maclay: As I stated in my Answer of 5th December last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson), I have accepted the Advisory Council's recommendation for the introduction of an advanced grade of the Scottish Certificate of Education. The necessary preparatory work in the various subjects is now being undertaken through a number of committees drawn from the schools, the universities, the central institutions, the colleges of education and Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
    Mr. Rankin: May I welcome this action on the part of the Secretary of State in connection with the advanced certificate? Will the right hon. Gentleman now return to Question No. 27 and see whether he can do something about that too?
    Mr. Maclay: I think that I should be strictly out of order if I did that.
    Mr. Speaker: I think so also.

    Fishing Vessel "Red Crusader" (Inquiry)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why no Scottish lawyer has been included in the delegation which is to argue the case before the International Commission of Inquiry arising from the incident involving the Scottish trawler "Red Crusader".
    Mr. Maclay: The Commission is not concerned with any particular question of Scottish law and the composition of the United Kingdom delegation follows the usual pattern for cases before international tribunals. The counsel selected by the United Kingdom are highly expert in Admiralty and shipping matters, and the Chief Inspector of Sea Fisheries for Scotland, who is a member of the delegation, can provide the necessary technical advice.
    Mr. Grimond: Is that not a lamentable Answer? As the senior Minister of the Crown, representing Scotland, is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that there is no Scottish interest in this case and that Scottish law has no view upon that interest? Furthermore, is he not aware that Scottish law is far more in tune with European law than the rather primitive form of jurisprudence which is practised in England?
    Mr. Maclay: The right hon. Gentleman is very wrong in the strange implications he makes. I pointed out that there is no particular question of Scottish law, and that this is the practice which has been followed over many years in cases of this kind.
    Mr. Hendry: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that under Article XIX of the Treaty of Union it is provided that there shall always be a Court of Admiralty continued in Scotland and that in that case Scotland is sui juris in matters of this sort? If a practice has grown up to the contrary, it is wrong and should be changed.
    Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend will realise that this is not a matter which has arisen in Scotland. It is an international matter.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State think this matter over again? After all,

    1309
    we should at least have one representative there. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are quite prepared to spare the Lord Advocate? He would not be missed.
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as I have said in my main Answer, the Chief Inspector of Sea Fisheries is advising on the technical issues, on which he is competent to advise.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is not the Secretary of State aware that distinguished members of the Scottish Bar and other lawyers in Scotland, notably the professor of law at Edinburgh University, take a view quite different from that which he has expressed in his Answer? Will he, therefore, reconsider this matter in order to get himself on the right lines? Is he not aware that letters of protest have appeared in the Scotsman, notably from the professor of law at Edinburgh University, treating this as a humiliation to the lawyers of Scotland?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong to consider this a humiliation to anybody. I deplore—I say this deliberately—any feeling in Scotland that when something happens which is not entirely liked, it is a humiliation to Scotland. That is quite wrong. This is a matter which has been very carefully considered, and it is believed that this is the best way to handle the situation.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Argentine Navy (Orders)
    Commander Keransasked the Minister of Transport what contracts have been placed in the United Kingdom arising from the recent voting of expenditure in the Argentine for the rebuilding of their navy over the next ten years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that the Argentine Congress last December voted that the equivalent of approximately £100 million worth of new orders be placed in Europe for the reconstruction of the Argentine Navy, and of the talks between representatives of the British and Argentine Governments which resulted in a British naval force
    1310
    under Admiral Copeman visiting Argentina during the Christmas Recess, if he will now state the result of these talks so far as they were concerned with the placing of shipbuilding orders in the United Kingdom, indicating how many of these orders will be placed in British shipyards and British factories for acessories.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): Negotiations are proceeding between certain British shipyards and the Argentine Navy in respect of orders for ships worth approximately £25 million and do not think that it would be helpful to these negotiations to make any statement now.
    Commander Kerans: If there is any likelihood of orders being placed in the North-East, will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the high rate of unemployment in my constituency?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this is another example of the conspiracy between Ministers of the present Government to divert trade, industry and employment from Scotland to England?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not think I could accept that. It does not arise on this Question.

  ROADS

    Trunk Roads, Derby
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a report on trunk roads in the County Borough of Derby following the recent visit to that area of his Parliamentary Secretary.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Apart from very short lengths of A.6, A.38, A.52 and A.516, the only trunk road in the County Borough of Derby is A.5111, known as the Derby Ring Road. The limited time I had available to spend in the Derby area on this occasion was taken up with an inspection of major trunk road schemes outside the county borough boundary. In consequence I

    1311
    had time to inspect only one section of the Ring Road.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Minister that the traffic congestion at certain junctions on the ring road is now a very expensive affair? Is he also aware that while the people of Derby welcome the Minister's readiness to waive the objections to traffic signals which he has held for so long, traffic signals are only a temporary measure, and when he gets his engineer's report will he bear in mind that a proper scheme of roundabouts would be a very good investment?
    Mr. Hay: I will bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the views of the right hon. Gentleman on this point.

    Channel Tunnel
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Minister of Transport whether he will provide an interim report on the progress being made in the Franco-British inter-Governmental discussions about the Channel tunnel before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend will be glad to report to the House on this subject as soon as he is in a position to do so, but I can make no promises at present on when that will be.
    Sir W. Teeling: I realise that the Minister cannot report until he has something to report on, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind that on the south coast of this country and the north-west coast of France a great many plans and projects are being held up because no clue is being given one way or the other about what is going to happen?
    Mr. Hay: We are well aware of the desirability of coming to an early decision on this matter, but since this is the subject of international discussion and consideration, we have to bear in mind that we are not the sole deciders of how fast we can go.
    Mr. H. Hynd: In view of the urgency of the matter because of the increased cross-channel traffic and the possibility of our going into the Common Market, in which case a Channel tunnel will be more important than ever, are the Government taking the initiative?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir; I think it could certainly and properly be said that we have taken the initiative in this matter throughout.
    Sir C. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that if we are to have a permanent link with the Continent many people would prefer a bridge to a tunnel?
    Mr. Hay: We are well aware that that is a point of view which is widely held. It is one of the factors in our consideration of the whole matter.

    Traffic Signs
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Transport what are his plans to bring British road traffic signs more into line with international road traffic signs, and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hay: This is one of the points that is being considered by the Committee on Traffic Signs under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Worboys. We are not proposing to make any change in our present system of signs until we receive the Committee's report.
    Mr. Gower: As so many British motorists now go to the Continent and so many Continental businessmen and tourists come here, is it not regrettable that there are so many differences between our signs and those on the Continent, which are largely standardised?
    Mr. Hay: If one examines the European code of traffic signs and compares it with our own, it is interesting to find that the differences are far fewer than one would imagine. I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said in a debate on this subject only a few months ago. We think it better to get the view of the Committee before we make any changes.
    Mr. Lipton: Is not our system of road signs probably the worst in Western Europe, whether we standardise or not? When will the Government make it a little easier for British subjects not to lose their way in their native land?
    Mr. Hay: There are a number of differing views about the efficacy of our road signs. It is because of these factors that we decided to set up the Committee, which I hope will report very soon.

  SHPPING

    European Maritime Nations (Conference)
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the recent conference of European maritime nations.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Ministers and other representatives of ten European maritime nations met in London last week to discuss the problem of the unilateral control of international shipping exercised by the United States Government. With permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of an agreed statement issued at the end of the meeting.
    Mr. Williams: Will my hon. and gallant Friend confirm and re-emphasise the words used by the Minister in the recent debate on shipping to the effect that if we cannot get the agreement of the European nations to make an approach to America on this matter, if we cannot get them to combine, we shall go alone; that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government that in default of an agreement with Europe we shall continue to put our point of view to the Americans very forcibly indeed, including taking powers of retaliation if need be?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We shall certainly continue to put our point of view firmly, but I think it would be agreed that collective action by ten countries which own more than half the world's shipping is likely to be more effective if we can get it.
    Dame Irene Ward: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether all the countries concerned have decided to make the strongest representations?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, Sir; I think it can be said that all the countries are united in their point of view. I invite my hon. Friend to study the communiqué which will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Dame Irene Ward: It is a pity that my hon. and gallant Friend cannot make a statement now.
    Mr. Mellish: If there is a unanimous decision by the European countries, one
    1314
    assumes from what the Minister has said that it follows that we shall continue to approach the Americans. Will the Government soon be in a position to know what the American attitude is to this protest?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I did not use the term "protest". We have already made many strong representations at all levels about American law and practice over the last two years, and so have our European friends, but, unfortunately, the results of these protests have been less satisfactory than had been hoped.
    Mr. Williams: Why is it necessary to have another meeting on 3rd May?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The American legislation raises very important issues of shipping policy, and they need careful study before we can decide what form of collective action is likely to be most effective.
    Following is the statement:
    Ministers responsible for transport and shipping and Ambassadors of ten European countries met today in London under the chairmanship of the Right Hon. Ernest Marples, M.P., Minister of Transport of the United Kingdom, to discuss the regulatory powers affecting international shipping taken by the United States Government under the 1916 Shipping Act as amended by United States Public Law 87–346 which was passed in October, 1961. The following countries were represented:—
    Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
    2. Under their legislation the United States Government exercise unilateral control over international shipping engaged in international trade. The meeting agreed that unilateral action by a government in a matter that is essentially international in character could not lead to workable or acceptable results. They could not accept that any one country could unilaterally control international shipping.
    3. The meeting agreed that the response of their governments to this situation was a matter of great and lasting importance to international shipping and required most careful thought. It was agreed that another meeting should be held on 3rd May further to discuss the best means to defend their interests. Discussions between experts will take place in the meantime to ensure that the next meeting of Ministers can make the greatest possible progress.
    4. Finally, the Governments agreed not to proceed individually but collectively.
    6th March, 1962.

    Chamber of Shipping (Resolution)
    Mr. J. Howardasked the Minister of Transport whether he has studied the resolution passed by the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom on 22nd February, 1962, on the subject of Shipping and Government Action, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, my right hon. Friend has studied the resolution and he agrees with it. He is in close and, indeed, almost continuous consultation with the General Council of British Shipping about these matters.
    Mr. Howard: Does that mean that the Minister is taking immediate steps to take powers to counter discrimination before the whole of world shipping is infected by this particular brand of nationalism? Does not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the very existence of these powers would at least discourage the United States Maritime Board from some of its present frightening activities?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir. We have never thought that the mere existence of powers would be as effective as my hon. Friend thinks. On the question of American legislation, I have nothing to add to what I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) a few minutes ago.
    Mr. Shinwell: We have waited for years for some effective action to be taken. It is all very well making these mild protests to the Americans, but as they seem to do nothing about them, is it not time that we spoke to them in rather stronger terms?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, that is the reason why we have now had no less than three meetings of the European maritime nations. But these are exceedingly complex matters and this is not the sort of legislation one wishes to rush into without thinking very carefully of what the consequences will be.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the matter of flag discrimination is very complex? All the United States needs to do in order to remedy the position is to make the
    1316
    declaration that, in future, it will provide the same facilities for the other maritime nations of the world as it demands for itself. Is there anything so complex about that? That is precisely what we do. Why should the United States single itself out for preferential treatment?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I still would not agree that the matter is quite as simple as the right hon. Gentleman thinks. As we have pointed out in the last two debates on shipping, one of the difficulties is that this country has very much more to lose on most of the trade routes than it would gain by action which might be interpreted as being retaliatory.
    Dame Irene Ward: Could we not think of some sort of retaliatory measure Without getting involved in actual shipping policy? Has my hon. and gallant Friend thought of suggesting to President Kennedy that, as we are letting him use Christmas Island for what he wants to do, the Americans might do something for us in return?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I assure my hon. Friend that we are, at any rate, doing a great deal of thinking on this matter. I would, none the less, deprecate the use of the word "retaliation" in this connection. What we prefer to think about is protective legislation.
    Dame Irene Ward: Straight speaking is a good idea.

  TRANSPORT

    Local Authorities (Bus Services)
    Mr. Boxasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the Traffic Commissioners to give sympathetic consideration to applications by local authorities for licences to run their own bus services where other transport facilities have been closed or reduced.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. Traffic Commissioners are very ready to consider any applications under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, from local authorities with the

    1317
    necessary statutory powers, or from anyone else, to replace transport facilities which have been withdrawn or reduced.
    Mr. Box: Is ray hon. Friend aware that there are a number of isolated communities in Wales which are very concerned at the withdrawal of road and rail services? Will he not reconsider the matter and see whether some assistance could be given to local authorities to run these services where private enterprise bus companies are unwilling to provide them?
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. As I said, the Traffic Commissioners are always ready to consider applications from anybody, whether local authorities or private people. The difficulty in South Wales, as in many other parts of the country, is not the absence of powers but the absence of passengers.
    Mr. Ridley: If my hon. Friend cannot help in the way suggested, can he at least tell us when he will provide some solution to this very pressing problem?
    Mr. Hay: It is not necessarily the obligation of my right hon. Friend to provide a solution for this difficult problem. There are a great many difficult points involved, the principal one being that traffic is declining. There is nothing my right hon. Friend can do to stimulate traffic either for the buses or for the railways.
    Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that when a rural area, or any area, is denuded of rail or road public services, he must not do as is suggested by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) and ask the local authority to undertake these uneconomic services? The onus must be carried by the Government in providing this social necessity in such areas.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. I would not go as far as to say that.

  SOUTH VIETNAM
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the fact that United States pilots are engaged in bombing operations in South Vietnam he will now raise the matter in the Security Council of the United Nations
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): No, Sir.
  Mr. Warbey: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that United States pilots are piloting bombing planes which drop bombs on South Vietnamese? Is this not an act of military intervention on one side in a civil war which the Americans themselves have provoked by their sabotage of the Geneva Agreement? Is this not likely to lead to an extremely dangerous and inflammatory situation in South-East Asia? What do Her Majesty's Government intend to do about it?
  Mr. Thomas: I am not in a position to confirm or deny any reports that have been received. The United States Government have stated that, in training and advising the South Vietnamese Air Force, United States pilots are working with the South Vietnamese, the object being the training of South Vietnamese pilots and other Air Force personnel.
  I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about United States "provocation". The threat to peace in Vietnam does not arise from United States action but from the policies of the North Vietnam Government, who are encouraging, directing, and, in part, supplying an insurrectionary movement in South Vietnam, the object of which is to overthrow the Government of the Republic and reunite the country by force.
  Mr. H. Wilson: But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a very grave situation has arisen in South Vietnam? In view of our special responsibility jointly with the Russians, as Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference, does not he agree that it would be a good thing now if we could join the Russians in convening a conference of all the interested parties to try to get the situation stabilised? Would not the hon. Gentleman further agree that this situation would perhaps have been eased if all of us had carried out our commitments with regard to the holding of free elections in Vietnam?
  Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. I would agree with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I also agree that a grave situation has occurred in South Vietnam. But as far

  1319
  as the recalling of the conference is concerned, as I pointed out in an Adjournment debate on 19th February, terrorism must be stopped before there can be any chance of arriving at an equitable settlement of the problem of Vietnam.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been eleven reports from the Supervisory Commission about the situation in Vietnam? Is he aware that the British Government have tossed these reports aside, and have not given them or the protests of the Indian Government, who have a special knowledge of the position, the attention they deserve? Is he also aware that it is not absolutely true to say that the North Vietnamese have interfered? Previous to this latest situation, there were rebellious movements to try to remove the nepotic Government of South Vietnam.
  Mr. Thomas: We are aware of the Commission's reports. I dealt with them in the Adjournment debate.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that there can be no question of action by means of the Geneva Conference or in any other way, to end this very grave situation, which he admits exists, unless the fighting stops? Would it not be the right course to recall the conference first, so that, if we cannot bring the fighting to an end,
  1320
  by putting pressure on all concerned we could see that we returned to the Agreement made at Geneva seven years ago?
  Mr. Thomas: I am not saying that. I say that there is international machinery which was set up as a result of the Geneva Conference in 1954. That machinery still exists, and we do not consider it appropriate to take any further step until all the possibilites of using it have been exhausted.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Stratton Mills: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 30th March, I shall call attention to Northern Ireland, and move a Resolution.
  Wales (Road and Rail Needs)
  Mr. Box: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 30th March, I shall call attention to the future road and rail needs of Wales, and move a Resolution.
  North-East (New Industry)
  Mr. Proudfoot: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 30th March, I shall call attention to the advantage of establishing new industry in the North-East, and move a Resolution.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1911 (AMENDMENT)
3.32 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Official Secrets Act, 1911.
The history of this Measure is surprising and unusual. It was, I think, first introduced into this House in 1889, at the time when the only thing that was secret was what Gladstone said. It was passed through almost on the nod. It was amended in 1911, when the whole question of international espionage was a matter of considerable concern.
I am glad to see in his place my right hon. Friend who wrote so brilliantly of that period of the days of "We want eight, and we won't be late", of Mr. Mulliner and Coventry. It was the period of Esterhazy and of Alfred Redl.
Even so, it is surprising to recall the inefficiency of international espionage. It has to be remembered that the principal counter-espionage service was performed by a French charwoman with a wastepaper basket, and that the Russian secret service actually anticipated I.T.V. by half a century by sending a blonde and bosomy baroness to seduce the head of the Austrian Secret Service who was known to half Vienna as a transvestist homosexual. In the end, they had to pay cash like everybody else.
When the Act was amended in 1911, Lord Haldane put forward a somewhat unfelicitous explanation for the necessities of Section 1. He said that the Government had found a mysterious gentleman on a secret service station, and he had explained that he was listening to the birds. As it was midwinter, they doubted his ornithological enthusiasm, though they were not able positively to disprove it. I do not think that anyone would doubt that if someone found on a secret station, if one insists on having them, a gentleman looking like Mr. Erich von Stroheim, with a dachshund, an Anglo-German phrase-book, carrying a camera and a swordstick, his suspicions might be aroused. It would be exceedingly difficult to bring positive evidence as to what his intentions were, and this was the dilemma. Positive undertakings were
1322
given to the House time and time again that this Section related to espionage, and espionage only, and would not be used for any other purpose.
I will content myself with one quotation, taken from the speech of the Attorney-General of the day, Sir Gordon Hewart, later Lord Chief Justice of England. He said:
"It could never be contended that in a Bill to amend the Official Secrets Act, 1911. and clearly referring to the first Section of the Act of 1911, the words 'purpose prejudicial to the interests or safety of the State' referred to something of a different character from that which was being dealt with in 1911, which is the matter of spying."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1920, Vol. 136. c. 946.]
I am asking leave to introduce a one-Clause Bill which will give effect to the undertaking the Attorney-General gave the House in 1920, and provide that anyone, if he can establish that there was no connection with spying, shall have a defence to a prosecution under this Act which was introduced solely and positively on the most solemn undertakings that it would never be applied to any other purpose.
I do not want to do more than briefly refer to one or two matters. The House will recall that in about 1938, a young, rather naïve Member of the House, who was a second-lieutenant in the Territorials, endeavoured to put down Questions of great importance relating to the shortage of weapons for anti-aircraft defence. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because in September, 1939, I joined one of the first Bofors regiments, which did not have Bofors guns for a long time, and our principal equipment consisted of two rusty cisterns in which an eczemous cook used to provide aromatic dishes of liver and onions.
The House will remember that on that occasion the then Attorney-General sent for the hon. Member, that he was summoned to what the Press called a court-martial, what they called a court of inquiry, and the Committee of Privileges thought was something else, and there was a considerable investigation. Many people thought at the time that the hon. Member had been selected merely because he was related by marriage to a distinguished Parliamentarian, whom we are all very happy to have with us today, and who, at that time, was rendering a great service to the country, but had been

1323
sent to Coventry by his Parliamentary workmates for a breach of trade union rules. He criticised his leader, which is never permissible unless the leader is a Communist.
There has been some apprehension that I might make some reference to more recent events, but I have no intention of doing so. My position on the Opposition ship as a sort of excommunicate cabin boy hardly permits me to make a clear and comprehensive survey of current affairs. Occasionally, I look up through the forecastle hatchway and see a small portion of blue sky and a lot of gold braid. When the ship shivers from stem to stern on contact with a rock a voice calls down to ask, "What the deuce do you think you are doing?" The rest, as Shakespeare said, is Silenus.
No one will dispute that it has long been our custom for the judges to say that we cannot look at the collective wisdom of Parliament. This would be a dangerous thing to do. We have to look only at what Parliament said. And there are many historic examples of this devotion to the letter of the law. Suetonius records that Tiberius observed the law that chastity should be respected and that no maiden should be executed. In order not to violate the law he arranged for the violation of the maiden. Suetonius does not record it, but it seems implicit in the circumstances that when some of the Left-wing conscript fathers sought to raise the matter in the Senate they were assured by the appropriate Minister that from the very moment that the ukase had been issued committing the maiden to the bloody hands of the executioner, the whole question of virginity was then sub judice.
The House will recall that it was in the same Senate that questions were asked about troubles in Judea, and the quaestor for colonial affairs said that this was a matter of the Royal prerogative and that the proconsul had acted at the request of the King of the Jews. Local news brought by the fastest camel to the Mediterranean shore reported that there was no concern among the Pharisees or Sadducees, who were the leaders of public opinion in the colony at the time.
1324
The discussion ended only when the hoary-headed and experienced praetor for Rome affairs, from the Tarpeian Rock to the Bacchanalia, intervened to say that His Most Gracious and Imperial Majesty had been making, at Capri, a careful study of the process of human dissolution and that orders had been given that public crucifixions should be conducted with decency and decorum which could not offend the youngest member of the audience.
I wish briefly to call the attention of the House to one basic fact. If music is the international language of the heart, the concept of justice is the international currency of the mind. That concept of justice is something which we have valued in this country for centuries. Those of us who sometimes decry some of the miracles of the Church might recall some of the miracles of that concept. The bones of Mateotti called from his unlocated grave with greater eloquence than he ever spoke even in the Italian Parliament. This human concept appealed to all. Breshkovskaya, from her prison in Siberia, could call across the pacific to Eugene Debs.
This concept was something which we managed to preserve in this country and even the smoke and horrors of the gas chambers left that little light burning. If that light is extinguished, I know not where is that Promethean heat that will that light relume. We have said in the most solemn declaration of this House, what we still call the Great Charter, that to none will we deny justice; that the freed-man shall be punished after the manner of his offence, not for offences he did not commit. Have we preserved that? Are we preserving it today? Are we nurturing that concept in the light of what was said in the undertaking given to the House by the then Attorney-General in 1920, and by many others, in the course of those long debates? The palladium of our great liberties and freedoms is one which we cannot afford to allow to be eroded or to decay. If it does it cannot be refashioned.
I recall the story told to Shelley, by the
"… traveller from an antique land,
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. …
'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair !'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
3.42 p.m.
Mr. Charles Doughty: I rise to oppose the granting of leave to bring in this Bill and I have no hesitation in doing so, even though I may have had a considerable smile from time to time from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who introduced the Motion. I cannot promise to take the House upon a holiday tour or any other form of tour, with or without the company of a buxom blonde, to Egypt, Rome, or to anywhere else. I wish to bring hon. Members back to this House, or, rather, to the House which existed before the bombing took place in 1941, and to look, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West scarcely did, at the matter which we are discussing, namely, the Official Secrets Act, 1911.
The hon. Member referred to the Act of 1889, which was completely re-enacted by the Act of 1911. Hon. Members may be shocked to know that the Bill which was introduced in 1911 was debated on 18th August of that year, which, if my recollection serves me right and my researches are correct, was the hottest summer which has ever been experienced. Nevertheless, the Second Reading, Committee stage, Report and Third Reading all went through on that day. I do not propose to weary the House with the full details of the debate. Suffice it to say that it is that Measure and no other which we are discussing today.
Nobody suggested in that debate that the Bill under discussion referred only to spying. In the debate in 1920, to which I shall refer in a moment or two, hon. Members were constantly advised to read the 1911 Act. If one reads the Measure one sees that the words quoted are very wide. They cover the matter of disclosure and proper disclosure of official secrets of many different kinds. Indeed, the 1911 Act starts by saying:
"If any person for purposes prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State approaches or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act …"
That Measure was passed not completely on the nod. There was one Division and an hon. Member asked whether or not he had to give notice of an intention to call a Division to Mr. Speaker and whether the right way of calling a Division and acting as a Teller was standing in his place.
1326
I pass from the Act of 1911, although that is the matter which we are discussing today. An excerpt has been read from the debate in 1920 on what was an amending Act, but which did not amend any material part of the Section which I have read to the House. It is suggested—indeed, the passage was read from the Committee stage debates on the Bill—'that this Act applied only to spying. That is not so. I will read a further extract to the House, because this question was before the House. Although it was the Measure of 1920, the matter was before the House at that time.
Sir Gordon Hewart was the Attorney-General and moved the Bill for the Government. He had not spoken for long before Commander Bellairs asked:
"Can the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear at this point that the Bill deals only with spying?"
The answer of the Attorney-General was:
"I cannot possibly say that it deals only with spying. If the hon. Member will have patience he will see that it deals also with certain other things."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1920; Vol. 135, c. 1537.]
During the Committee stage debate, when Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy had said that the Bill dealt only with spying, the Attorney-General said:
"It is quite evident from what he said that he still cherishes the belief that in some way or other this Bill is aimed at opinion or at the suppression of opinion, and that this particular Section is so aimed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1920; Vol. 136, c. 943.]
The Attorney-General assured the hon. Member that that was not so.
On the next day—I am sorry to weary the House with this, but it is important to know what was said during the passage of the Bill—Lieut-Commander Ken worthy said:
"The reading we have of this Bill is that it is purely a contre-espionage Bill dealing with spies. We have been told that again and again, and the right hon. Gentleman's words are inscribed in the OFFICIAL REPORT."
The Attorney-General said:
"If I sat still during what the hon. Member now says it might lead to some misunderstanding. Had the hon. Member been in the House during the Second Reading debate, he would have known that I was asked the question whether the Bill related only to spies. I pointed out that that was not strictly correct, and that there were also two other matters to which the Bill refers, I adhere to that statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1920; Vol. 136, c. 979.]

1327
The other provisions of Section 1 (1)—the subsection that deals with approaching prohibited places—remain the law, which was made by the House when it passed the Bill in 1911. Any attempt to restrict the matter solely to spying would leave the field open to saboteurs and anybody who improperly wished to go upon prohibited places—and, unfortunately, we have a number in this country today.
For the reasons that I have given, which I could have adumbrated, but do not wish to in the short time at my disposal, I ask the House to refuse the hon. Member leave to bring in the Bill.
I hope that what I have said has convinced the House that no undertaking of the kind referred to was given by the Attorney-General of the day, and that to bring in today a Measure to alter the law of 1911 or 1920 would be incorrect, and not in accordance with the wishes of the House when it passed those Measures.
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 70, Noes 196.

Division No. 126.]

AYES

[3.51 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Holt, Arthur

Probert, Arthur

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Rankin, John

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hunter, A. E.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Awbery, Stan

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Bowles, Frank

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Boyden, James

Kelley, Richard

Sorensen, R. W.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

King, Dr Horace

Spriggs, Leslie

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Stones, William

Darling, George

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

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

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Symonds, J. B.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Loughlin, Charles

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Dodds, Norman

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Thorpe, Jeremy

Donnelly, Desmond

Manuel, Archie C.

Wade, Donald

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mellish, R. J.

Warbey, William

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mendelson, J. J.

Watkins, Tudor

Fernyhough, E.

Millan, Bruce

Whitlock, William

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Monslow, Walter

Wigg, George

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Morris, John

Wilkins, W. A.

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Oram, A. E.

Zilliacus, K.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Owen, Will

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)

Parker, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Pavitt, Laurence

Mr. Sydney Silverman and

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Mr. Lipton.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Allason, James

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Freeth, Denzil

Arbuthnot, John

Channon, H. P. G.

Gammans, Lady

Atkins, Humphrey

Chataway, Christopher

Gibson-Watt, David

Balniel, Lord

Chichester-Clark, R.

Gilmour, Sir John

Barlow, Sir John

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Glover, Sir Douglas

Batsford, Brian

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Bell, Ronald

Cleaver, Leonard

Goodhew, Victor

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Collard, Richard

Cough, Frederick

Berkeley, Humphry

Cooke, Robert

Gower, Raymond

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Biffen, John

Costain, A. P.

Green, Alan

Biggs-Davison, John

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Critchley, Jullan

Gurden, Harold

Bishop, F. P.

Cunningham, Knox

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Black, Sir Cyril

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Bossom, Clive

Dance, James

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Bourne-Arton, A.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Harvey, Sir Arthur vere (Macclesf'd)

Box, Donald

Deedes, W. F.

Hastings, Stephen

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon, J.

Digby, Simon Wingfleld

Hay, John

Braine, Bernard

Drayson, G. B.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Brewis, John

du Cann, Edward

Hendry, Forbes

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter

Eden, John

Hiley, Joseph

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Emery, Peter

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

Bryan, Paul

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Hirst, Geoffrey

Bullard, Denys

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Hobson, Sir John

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Farr, John

Holland, Philip

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Finlay, Graeme

Hollingworth, John

Hornby, R. P.

Mills, Stratton

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Montgomery, Fergus

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Hughes-Young, Michael

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Morgan, William

Storey, Sir Samuel

Iremonger, T. L.

Morrison, John

Studholme, Sir Henry

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rys)

Nabarro, Gerald

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

James, David

Neave, Airey

Talbot, John E.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Jennings, J. C.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Noble, Michael

Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

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

Kerane, Cdr, J. S.

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Teeling, Sir William

Kimball, Marcus

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Temple, John M.

Lancaster, Col, C. G.

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Leather, E. H. C.

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Leavey, J. A.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Peel, John

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Lilley, F. J. P.

Pllklngton, Sir Richard

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Litchfield, Capt. John

Pott, Percivall

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Longbottom, Charles

Prior, J. M. L.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Longden, Gilbert

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Loveys, Walter H.

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Wall, Patrick

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Pym, Francis

Ward, Dame Irene

Mac Arthur, Ian

Ramsden, James

Whitelaw, William

McLaren, Martin

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Rees, Hugh

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)

Renton, David

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Maddan, Martin

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Wise, A. R.

Maitland, Sir John

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Woodnutt, Mark

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Robson Brown, Sir William

Woollam, John

Marten, Neil

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Worsley, Marcus

Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

Russell, Ronald

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Scott-Hopkins, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mawby, Ray

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mr. Doughty and

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

Commander Donaldson,

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

Smithers, Peter

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1962–63

    VOTE A. NUMBERS
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That 100,000 Officers, Seamen and Juniors and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine establishments, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963.
    4.0 p.m.
    The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): It is an honour to move the Navy Estimates for the fourth year in succession in the presence of the most distinguished First Lord that the Navy and this country have ever had, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir Winston Churchill).
    Before I examine the Navy Estimates in detail, I should like to look at the place they occupy in the whole Defence Vote, which, again, is taking about 7 per cent. of the gross national product. This level is more than in any other N.A.T.O. nation except the United States and France. Within this slice, the Navy has taken a quite extraordinarily steady proportion of the whole. Thirteen years ago our proportion was 24·7 per cent. At no time has it been less than 22 per cent., and this year it is 24·5 per cent.
    I think that my noble Friend the First Lord and I might take some pride in the fact that for the second year running we have so managed our finances that there has been no need for a Supplementary Estimate. Indeed, this might be regarded as the third year running, since in 1959–60 we needed a token Supplementary Estimate of only £10. I would not attempt to claim, because of this, that our estimating machinery could not be improved. When an Estimate of over £400 million is not exceeded
    1332
    there must be an element of good fortune involved, especially when it allows for £54 million which is our estimate of what others should pay to us.
    Last year, we asked Parliament to vote £413 million for the Navy. This year, we are asking for just over £422 million. After allowing for the transfer of certain pensions liabilities to the Paymaster-General, that amounts to an effective net increase of about £16·2 million in the Navy Vote. Looking at the 1962–63 Navy Estimates, the Committee will see that this extra £16·2 million comprises increases in various Votes totalling about £23·6 million and decreases in the rest of the Votes totalling about £7·4 million. My noble Friend's Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates provides in Appendix IV a Vote by Vote analysis of these variations.
    Speaking very broadly, I would say that about £6 million covers increased prices since last year. An extra £3 million is needed for a more ambitious research and development programme. I shall be saying more about this later. The remainder of the gross increase—about £14·6 million—is required mainly to cover the sharp rise in the provision for stores and equipment. We found that the dockyard programme of refits and maintenance was in danger of being delayed because we had run down the level of stores and materials rather too far. In addition, several of the Navy Votes contain extra sums of money to provide for the feeding, clothing, arming and general equipping of the additional 500 Royal Marine Commandos.
    The provision for equipment to go into new construction ships shows an increase of about £1·4 million compared with last year, although the total provision for new construction for the Royal Navy has actually declined. It was £52·3 million in the year just finishing and will be £49·4 million next year. This is largely because the peak of expenditure on the first four County class guided missile destroyers has been passed, while expenditure on the last two, and on the assault ships, has not yet built up.
    Part of the reason, also, is that competitive tendering for new construction has now become the order of the day and is saving us real money: the results of this so far have been most encouraging and we will use this method of

    1333
    placing orders both for new construction and repair work as widely as possible in future. The provision for the aircraft programme has also fallen by nearly £3 million to £52·2 million.
    There is a sharp increase in the provision for new afloat support—the importance of which is stressed in the Explanatory Statement: it rises from £3 million to £6 million. This shows the greater emphasis which is being laid on the mobility of the fleet, about which I shall have more to say in a moment.
    To summarise, we have provided more for research and development, more for ships' equipment, more for Commandos and more for afloat support.
    Last year, my noble Friend, in his Explanatory Statement, set out the tasks of the Navy: tasks in peace time; tasks in limited war and tasks in global war. This year, for reasons which have been thoroughly debated during the last ten days, the emphasis of the Defence White Paper is on the airborne and seaborne mobility.
    The Navy's task within this concept is fundamental. We must be able to keep a force of men and heavy equipment afloat, poised for immediate action wherever it may be required, and Britain must be able to reinforce it quickly, both by sea and air, from the Strategic Reserve. This task for the Navy is not a new one. Admiral Fisher—the famous "Jackie" Fisher—put this very well in a letter which he wrote to King Edward VII, in 1907. He said:
    "The British Army is a projectile to be fired by the Navy."
    In the limited war rôle today, fifty-five years later, this should be adapted to read, "The British Army is a projectile to be fired by the Navy and the Air Force."
    The whole of our cold war and limited war strategy and our ability to maintain a military presence outside Europe depend increasingly on this concept of seaborne and airborne power, power concentrated in joint Service task forces. A seaborne force provides a mobile base from which both ground and air forces can be deployed. It provides logistic support for these forces and security for both. Co-operation between the Services is the keynote of this strategy. It is a keynote which we warmly welcome.
    1334
    Perhaps I should mention here that the increased emphasis on seaborne mobility which allows us to exert the necessary military presence outside Europe and the N.A.T.O. area does not mean that the total number of Her Majesty's ships committed to N.A.T.O. will be any less in future. It is, however, inevitable that in the case of a few ships, availability will have to be at somewhat longer notice. But the fact remains that 85 per cent. of Her Majesty's ships, as at present, will continue to be firmly committed to the N.A.T.O. Alliance. They will thus play their part with the ships of our allies in the vitally important maritime shield forces.
    I now turn to the development of amphibious forces. The seaborne task force is already a reality and it will be developed further. Our second commando ship, H.M.S. "Albion", will commission in July. In the relatively short time that the "Bulwark" has been in commission she has proved the worth of the commando ship up to the hilt. But we have already learned from operational experience over the last two years that a number of improvements can be made and these have been incorporated into the "Albion".
    The accommodation for the commando has been increased so that a bigger and harder hitting unit can be carried; night flying arrangements have been improved; air-conditioning has been improved. The ship has been converted to take the larger Wessex helicopter, which will not only lift more troops more quickly, but which will be armed with an anti-tank guided weapon, as well as with rockets and guns. These helicopters will provide increased support for the commando when required. H.M.S. "Albion" will be going east of Suez at the end of the year to relieve H.M.S. "Bulwark", which will then be refitted and have the same improvements made.
    The strength of the Royal Marine Commando is being increased from 600 to 750. It will then have extra hitting power in the anti-tank, mortar, and heavy machine gun sections. It will also have the fire support of a battery armed with 105 mm. pack howitzers of the Royal Artillery, which will be embarked in the commando ship with the commando. The administrative support of this more powerful unit is also being

    1335
    increased so as to lessen its dependence upon Army support when the commando operates beyond the range of the parent ship's helicopters.
    The first of the new assault ships which I described in last years' debate was ordered in December from Messrs. Harland and Wolff, of Belfast. Tenders have already been invited for the second of these ships and we expect to place the order within the next few months.
    I wish to underline the fact that these ships, which will be manned by the Royal Navy, will carry the Army rather than Marine Commandos. These ships will carry tanks, guns and their associated crews and vehicles, or, alternatively, up to a battalion of infantry and its equipment and vehicles. When the two assault ships are in commission, the amphibious lift provided by the Royal Navy will be about double that of the present amphibious warfare squadron. This is additional to the lift of the two commando ships.
    We welcome the setting up of a Joint Warfare Committee as another important step towards closer inter-Service collaboration. This collaboration is of vital importance to the present concept. But, of course, the seaborne task force consists of much more than just the troop-carrying ships. As I have said, it must be protected. This is one of the principal rôles of the aircraft carrier, about which I will speak later.
    I want to say something about guided missile ships. Air defence of a seaborne task force cannot depend only on manned aircraft, vital as these are. The County class of guided missile ship will also provide valuable air defence. Two will be commissioned this year—the "Devonshire" and the "Hampshire" and four more are under construction. The trials of the Seaslug surface-to-air guided weapon system have now been completed, and I am delighted to say that they have far exceeded all our expectations. During trials, out of 100 missiles fired, 90 per cent. got within lethal range of their target.
    Many different types of ship contribute to the anti-submarine strength of the task force. The aircraft carriers will have the Wessex anti-submarine helicopter, with its dunking asdic. Two squadrons have been formed. The first
    1336
    is already embarked in H.M.S. "Ark Royal" and the second will embark in the "Hermes" shortly. The guided missile ships will also have a similar helicopter and our latest ship-borne asdic. The screen of destroyers and frigates, many of them designed specifically for anti-submarine warfare, make their valuable contribution, and ranging round the force, in either close or distant support, are the fixed-wing maritime aircraft of Coastal Command.
    This year, my noble Friend's Explanatory Statement has dealt very fully with the support of the fleet, and I do not wish to repeat what he has said in paragraphs 67 onwards. In all three categories—front-line support, forward base support, and freighting support—we are progressively adding new and improved ships for the benefit of the fleet and the seaborne concept.
    Towards the end of this year we expect "Dreadnought" to commission. The Navy's second nuclear submarine, the "Valiant", has been laid down and work on her is going well. She will be the first nuclear submarine to be designed and built entirely in this country.
    The U.S.A. pioneered the nuclear submarine, which must be considered the most revolutionary vessel of war of this half century. Hon. Members will remember the "Nautilus", which was the first of these submarines to be commissioned. The U.S. Navy now has 14 hunter killer type submarines in commission, in addition to six Polaris submarines. They are planning to build another 35 Polaris submarines and in 1963 another eight nuclears.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: There has been a report that an extra number of Polaris submarines are coming to the Clyde. Does this mean mat we are to be asked to supply another base in Scotland for more Polaris submarines?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. There is no need for another base in Scotland for this purpose.
    The Russian Navy is not lagging so far behind, on its nuclear programme. It now has more than 10 nuclear submarines operational. Some are fitted with short-range ballistic missiles and

    1337
    others are of the hunter killer type. With the formidable advances they have made, it is likely they are now constructing several nuclear submarines each year. These Russian nuclears will probably replace some of the conventional submarines, the majority of which were built between 1947 and 1957. The Russians' production capabilities should not be underestimated: in their peak year they built as many as 80 conventional submarines. We must expect them to be building several nuclears now.
    Exactly one hundred years ago last Friday, on 9th March, 1862, to be precise, there was a minor naval action which changed the construction of Royal Navy ships. In Hampton Roads, Virginia, during the American civil war, one of the first ironclads, the "Merrimac", engaged two traditional wooden vessels, the "Congress" and the "Cumberland". One wooden ship was blown up; the other rammed and sunk. The next day, "Merrimac" met another ironclad, the "Monitor", and the result was underlined. It was clear that the answer to iron was iron.
    Today, one hundred years later, it is not necessary to test the relative merits of nuclear and conventional submarines to prove the point. The long-term answer to nuclear submarines must be nuclear submarines.
    Although we shall be gradually turning over to nuclear power in our submarines, this will necessarily be a lengthy process. In the meantime, our latest conventional boats, which, I think, are amongst the finest of their kind in the world, are of tremendous importance. Five new "Oberon" class submarines will join the fleet this year—"Odin", "Olympus", "Onslaught", "Otter" and "Oracle"—to reinforce "Oberon" and "Orpheus", which are already in service. These submarines will have a life of twenty years and they will be a valuable part of the fleet for very many years to come.
    Amongst other new weapons coming into the Service, perhaps I could briefly mention the American air-to-surface weapon Bullpup, which will be fitted in Buccaneers, Scimitars and Sea Vixens. This radio-guided air-to-surface weapon will multiply by many times the striking power of these aircraft. It will be much more accurate and destructive than the weapons it replaces and will greatly
    1338
    reduce the vulnerability to anti-aircraft defences of the aircraft making the attack.
    The commando helicopter, the Wessex, will also have its striking power increased. It will carry guns, two-inch rockets and the French SS.11 anti-tank wire-guided missile, which I referred to at Question Time. The SS.11 can be fired from the helicopters or by the Royal Marine Commandos ashore. It will give them most effective fire-power against tanks and strong points in the initial stage of an assault. These weapons are excellent examples of N.A.T.O. interdependence.
    All in all, 1962 should be something of a year of achievement for the Navy. For many years we have been concerned with the development and testing of new kinds of ships and weapons. Now we shall see the fruits of our labour—two County class guided missile ships, the "Dreadnought", the first Tribal class frigates, the Buccaneer, the Wessex and the Seaslug. What a marked contrast in achievement to the allegations made by the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, when he said, in the defence debate:
    "The money has been spent—there is no doubt about that … but the weapons which have been referred to over the years as being forthcoming have, for the most part, never arrived."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 326.]
    Our weapons have arrived and they are first-class.
    We have been carrying out trials of the Wasp, the new light torpedo-carrying helicopter, which used to be called the P.531, which will operate from frigates. These trials in H.M.S. "Ashanti" are proving extremely successful. Over 300 deck landings have been made, 10 per cent. of them at night. Some of the landings have taken place in very severe weather, when the wind speed was as much as 60 knots. Undoubtedly, the stabilisers, with which the ship is fitted, were the biggest single factor in making flying possible in these conditions. Incidentally, all our new frigates and guided missile ships are being fitted with stabilisers.
    Mr. John Morris: Why is the SS.11 being used and not the Vigilant, which is the weapon to be used by the Army?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The SS.11 is an earlier generation proven weapon which is immediately available in numbers for our use. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friends at the War Office, but they probably want the first production numbers of the Vigilant for themselves and not for us.
    Mr. Morris: If the Vigilant were available, would it be used in preference to the French weapon? Is it the fact that the Vigilant is not available that is at the root of the trouble?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have not studied the exact operational details of the Vigilant and compared its performance, range and everything else with the SS.11. I will certainly deal with this point. Perhaps I can deal with it in my winding-up speech.
    Members of the Committee have shown themselves anxious about the scale and efficiency of our antisubmarine forces. I touched on the general pattern when considering the defence of our task force. Now let me consider the more general aspect. We are developing our anti-submarine measures as fast as possible. We are attacking the problem from a number of different angles. Perhaps "Dreadnought's" most effective rôle will be that of an anti-submarine escort. Here, she has the great advantage that she can operate in the same element as the attacker, where her asdics are much more efficient than those of a surface vessel, especially in bad weather or awkward water temperature conditions.
    Hitherto we have not been able to employ submarines in this way because they have not had the speed to keep up with the ships requiring escort, but the nuclear submarine has more than enough speed for this purpose and, with it, we have high hopes of achieving a break-through in the anti-submarine field.
    At the same time, we are improving by every known means the efficiency of our surface escorts. We are equipping them with anti-submarine helicopters, and with new and more powerful asdics. We are also starting to apply to underwater detection the great advantages of automatic data handling, which is already being used in conjunction with ship radar. In this the information from
    1340
    asdics can be analysed and translated very rapidly into instructions for the counter-attacking forces.
    I wish again to emphasise that no single method of detecting and tracking submarines is paramount. We have both passive and active asdics. There are hull-mounted asdics, variable depth asdics, dunking asdics, sono buoys, and these, and many other devices, all add to the chances of detection. The problem is to co-ordinate these efforts and to afford the forces enough operational experience.
    During the last year we have strengthened the Joint Anti-Submarine School, at Londonderry, by providing four modern frigates. Last month, I visited it, and flew a four-hour sortie in one of the latest Shackleton aircraft. I came away tremendously impressed with the progress that has been made in co-ordination. I was struck with the efficiency and dedication of the Coastal Command crews. I appreciated afresh the improvements in equipment and operational techniques which have been made in recent years.
    I can say with some confidence that the Navy can give a high degree of protection to any sea-borne forces likely to be engaged in the sort of limited operations we envisage during the next decade. In any major war with Russia, the combined anti-submarine strengths of the Western fleets would be able to give a good account of themselves.
    Although I have been talking in terms of protection for naval task forces, I should like to emphasise that the same protection would be available for the ships of the Merchant Navy whenever necessary, as, indeed, it always has been in the past. We are also continuing to pay for the supply and fitting of degaussing equipment for merchant ships.
    I now come to aircraft carriers—
    Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of anti-submarine operations, is it not a fact that during the last war the greatest submarine killers were mines laid near the home waters of enemy submarines? What research and development is being undertaken to develop this very important section of our defences?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would not want, in answer to a supplementary question, to deal with a whole section of my speech on the development of anti-submarine warfare, but my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the Russian submarine forces, if they were operating, would not be operating in the shallow waters to which my hon. Friend is probably referring in connection with the mines threat to submarines. However, if I have time, I shall later try to include something on this section which will, I hope, satisfy my hon. Friend.
    I come now to aircraft carriers. The present generation of aircraft carriers have been, or are being, modernised to the greatest extent possible. They will be able to operate modern aircraft throughout this decade—
    Commander Harry Pursey: The greatest expense possible?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: No, the greatest extent possible.
    In his statement on defence, my right hon. Friend explained that design work for a ship to replace H.M.S. "Victorious" had been put in hand. If we are to continue to deploy air power around the world and to support our forces wherever circumstances may require, the aircraft carrier will frequently be the only means of doing it. This will become increasingly true as our use of bases is restricted, and staging and over-flying rights become progressively harder to negotiate. "Victorious's" successor would need to be in operation in 1971 and, with a normal twenty years' life, should last until 1991.
    This makes the task of forecasting the carrier requirement difficult, but we are getting on with the design. It is our aim that she should carry aircraft common to both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Such an aircraft, to undertake the rôles of strike, fighter and reconnaissance, would be a bigger aircraft than any that the Fleet Air Arm has today. It would be larger and heavier than the Buccaneer which, itself, has an all-out weight of 45,000–50,000 lb. She would need to carry a substantial number of these aircraft and, in addition, airborne early warning aircraft and some helicopters.
    1342
    To embark these aircraft, and the men Chat go with them, it seems likely that a ship of at least 50,000 tons will be needed. Our studies have shown that a ship of 50,000 tons can carry twice as many aircraft as a 40,000-ton carrier. The development of a common aircraft for the two Services should give an entirely new significance to inter-Service co-operation—
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Minister will agree, I am sure, that when the House of Commons is considering these Estimates it is reasonable that it should have an approximate idea of the cost of the vessel.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Before my hon. Friend replies to the hon. Member, can he say whether, in considering the future of the aircraft carrier eight or ten years ahead, he has taken into account vertical take-off aircraft or orthodox aircraft?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: These Estimates have only a very small fraction of design costs. The Committee is not being asked, at this stage, in any way to underwrite the cost of a new generation. We are now starting some modest design work for these events, but we are not committed to these events. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), we are considering most seriously vertical takeoff developments.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: The design work at the beginning of this programme is important. If the Admiralty has done what we understand Government Departments are now doing, which is to estimate three years ahead and look forward five years, we should be given some information about the likely cost.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The question asked by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was whether the House of Commons was being asked to vote any design cost, and I have made it clear that the amount of cost in these Estimates is very small indeed. At this stage, it is very difficult to give even an approximate cost, but it might be about £50 million.
    Talking of the future leads me on to the research and development programme, because it is very important

    1343
    to the Navy's future. On this, we shall be spending about £24·2 million, or £2·9 million more than in 1961–62. We are, of course, continuing to give a high priority to anti-submarine equipment; and most of the extra money this year is going on nuclear submarine propulsion development which is also, itself, directly related to the anti-submarine programme. The arrival of nuclear power for submarines has suggested that there may be great possibilities in developing deeper diving boats of this sort; this calls for considerable research in shipbuilding techniques and these are proceeding.
    We have about a dozen major Admiralty research and development establishments, and hon. Members may be interested to hear something of the work they do. One of the more interesting is the Services Electronic Research Laboratory, at Baldock and Harlow, where research with valves and solid-state devices such as transistors is conducted by the Admiralty for all three Services. This is to improve detection ranges of radars, or to simplify, and dramatically reduce in size, electronic systems, and provide, for example, suitable valves for satellite communications.
    The Navy is to assist, by providing a warship, in making observations on the United Kingdom radio satellite which is due to be put into orbit by the United States of America next month. The original intention had been to make observations from the island of Tristan da Cunha, but the volcanic eruption there made that impossible, and we are endeavouring to make available a ship, instead, at the various times suitable for the satellite's launching.
    I now turn to headquarters numbers, even before turning to manpower. Just over a year ago, when we debated the Select Committee's Report on the Admiralty Headquarters, I dealt quite fully with the question of the size of our Vote 12 staff—that is, the staff of the Admiralty office. I pointed out that that staff in the previous nine years had been reduced by 1,200 to 9,510 in 1960–61. I went on to promise that we would try to achieve a further reduction of 500 persons over the next five years.
    1344
    We are keeping to this programme, not without a struggle. For 1962–63, we are providing in Vote 12 for a total of 9,318 staff, reducing by the end of the financial year to 9,208. I warned the House last year that this programme of reductions would not be easy—roughly 3,000 of our headquarters staff are engaged on the design and production of ships and weapons. It is not generally appreciated that these count as headquarters staff. All sorts of new developments in tasks and techniques press upon us, and it is increasingly difficult to provide for these within a steadily reducing total of staff. But we have not allowed these difficulties to deter us, and my noble Friend and I at the Board of Admiralty intend to press on.
    Now I would like to speak about manpower. The run-down has now ceased and we are again seeking approval for a Vote A of 100,000. We are very much aware that our modern ships and weapons are entirely dependent on our success in obtaining enough good men of the right qualities and skills to man them. Recruiting is going well. I am happy to say that recruiting for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines continues at an encouraging pace. In 1960–61, we entered a total of 6,250 men—5,400 ratings for the Navy and 850 Marines. We estimate that, during the present year, we shall enter 7,200—an increase of almost 1,000. The target which we have set ourselves for 1962–63 is up by another 600 to 7,800. This will be more difficult in the face of competition from industry and elsewhere, but we are going on with a large recruiting programme.
    The improvement in recruiting has been most marked among those just leaving school. These Juniors (U), as we call them, are mostly between 15 and 16¼ years of age. In 1960–61, we recruited nearly 2,100, but all the indications are that in this year we will attract about 2,600—an increase of 25 per cent. This is the best result we have achieved for many years, and we are expanding the Junior training establishments at "Ganges" and "St. Vincent" in order to take them. Entries of juniors in the age group 16¼–17½—known as Juniors (O)—and of adults have also increased, but not to the same striking extent. The number of artificer

    1345
    apprentices entered has remained steady at about the planned level of 480. I am very glad that there has been no falling off here, because the Navy will be increasingly dependent on their skill as new and even more complex equipments come into use.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: Could the hon. Gentleman say what is the period of engagement which these youngsters of 15 enter into when they join the Navy?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: They would normally take an engagement of 12 years of man's service; that is to say, after their boy's training, as it used to be called, is over. It is 12 years man's service from the age of 18.
    During last year's debate, I mentioned that we intended to examine a number of aspects of our recruiting organisation. As a result of this survey, many changes have been made and are in the process of being made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the recruiting service. We have started a comprehensive programme to re-site a number or recruiting offices where they can be reached more conveniently by the public. Other offices, which are already well situated, are being modernised and given a more attractive appearance. One major recommendation which came out of the survey was for a complete redeployment in and around London to suit the modern trends of housing and transport. This is now being looked at. We have also introduced a number of very attractive mobile careers display vans which axe now touring the country. We have also made it more convenient for recruits to undergo examination and to join their training establishment.
    Re-engagement for pension after 12 years during 1961–62 has also been going exceptionally well. On an average, two men in three continue to re-engage. This is roughly the same rate as last year. As the House may be aware, re-engagement in the engineering mechanic branch has always been something of a headache. But, even here, one man in two is re-engaging. All this is very encouraging, and I do not think there can be much wrong with a Service in which so many men are anxious to make a full career.
    I now turn to the officer entry. Last year was the first in which General List
    1346
    entrants had to obtain the higher educational qualification of five G.C.E. passes, including two at A level. It came as no great surprise that we did not have as many successful candidates as we should have liked. For example, last year 146 candidates entered Dartmouth as General List cadets and 67 who would otherwise have qualified failed to reach the required academic standard. But 25 of those who failed academically will be able to have another attempt this year, and 21 have been accepted for the Seaman Supplementary List. So we may have lost only 21 to the Navy. The quality of those who actually entered Dartmouth was very gratifying. Sixty of the 146 entrants had three or more A level passes, and eight of them even had six or more passes at Advanced or Scholarship level. We are certainly not complacent; but we are confident that we shall be successful in getting enough young men of the calibre which the Navy needs.
    Mr. William Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many Scottish students there have been in relation to this? As he knows, we have no A level at the moment in Scotland. If he insists on two A levels, it must have some effect on the entrants from Scotland.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is called the Scottish equivalent to our A level examination. I cannot remember how many at the moment, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will know, from his intimate knowledge of Scottish education, what exactly is the equivalent. We have always said that the Scottish equivalent to the English examination will satisfy us. I cannot, without notice, give the exact numbers which come from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland out of the total percentage, but I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman know.
    We are laying good foundations for future entries by the awards we make in the annual scholarship competitions. Last year 72 Royal Naval and six Royal Marine scholarships and 82 reserved cadetships were awarded to boys who, for the most part, will be due for entry in September, 1963, provided they qualify in their exams. In addition, we are increasing our efforts to make known as widely as possible the career prospects which we have to offer. Our candidates already come from

    1347
    a very wide variety of schools—in 1961, for example, boys from about 340 different schools applied—but I am inclined to think that there are still a number of very good schools—in particular, those which have no tradition of sending boys to the Navy—which do not perhaps realise that the Royal Navy today offers a life which will be both intellectually and physically satisfying.
    Mr. Patrick Wall: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about officers, he will appreciate that it is dangerous to get too many brains in the Service if we do not get good leaders as well. Could he tell us whether the interview for this qualifying examination for judging the character of the officer is still essential, and if they have to pass it, irrespective of their examination results?
    Mr Orr-Ewing: They certainly have to pass that interview. That is the point I have been making. We failed 67 who otherwise would have qualified and had got through the interview purely on academic grounds. The interview is an important and vital part of the whole, as my hon. Friend knows, as he has a son at Dartmouth at the moment.
    We have also had an encouraging first year with the new Seaman Supplementary List, about which I spoke a year ago. We have now obtained 75 entrants, which was as many as we needed. This form of entry, together with the Aircrew Supplementary List, gives us the flexibility necessary in officer recruitment, and they are an essential adjunct to the General List entry arrangements. Of course, all aircrew, whether General List or Supplementary List now, do their initial teaming at Dartmouth. I think this is a sound and good idea. During last year we introduced a new scheme of entry for Aircrew Supplementary List officers designed to enable those who enter under the age of 22 to serve for a longer period than in the past and qualify for a pension, or, should they prefer it, to leave earlier with a substantial gratuity. We very much hope that these improved terms of service will attract more candidates of good quality: they are certainly proving attractive to those already serving in the Fleet Air Arm who are eligible to transfer to the new pensionable engagement.
    1348
    There is one problem common to all three Services—hon. Members know this as a result of previous Service debates—and it is created by the end of National Service. Like the Army and R.A.F., the Navy is faced with difficulties in attracting all the doctors, dentists and teachers required.
    There are, I am glad to say, qualified young men in these categories who are drawn to a life in the Royal Navy, and we have good hopes of solving our entry problems—though I admit that some of them loom rather large at present. During the Army Estimates debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War announced measures which all the Services will be taking to attract doctors and dentists. In the Navy we shall not normally be able to employ officers up to the age of 60, but we intend to use some retired medical officers, in a civilian capacity, up to the age of 65.
    In attracting the young doctor into the Services we need to show what the Navy has to offer. The best way of doing this is by personal contact. Young R.N. medical officers have visited the medical schools and students from them have been to see something of the Navy at work. I think this is all helpful.
    Commander Pursey: The hon. Gentleman has made a point about officers being engaged until the age of 60. He did not refer to the age at which ratings are to be retained. Is the career of a rating still to end at 40, and is the Admiralty, having had the best twenty years of the man's life, going to throw him out on to the scrap heap for the next twenty years of his life?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is difficult to answer that question in one quick supplementary. To start with, quite a large number of our ratings take commissions on the Special Duties List or even on the Supplementary List. That is the first point. The second point is that they can sign on again for up to five terms of five years—their fifth five years That is only in a small category. But I would refute the suggestion that at the end of their period of service in the Navy they are thrown on the scrap heap of life. I have found that having gained skills, experience and character which the Navy gives them, they go out and get extremely good jobs in civilian life and

    1349
    they play a very important part in connection with the national prosperity as a result of their service in the Navy It would be wrong to suggest that they are thrown out on to the scrap heap of life at the age of 40.
    I should now like to say a word about the W.R.N.S. In so many spheres they undertake important jobs with the utmost conscientiousness. Inquiries and applications indicate that the shortfall last year should be made up in the current year. Although the re-engagement rate is high enough, their engagement rate, to naval officers, ratings and others, is unfortunately, even higher. Therefore, to maintain numbers we have, like Alice, to run fast to stay where we are. All three defence Services have this problem. It does not mean that the women's branch of the Royal Navy is not playing a useful and important part. I hope we shall build up the strength of the W.R.N.S. in the coming year in accordance with these Estimates.
    I have dealt at some length with the new ships and weapons which we shall soon have, and with the officers and men who will man them. I have shown the vital part which the Navy plays in the policy of sea and air mobility. Today we have a modern and balanced Fleet. As the new ships come in, we shall be adding to its versatility and capability.1961 has been a good year of the Navy 1962 should be even better.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: The Civil Lord has presented the Estimates with his customary charm and, like most Ministers responsible for the defence Departments, has made the picture that he has given attractive by virtue of the things that we have not got. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did not say that we did have these things, but I would point out that this attractive picture is, in the main, represented by things that we have not got.
    We have not got any assault ships. We have only one commando carrier. We have no heavy Wessex troop-carrying helicopters, atomic submarines or guided missile destroyers in commission. The Seaslug missile system is not operational. When it does become operational, its effectiveness will probably be limited by virtue of the fact that it is designed to meet a threat that
    1350
    is rapidly becoming obsolescent and is being replaced by a stand-off attack weapon of a much longer range. We have not even got our Buccaneers afloat yet. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition says we have not got the weapons, he is quite correct.
    Even in the Navy we must have spent during the past ten or eleven years something like £3,500 million, and we have not yet got these things. We have also to remember that we are dealing with a Department which in the past year or so has come under very severe attack for its lack of control of expenditure, which has been severely criticised in connection with its security services, which has given plenty of other evidence of waste and muddle in other spheres and which now—and here I do not blame the Admiralty for this—is going to break its promises to the men in the Service in respect of pay increases.
    Above all, we have to remember that we are dealing with a Department that has taken almost eleven years to give us something approaching a coherent policy relating to the rôle and shape of the Navy. It is only now, after about ten years that might well be called the wasted decade, that we are beginning to get a picture of the rôle of the Navy in our defence arrangements and of the ships necessary for this purpose and that looks like making sense in time. There arc, however, still very large areas of the subject with scope for debate, and I hope to touch on some of them later.
    Meanwhile, I should like to begin where the hon. Gentleman finished. I wish to talk, first of all, about the Vote that is before the Committee. That is the Vote for 100,000 men, the same number as was asked for last year. I think the chief changes in this Vote are that there are 500 fewer men in the Navy and 500 more men in the Royal Marines.
    Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The hon. Gentleman keeps on saying "men". Should he not say "men and women"?
    Mr. Ross: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like them referred to as "units".
    Mr. Willis: If it will please the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wing-field Digby), I will call them men and

    1351
    women, but the number of women involved is very small.
    Mr. Digby: There are quite a large number of boys, too.
    Commander Pursey: And quite a large number of admirals.
    Mr. Willis: During our defence debates last year the Minister of Defence, referring to manpower—and the Civil Lord reiterated this today—said that as the Navy was a very profitable field for recruiting, of Marines in particular, there was every intention of recruiting to the maximum for which equipment and vessels could be provided. But on 28th February this year, in a Written Reply, the Civil Lord said that during the ten months ending 31st January recruiting of Marines was up by 150 over the previous year and, for the Navy, it was up by 645.
    I can hardly consider these figures to represent a very great increase, and I am wondering just what is the trouble. Is it because we do not have the ships and equipment for the men? If we had, could we recruit more men? After all, the selection seems to be fairly large, and this year we have recruited about 6,000 men for the Navy out of about 16,000 men who offered themselves.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The figure was 7,250.
    Mr. Willis: The last figures I have, which were provided by the hon. Gentleman's Department, showed about 7,000 out of about 16,000. I was wondering whether the limiting element was the number of ships and amount of equipment available.
    At Question Time today we learned—and I was amazed at this—that only 17 per cent. of the Marines are afloat. I would have thought that men join the Marines because they want to go to sea. If they wanted to spend their lives in barracks they would have joined the Army. It does not seem that many more of them will get to sea for two or three years yet, and I shall come to this point later.
    What is the Government's policy regarding this matter? It is important that we get a proper answer because in our defence debates a great deal is said
    1352
    about how the Marines and the Navy can supplement our fighting forces and help to solve our manpower problems. I have always thought that remarks of that kind were somewhat exaggerated and that the effect is really marginal. However, we are entitled to know something more about this than the hon. Gentleman informed us in speech today.
    Regarding the Marines, I discover this interesting fact about the number of men at sea; while in the last two years we have reduced the numbers in the Navy and the Marines by 3,000, the number of persons at sea has actually been reduced by 5,850. This is according to the figures supplied to me by the hon. Gentleman's Department.
    Mr. Ross: An unreliable source.
    Mr. Willis: It seems to me that the fewer ships we get the greater the fall in the number of men actually at sea, and I mean greater than one would expect. We get a smaller number of ships, a smaller Navy—and the number of men ashore increases. Funny things seem to be happening. It is a funny sort of process. We shall have everyone ashore if the Navy becomes small enough. The Civil Lord should comment on this process, because, in addition, according to the figures given by the Civil Lord, out of the vote for 86,970 men for this year, about 37,000 of them will be afloat. That is, 37,000 out of 87,000.
    We must remember that not all the men afloat are actually in fighting units. Many of them are in the submarine repair ships, depot ships and, if one might call them such, various other auxiliary forces. Thus the number of men actually afloat with fighting units must be very much below the figure of 37,000 given as the number being afloat. That does not seem a very high percentage of the very large number of men we are being asked to vote today.
    The rate of engagement appears to be rather lower this year. An interesting illustration in the Explanatory Statement shows the rate of re-engagement as increasing steadily. But the fact is that there has been a fall this year, from 65 per cent. to 62 per cent. I agree that the position is quite satisfactory on the whole. I am not complaining about it; merely pointing out the manner in which the Admiralty has glossed this over. The

    1353
    hon. Gentleman did the same thing in his speech today.
    There still are branches, however, in which the numbers re-engaging are low, below 50 per cent., such as the mechanics, mechanician and artificer branches. It is most important that we get these men. They are key technicians, and I hesitate to once again say that the prospects of promotion after the end of twelve years by the introduction of a master rate should be looked at again. I know that this has been considered several times by the Admiralty, and again recently I believe, but it should be looked at again from this new point of view. Another reason why this matter should be viewed again is that if we are to have men in the Navy—naval ratings serving on ships with men from the Army as well as from the Air Force—they are bound to make comparisons. When they do they will discover that something is not quite right.
    The Civil Lord dealt with the problems affecting officers; the need to obtain officers with higher qualifications or how it is hoped to steadily improve their educational quality. It would seem that this raises the problem of lower deck promotion, a subject with which I tried to deal during Questions last week. It makes it very difficult for men to be promoted from the lower deck, and if we are to have this sort of promotion much more must be done by the Admiralty to make available to the men on the lower deck the educational facilities of which they might avail themselves in order to reach the upper deck. This is a very important matter.
    Regarding training, I understand that quite a number of junior artificers are unable to obtain their boiler room and watch-keeping certificates, although they are at sea. The reason is that so many of them are serving on repair ships and are not getting the chance to do watch keeping and to work with the machinery or equipment that is being used. The Admiralty must do something about this or the men will become fed-up with the whole business and will, naturally, feel inclined to leave after twelve months. They will, unless something is done, feel that they have not made much progress, have not gained the experience they need, and have not been given sufficient interest and they will drop out after twelve years.
    1354
    The pressure that has been exerted in the House recently for a review of the pension scales for officers and their wives, and for other ranks, is justified. The Service Departments ought to attend to this. These people who have given their life to the Services can do a great deal of good or harm to the Minister's task of obtaining the men he wants. If they are dissatisfied with the way in which the Service has treated them, they become very poor recruiting sergeants. It is an exceedingly complicated matter and there are many difficulties, but that does not mean that nothing should be done. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman's Department should bring the matter to the attention of the Treasury.
    I come now to the cost of the Navy itself. Our gross expenditure is down by £1,137,000. In paragraph 86, following the announcement that gross expenditure was down, there is the quite delightful sentence:
    "It should not be inferred from the decline in gross expenditure that we propose to spend less on the Royal Navy in 1962–63."
    Apparently, the Admiralty thinks that we would regard it as guilty of a crime if it spent less. The Admiralty should be told that its achievement would be hailed with joy if it was able to spend less and nobody would accuse it of having done something wrong.
    There are certain adjustments to be made, with the result that net expenditure is up by almost £10 million. One assumes also that this year the Admiralty will have a Supplementary Estimate of £3 million or £4 million in respect of pay. Therefore, the increase will be about £13 million or £14 million. When I think of the ease with which this extra £12 million or £13 million will be passed and compare it with the fate meted out to Scottish Members who tried to obtain one-thousandth part of that sum for housing in Scotland, I wonder whether there is something wrong with our sense of values. We were guillotined for our efforts.
    Twelve months ago, we had an interesting debate in the House on the Report of the Estimates Committee on Admiralty Headquarters organisation. Quite rightly, the Civil Lord referred to that. The matters raised during that debate included the size of the staff, the number of high ranking officers at the

    1355
    Admiralty and the control of expenditure. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was quite fair with the House today when he spoke about achievements in the Admiralty. Last year, he said:
    "… we do not intend to slacken our efforts to do our level best to make reductions in Vote 12 posts. Whether we succeed will depend on the new tasks we have to undertake, but we shall certainly try to reduce staff by 500 persons—over 1 per cent. per year—over the next five years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 1326]
    That would mean 100 persons per year. According to my calculations for this year, the reduction is 74, the difference between 9,392 and 9,318. So the hon. Gentleman is well below the target he set himself last year. We are pleased to see any reduction in the Admiralty staff, but when we examine the reduction we find that it is composed entirely of clerical staff. There is a reduction in clerical staff of 95, so that, far from there having been a decrease in the higher ranks of the Admiralty organisation, there must have been an increase, and this, of course, was not what the Estimates Committee recommended.
    The Estimates Committee went on to recommend that there should be a detailed and critical review of the chain of command and definition of all posts, both civilian and naval, where the salaries including allowances exceed £1,500 per year. The Admiralty agreed that the principle underlying this recommendation was important, but suggested that it should be done with regard to salaries over £2,500. However, it does not matter where one starts. The number has not been reduced.
    The Estimates Committee dealt also with tours of duty, and its comments have since been referred to in the Zuckerman Report. The hon. Gentleman should, I think, have said something about the Zuckerman Report this afternoon, a very important Report covering research and development in defence, but we have heard no word about it, or about what the Admiralty intends to do. I do not know whether the explanation is that recommendations of the Zuckerman Committee come entirely under the Ministry of Defence. I have my doubts about that. Several of the recommendations referred to the Admiralty, and the hon. Gentleman
    1356
    ought to have spent time in dealing with them.
    During the same debate, the question of the control of expenditure was raised. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), who opened the debate, raised this matter, and it was raised again during the debate on control of public expenditure on 24th January. In both those debates a good deal was said about the Letters Patent of the Admiralty and the Financial Secretary, in reply, said that new arrangements had been made and that the modernisation or conversion of major ships now required Treasury control and that such arrangements were now in force. In reply to a letter which I wrote to him subsequently, the Financial Secretary elaborated the matter in more detail, saying:
    "I confirm that all three Service Departments are now substantially on the same footing. The exchange of official letters which I mentioned in the debate on 24th January has clarified and improved the arrangements for Treasury control, particularly in the important fields of production, works and research and development expenditure. Thus, nowadays neither we nor the Admiralty regard the Letters Patent as conferring any special privileges in relation to financial powers or discretion."
    Everyone on both sides will be delighted to hear that. A great deal has been said on the matter by the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee and the House itself. I hope that the Civil Lord will tell us whether the Letters Patent confer any other powers or privileges upon the Admiralty or whether they exist simply for the appointment of the Board.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman warned me that he intended to raise this matter. Perhaps we might deal with it now since it is a special case and there might not be time in the winding-up speech.
    The Letters Patent do three things. They appoint the Commissioners by name. This is essential because the Admiralty must be an identifiable body under the Naval Discipline Act, the Queen's Regulation and Admiralty Instructions. Accordingly, the Letters Patent define the Commissioners by name. Secondly, they give the Commissioners their duty. Thirdly, they describe their powers. If the Board's Patent were abolished—as the hon. Gentleman says.

    1357
    it now has no financial consequences—some other form of Statutory Instrument would probably be necessary. Therefore, I wonder whether there is any advantage in throwing over this traditional and unusual way of doing it, since we should have to have the powers in some other form.
    Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. The matter has caused several of us concern, and we are glad that the financial privileges hitherto enjoyed under the Letters Patent are no longer enjoyed by this Department, and that the powers are now confined to the appointment of the Commissioners and the other matters to which he referred.
    I now turn to the Fleet. First, I wish to thank the Civil Lord and the Admiralty for the full list of visits which they arranged for hon. Members last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Admiralty must have gone to some trouble to make it possible for hon. Members interested in naval affairs to attend so many establishments and ships. I hope that it will continue to do this.
    As I said earlier, the policy for our naval forces begins to make some sense, but there is still some way to go and still a number of doubts about it. The important matter that we must bear in mind all the time is that underlying the Government's defence policy is the statement in paragraph 9 of the Defence White Paper, which reads:
    "The Government do not believe that major war could long continue without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons."
    That means that what we are prepared for is either a very limited local operation or a very short war. If it does not mean that, I do not know what it means. That is the background of the Government's policy in the Government's words, not in the Opposition's words.
    The White Paper goes on to tell us what we require from a naval point of view and states in paragraph 26:
    "… we need a balanced and versatile Fleet capable of bringing force to bear under the sea, on the surface and in the air."
    I think that that sentence is rather a generalisation and that its purpose is to satisfy the yearnings of those who regretfully look back to the days of the past, because the extent to which we can give
    1358
    effect to it is very much limited by our resources. Also, the need to do this should be increasingly limited by the growth of Commonwealth navies and alliances. It is not too much to expect that the commitments which we assume in this sentence should be the commitments not of ourselves alone but others as well.
    Paragraph 26 continues:
    "By the use of task forces with a significant amphibious capability, seaborne military and air power can be exerted wherever our interests require it, to preserve or if necessary to restore peace."
    This is much more to the point. This appears to be the real job which we must tackle.
    As I understand it, we have three aircraft carrier task forces. However, our amphibious capability is limited to one amphibious warfare squadron, and that is not yet up to date. It is still out of date in many respects. What is more important, from all the evidence in the Explanatory Statement and in other information, we shall not have more than one squadron during the next five years. We must bear this in mind, because the new assault ships will barely be in commission in the next five years.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing indicated dissent.
    Mr. Willis: One of them is not even ordered yet.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The information which I gave the House one day during Question Time was that the first assault ship should be ready in 1965 and that production of the second should almost catch up with it, because we are producing two of the same design. It will come not much after the first. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be five years before we have the first assault ship. I think that three years is a nearer estimate.
    Mr. Willis: If we assume that the first one will be in commission in 1965, it is fair to assume that the second will not be in commission until 1966. Therefore, I was not far wrong when I said that these ships would barely be in commission in five years' time. No doubt by the time that the second one is in commission the first one will be in for a refit. That is what is happening with

    1359
    the commando carriers. "Bulwark" is in commission. When the "Albion" is finished at the end of this year, it will relieve "Bulwark", which will then go in for a refit. When that is done, "Albion" will go in for a refit. If the Civil Lord considers the matter calmly and considers the auxiliary vessels attached to these ships, he will see that what I am saying is likely to be true, namely, that there will not be more than one amphibious warfare squadron for three or four years.
    This is the whole "guts" of the Admiralty's policy. We are to get one amphibious warfare squadron. The Government ought to do something about this because it is necessary that we should have an adequate amphibious capability. This is one of the jobs for which the Navy is eminently suitable. Without an amphibious capability it is more difficult to justify a fleet of aircraft carriers unless it is in order to meet our N.A.T.O. commitments or to fit in with N.A.T.O.'s requirements.
    That brings me to the decision of the Admiralty to go ahead with the necessary design work for a new aircraft carrier fleet to replace the existing fleet. According to the White Paper,
    "a new genereration of carriers would have to be designed primarily for the rôle of support of amphibious and land operations".
    It seems that they will not have many squadrons to support. The Civil Lord must tell us much more than he has told us about this matter.
    Last year I spent some time opposing the conception of a new fleet of aircraft carriers as an addition to or replacement of our nuclear capacity. What I said appears in columns 1903 and 1904 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 2nd March, 1961. I was not alone in saying that. The present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations said much the same in 1957, when he told us that we could not afford this. The present Minister in charge of shipping made a great speech last year deriding the carrier and suggested we should fight all sea battles from under the sea. That was his opinion. The Economist has been steadily against fleets of aircraft carriers, and I assume from the context of its statements that it refers to fleets of aircraft carriers with nuclear capacity.
    1360
    I should like to think that the Admiralty has now accepted this view. When I read the White Paper, I thought that it had. When the White Paper referred to a new generation of carriers
    "designed primarily for the rôle of support of amphibious and land operations",
    most hon. Members thought that the Admiralty had given up the idea of becoming part of the deterrent-carrying force.
    Last year, the Minister of Defence referred to the possibility of carriers with aircraft such as the Buccaneer being one of the options for the carrying of the nuclear deterrent. I hope that the Civil Lord will give us a definite assurance that this is not intended. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can, but I think that we ought to demand this. This is the impression given in the White Paper and in the Explanatory Statement.
    I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman about what he has just said regarding the aircraft which these vessels are going to carry. Are we going to have future generations of aircraft larger and better than the Buccaneer? Is it really necessary, if these aircraft carriers are designed for the purposes stated in the White Paper, that they should have a nuclear capacity and be used for long-range reconnaissance and strike purposes? Is this the intention of the Government? If it is, then we shall be running into enormous expenditures.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of carriers of 50,000 tons. That means a cost of, roughly, £50 million, and, with the aircraft to equip it, what will be the total cost? It will be something like the Minister of Defence told us that it would be in 1957—£89 million to almost £100 million. We are to have a fleet of these within the next eight, nine or ten years. I sincerely hope that what the hon. Gentleman really means and what the Admiralty means is that any aircraft carriers built will be built in accordance with the needs stated in the White Paper, namely, the support of our amphibious forces and to fit into N.A.T.O. as required. I cannot help feeling that to embark upon a programme such as I have indicated might be intended would be far beyond the resources of this country at the moment.
    Captain Walter Elliot: I think that the hon. Gentleman is underestimating the versatility of aircraft carriers. The aircraft carrier provides cover and support for shore forces and it is well able to form the nucleus of a strike force also.
    Mr. Willis: That was the conception of the Admiralty some years ago, that we should have an aircraft carrier task force. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman should also remember that aircraft carriers are very vulnerable, not only from the air but from the surface and below the sea, and that an aircraft carrier requires an enormous amount of very expensive equipment for its defence. It requires vessels, destroyers, costing £10 million, £12 million or £13 million each to protect it.
    Commander Pursey: Sinkability.
    Mr. Willis: This is another factor which has to be borne in mind, so that when we talk in terms of these larger aircraft carriers we are talking in terms of running into enormous expenditure.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: That is another question.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman says that that is another question, but it is a very important question. I interrupted the hon. Gentleman to ask whether we could be told more about this. If, as I understand, the procedure now is that Departments have to look forward in their expenditures, that the Treasury has to be given an idea of what those expenditures are likely to be for two or three years ahead, and that, in fact, the idea is to look ahead five years, it should not be difficult for the hon. Gentleman to tell us what all this involves.
    And what of the other alternative, which is frequently spoken about in these debates, the Polaris submarine? I hope that the hon. Gentleman can confirm that the views of the Admiralty are still those given in 1959, that this is something quite beyond our capacity to develop without a radical recasting of the whole of our naval expenditure. Is this still the view of the Admiralty? If the Admiralty is still thinking of these very expensive toys, then it seems to me that the expenditure will be quite beyond us, particularly when we remember
    1362
    that the Royal Air Force is, in fact, designed to carry the deterrent for the next eight or nine years. Therefore, one wonders what justification there could possibly be for expenditures of this character. Quite frankly, I hope that the Admiralty sticks to the things which we can afford and attends to some of the things which I have mentioned—for instance, in regard to the amphibious squadrons.
    After mentioning the amphibious capability of the Navy, paragraph 26 of the Statement on Defence, 1962, says:
    "A continuing need will be for effective and up to date anti-submarine forces and equipment.'"
    The hon. Gentleman, of course, said much the same this afternoon. I agree at once about the necessity to have this protection for amphibious forces and for whatever task forces there might be and for the ships that might supply such protection. But I want to ask the Minister whether, in fact, the Admiralty is still planning its anti-submarine weapons, systems and strategy on the basis of a long war or a short war. I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised this point last year.
    We are told in paragraph 9 of the White Paper that we cannot expect a long war, but submarine warfare is really a war of attrition. It presupposes a long war. I hope that while agreeing to the necessity of having the protection for the forces which I have mentioned we are not planning for something different—planning on the basis of a longer war. If we do that, then once again we shall run into an enormous expenditure.
    I could not help thinking when the Minister was speaking about nuclear submarines, their development and possibilities, that every one of them will cost something like £20 million. I am not now talking about the Polaris but about the ordinary nuclear submarines, the hunter and killer submarines. A programme of submarine building on this scale would be a very expensive one. I should like to think that it is a recognition of this fact which is causing the Admiralty to take some time to think about it. Is it true that the Admiralty has not yet decided upon its future submarine policy?
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing indicated dissent.
    Mr. Willis: Gould we be told that we are likely to be informed what the Admiralty's future policy is likely to be, because this, once again, is important?
    These matters involve many tens of millions of pounds. Hon. Members opposite make the most vicious speeches about expenditure and about watching this and that, and, therefore, we are entitled to make a few inquiries concerning what all these things cost and to find out something about them.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I shook my head because the hon. Gentleman said that we should decide what our future policy is going to be and that he would like to hear about it. I think that it would be unwise to publish to the world in general long before it comes to fruition any increase in expenditure which the House is called upon to vote. There are limits to what one can give to one's enemies and to give ten years' warning of what we are going to build would be most unwise.
    Mr. Willis: Relating that to submarines, can I then take it that the admiralty is not likely to embark on any more new submarines for the time being? I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are the best for seeking out the submarine's attacker.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it not the traditional method of the Committee of Supply when the Opposition are making exactly the kind of points which my hon. Friend is making so effectively, namely, challenging the Government about their policy and the expenditure of money, to move to reduce the Vote, not to oppose the Estimate? I understand the reluctance to do that, but to move to reduce the Vote is surely the constitutional and traditional way in which to lodge a protest against the Government's expenditure.
    Mr. Willis: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be exercising his right to do that tonight.
    Mr. Silverman: Why is not my hon. Friend doing it?
    Mr. Willis: I am not against the Navy. That is the simple answer. Therefore, I am quite prepared—
    Mr. Silverman: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to misrepresent anybody. I know that he is not against the Navy; neither am I. It is not a question of whether one is against the Navy, nor has it ever been over the centuries when dealing with the Estimates in the way in which we traditionally have dealt with them. Of course, if we were consistently to deny the Government every penny of every Estimate that would be a different matter, and if one was against the Navy that is no doubt what one would do. If, however, one is in favour of the Navy but thinks that we are not getting it properly with this expenditure and that the expenditure is too high, the traditional, constitutional way of making the point is to move to reduce it.
    Mr. Willis: It is a matter of opinion which is the most effective way. In the past we seem to have made some impression upon the Admiralty, and I have no doubt that the Treasury does, too, in regard to expense. What we are trying to do here is to explore the cost and the policies. The job of a debate of this kind is to explore the Estimates, what they are for, what the policies are, how much is involved and questions of that character. That is precisely what we happen to be doing. We might not be doing it to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but at least we are trying to do it.
    I remember that three years ago the Civil Lord made a speech in which he talked about our passing into the realm of nuclear ships in which all fleets would be nuclear and mainly submersible. That was three years ago. As far as I can see, we have probably given up the nuclear fleets and also a great deal of the largely submersible part of the Navy. In any case, I and my hon. Friends on this side prefer what is now give in paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Statement as the rôle of the Navy—that is, that
    "when danger threatens they can be quickly assembled to take their place with the Army and Royal Air Force in combined operations to meet the threat."

    1365
    That seems to me to be an eminently suitable rôle for the Navy. I certainly welcome the emphasis placed upon it by the Admiralty.
    It would appear that the Civil Lord and his Department have taken to heart a great deal of the advice which we have offered so frequently from these benches and that they are now producing something that is much more within our resources. It begins to make sense. It also suggests that the Admiralty has lowered its sights considerably and is now aiming at those things that will meet our requirements and are within our capacity. So long as we can stick to this and avoid the lure of keeping up with the Russo-American Joneses, we shall meet our commitments in a way that makes sense. This may not be very attractive to those who look back upon the great days of the Royal Navy with nostalgia, but it will certainly be more in accord with our needs and resources and, I believe, much more acceptable to the people of the country.
    5.34 p.m.
    Dr. Reginald Bennett: I greet the appearance of this year's Explanatory Statement with more satisfaction than I have done for some years. I have not intervened on these occasions for quite a while, but on this occasion there is quite a lot to which a good deal of serious thought has to be given. I welcome wholeheartedly the new clarification and definition of the rôle of the Navy in our defence Services.
    To me, it has seemed for ten years at least—in fact, possibly since the end of the war—that the Navy has been noticeably in the doldrums and that it has not been possible, apparently, for anybody to evaluate what the rôle of the Navy would be. It is, therefore, with all the greater relief and pleasure that I see that we now have a fairly clear reassertion of the Navy's inevitable function, which always has been throughout history that it seldom operates by itself but only in conjunction with the other Services, except, of course, at times when it is fighting other navies at sea for the privilege of doing just that.
    For many years, I have been involved either with the Navy or with flying, or both, and I have strong naval connections in the area of my constituency. Therefore, I am never far from the Navy
    1366
    and from its feelings. I have no doubt that the reflections of this year's Explanatory Statement will be gratifying in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth, as they are to me.
    There is, however, one subject which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has touched upon and which certainly seems particularly to the point this year. That is why I have sought to intervene briefly in the debate. We have at last the job of considering the replacement of our existing carrier force. I am bound to admit that in the past, certainly ten years ago, I had the firm opinion that the war-time generation of carriers and those still to be completed after the war would see us through, possibly, the whole carrier age of naval force. The rapid development of aeronautics would, I felt, take us past the period when carriers could carry aircraft of the type which would be employed ashore and that sooner or later carrier aircraft would be hopelessly left behind because of the limitations of carrier operation and that, therefore, even before rocketeering came along, we should have no future use for aircraft carriers
    The time has now come when I must modify that view. I feel sure that the carriers of the last war, not least the poor old "Victorious", which had such a terrific career in every ocean, must be feeling a bit ropey by now. Although the "Victorious" is certainly one of our most powerful units at present, she will need to be replaced, as, indeed, will others.
    Now that we have reached that point, the dilemma seems to be an extremely serious one and one which we must face before things go any further, for the simple reason that it is only now, when the first early design work has been put in hand, that the whole conception has not crystallised into a shape beyond alteration. Surely, the considerations of today's arguments must have a chance of influencing the future design and, above all, size of the replacement aircraft carrier. It is an enormous and expensive decision and it is about as serious a decision as has ever had to be made, I suppose, in the history of the Admiralty.
    I am well aware, although I would not place the same stress upon it as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East,

    1367
    that the, I would not call it progression—it might seem more like retrogression—from the fleet carrier to the commando carrier may seem something of a comedown. The commando carrier is much more of a workaday affair and it does not have the glamorous operation of the most advanced aircraft that can be devised. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt in anybody's mind that these commando carrier conversions have been thoroughly successful. I think they have only been carried out on the light fleet carriers.
    I am sure it has been a relatively inexpensive way of pointing to what the future of carrier operations should be. It is, of course, as my hon. Friend pointed out, a characteristic above all of the aircraft carrier that it is extremely versatile. Therefore, it is implied that although a carrier may be operating as a commando carrier she will presumably have all the flight deck gear able to operate military aircraft as advanced as those which exist at the present day.
    The question comes, though, what is to be the limitation of the next generation? What I am really most anxious about is that we should not attempt to conceive, as, I think, wide circles with naval interests do conceive, the carrier as a future advanced strategic striking aerodrome. That I do not believe to be a possible use of the aircraft carrier. I believe this view of the carrier's use to be sincerely and profoundly held by many people who are well informed; but I believe with equal sincerity—but not such good information, I dare say—that they are wrong. I do not believe it can be an advanced strategic airfield, and I would, therefore, implore my hon. Friend that he should not allow himself to be influenced by the arguments which would make us build those vast super carriers which go up to 70,000 or more tons—such as the Americans are building. Good luck to them. They can afford it. But even if we could afford it, I think we should be wrong to do so.
    Thus the decision we have to face now, and the reason why I have argued as I have—what I have said so far must seem to be just a matter of prejudice—is this. We have already witnessed the advent of the short take-off and landing system in aircraft which are flying now, as my
    1368
    hon. Friend knows well, both transport and fighter aircraft. This is a thing which has arrived, not merely short takeoff and landing but vertical take-off and landing, I believe. From what information I have, I believe that the development of vertical take-off and landing is pretty well advanced.
    We must recognise that such aircraft are in existence now and make up our minds that we are now in possession of what could be the last generation of aeroplanes which have to run and run and run before they are going fast enough to get airborne. This type is a dead duck, in my opinion, and we should be quite serious in our determination to forget it.
    So may we please not have one of those vast long ships as our substitute carrier because, of course, as has been said, not only is it extremely expensive but it is terribly vulnerable. Somebody once said, "Too many baskets in one egg", and I think it was Air Chief Marshal Broadhurst who described the carrier as "the world's finest radar reflector." I think that the carrier has got to be made into a system which is not that of a probing advanced airfield. I think that the ranges of shore-based aircraft, and the range of stand-off bombs and such things, are sufficient now for that rôle to be unnecessary and uncalled for.
    What I suggest is that the carrier must be one which will have the space to accommodate the necessary force, if it is in existence, of the Army and the Royal Marine units which will have to operate from it, together with its lift aircraft, whether helicopters or other direct-lift aircraft for the landing of those forces. Also I think we can say that it should be able to operate what at present is the last generation of run-along-the-deck aircraft. That is not too much to ask for, I think, because the justification is, I would suggest, that the carrier, as far as I can conceive, is never likely to be sent in to attack heavily defended coasts where the highest performance, shore-based fighter and other aircraft will be operating. They will be doing landing work, but not such as took place in Normandy, which requires an altogether bigger international operation.
    Commander Pursey: Or Suez?
    Dr. Bennett: Well, that is not quite the same scale. They will not be doing this tremendously heavy opposed landing against enemies who are equipped with every form of the latest aircraft. Therefore, they will not need to be able to operate the very top speed fighters. If we have to pay a penalty for the direct lift I should think that the direct lift fighter will still be efficient enough to be operated in the sort of conditions in which we would put commando landing operations ashore. As for the maximum size of the carrier, my hon. Friend mentioned 50,000 tons, and I should have thought that pretty much on the large side. I should have thought that we could make do quite satisfactorily with a ship long enough to operate all these aircraft—perhaps, although the design may come for entirely different reasons, ships of about the size of the big aircraft carriers we now operate, say, the "Eagle" and the "Ark Royal". I should have thought that they would be required for the future. I should be very sad if we were to be persuaded to do anything more elaborate than that. Such ships could do the job of accommodating the people required for the operations, as well as operating the necessary aircraft.
    One word on the propulsion system. I, of course, as, I suppose, most other hon. Members, would dearly like to see the advent of nuclear propulsion. It is obviously and incontestably the method of choice for submarines. That has already been proved operationally. There can be no doubt about that, But, with all honesty, I do not see how it would necessarily be quite so desirable in carriers upon which—with all the people on board, and all the "flying machines", to use what I think is the legal definition, and all the ammunition which is historically the quickest item expended—the supply services would have to be in attendance sufficiently frequently to make the singular gain which we would have for nuclear power unnecessary. Carriers would never need to be a long time away from supplies. This fact, perhaps, serves us by providing us with an economy, because I cannot help thinking that the most advanced conventional propulsion plant would cost a great deal less to install in our next big carrier. Therefore, against my general trend of thinking, I would certainly
    1370
    argue that such a ship should be conventionally propelled.
    That is all I have to say. I reiterate how glad I am to see the Navy given this clear rôle. The Navy will respond, I have no doubt, with the greatest cheerfulness, and I look forward now to a real resurgence of our Navy.
    5.49 p.m.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Before I touch on some of the very important points which have been made by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), I should like to offer a few general remarks about the Explanatory Statement. As last year, it is a very pretty little document, and I congratulate the Civil Lord on it. It is full of interest, and, with these pictures, it is full of glamour. In fact, all we miss from it is a picture of Brigitte Bardot dressed up as a Wren in colour. But what it seems to be short of is information.
    One of the purposes, in fact the purpose, of these debates on the Estimates is surely for the House of Commons to decide whether the amount of money that we are being asked to vote, and the way in which it is proposed that we should spend that money, will give us the type of Navy that we need. We cannot possibly decide that unless we know what the job of the Navy is to be and also what help the Navy will have in doing that job. The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham said he was delighted that the job of the Navy had now been more clearly defined. I do not think that it has. The job of the Navy is dismissed in the Defence White Paper in one page out of 22, and I think that it gets just about one paragraph in this White Paper. Even allowing for the White Papers that were received last year, its job is still described in only the vaguest terms, and it amounts to the old business of keeping the sea lanes open.
    I wonder whether talk about keeping the sea lanes open is really realistic if anyone here is thinking in terms of nuclear war. Sea lanes from where to what in nuclear war? It is not the slightest use bringing in vast quantites of food to an island where everybody has been annihilated. If we are thinking in terms

    1371
    of large-scale conventional war, then the question is how are the ships we see listed here to keep the sea lanes open?
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the definition of the Navy's job as keeping the sea lanes open. In paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Statement there is no reference to sea lanes at all, and I do not think that there is any reference further on to them.
    Mr. Mallalieu: It is the Defence White Paper which covers the rôle of the Navy in that respect.
    If we decide to keep the sea lanes open, we have to know a great deal more about the progress made since the last war in methods of defending our ships. Has our defence really kept pace with the development of homing weapons, guided missiles and the like? If it has not, we may see our ships going down to the bottom, and the sea lanes will not be kept open.
    Once before, some years ago, I thought that we paid far too much attention to the idea of transporting stuff across the high seas in wartime and far too little to the idea of storing materials here before war broke out. In the matter of food, it seems to me that vast underground storage tanks are far future likely to be useful in any type of future war than large quantities of ships which are likely to go to the bottom.
    While on the question of the job of the Navy, when it comes to minor operations it seems quite clear that the Navy is capable of carrying out such jobs as it had to do at Kuwait. That was one. My hon. Friend has pointed out that it may be very difficult to mount more than one operation at the present time because we have not the ships. How many Kuwaits could we do at the present time? Could we do more than one? When it comes to something like Suez, have the deficiencies revealed in that operation—I do not mean the political deficiencies but the naval deficiencies—been repaired? The fact is that from the White Papers in front of us we do not know the maximum scope of activity which the Admiralty is setting for the Navy.
    1372
    I mentioned a second thing that it is necessary for us to know if we in the House of Commons are to do our job of finding out whether, in fact, we are to provide ourselves with an adequate Navy. That is the question of the amount of help that we shall get. The Royal Navy, as I understand it, does not work solely by itself. We are in alliance, first of all, with the Commonwealth navies. The Commonwealth navies as such are dismissed in one paragraph of the Explanatory Statement. I do not think that we can judge whether the Royal Navy is capable of doing its job unless we know the amount of help it will get from the navies of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the rest. I think that it would be worth while for the Civil Lord to give us this information in preparing future documents, if he is here next year, or unless he gets the promotion to which he is fully entitled.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Unless the Government fall in the meantime.
    Mr. Mallalieu: It would be helpful if in future Explanatory Statements we were given some idea of the strength of the Commonwealth navies which are likely to be able to come in behind the Royal Navy in any operations that we undertake. Much the same applies to the help that we are likely to get from our N.A.T.O. allies. It is no good considering the Royal Navy in isolation. We must have some information about the combined force, in that sense of the word, that we are likely to be able to rely on.
    I come to the question of carriers, with which both my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham dealt at some length. We have been told what the job of the carriers is to be, but what we have not been told is how they are to do that job if they are at the bottom of the sea. My hon. Friend said that they were vulnerable. We all know that they are vulnerable, especially vulnerable. They could be sunk until quite recently by one torpedo. If we are to embark on these carriers still further, does that mean that we have so altered the design of our ships that they do not sink when hit by a shell or "fish"? Our big ships have always seemed to be easier to sink than were the German ships. Have we learned from the German

    1373
    design in such a way that it makes sense in any way to spend these vast sums of money on these big ships which, as far as we know, may well go down to the bottom at the start of war?
    Captain W. Elliot: I think that I should correct one point concerning carriers. In the last war our carriers were particularly difficult to sink. That was recognised when in the Mediterranean the "Illustrious" was very heavily damaged and got home. Again, in the Pacific, time and time again our carriers were hit and carried on.
    Mr. Mallalieu: I do not want to get into too much of a controversy about it. The "Ark Royal" was, unhappily, hit by one "fish", and she sank. I know that there were difficulties about that, but she was our biggest and best. When it comes to the larger ships—and here I am talking about general design—some of our other ships went down with one hit, but not the "Bismarck". It took half our Navy to deal with her. I feel that it would be madness to embark on expenditure of this kind unless we have found some way of altering and improving the design.
    I am inclined to believe with many others that carriers are already out of date. If they are, what on earth is the point of designing them, particularly if they are to cost £50 million each and will not come into commission until 1971? If they are out of date now, what on earth will be their use in nine years' time? This is not an original thought. It has been already quoted in the debate. This means that the future of the Service will lie in battles beneath the sea and not on the surface. There may possibly be an excuse, looking at it long-term, for continuing to build fast frigates, but the real weapon of attack and the main armament of the Navy in the years to come unquestionably will be the submarine.
    It is not only the main weapon of attack, it is also the main weapon of defence, because, as the Civil Lord has said, it is the only weapon that can hope to counter-attack effectively the attacking submarine. It is not only the main weapon of both attack and defence, but, in the sort of war into which our policies may land us in years to come, it will be the main means of transport. If nuclear
    1374
    weapons are to be used, transport will become impossible on the surface of the seas and our only hope of transporting men and materials will be beneath the surface. I hope that in looking ahead, which they are rightly doing, the Admiralty, the Civil Lord and the Government are thinking not about carriers but much more vigorously about the underwater fleet which in future years we shall need.
    Whatever form the Royal Navy takes in years to come, I am convinced that it has a future. I do not think that the Royal Air Force has a future. It will be a taxi service of a few men in white coats pressing buttons. As for the Army, I cannot think of anything that it does which the Royal Marines could not do better. Whatever may be my own views on the subject, the fact remains that "bods" simply will not volunteer for the other two Services and they will run down as the years go by.
    Despite the fact that service in the Armed Forces just now is an unpopular occupation, recruiting for the Royal Navy is going fairly well. Despite the drop which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned in the percentage of re-engagements this year, those figures still remain remarkably high. The Navy is able to obtain the "bods" and it is able to retain them.
    That, with the argument about possible economies and the even greater argument about greater efficiency, makes up a final serious argument for getting a combined Service based on the Navy. I believe that that would be the most efficient way of using our forces. Instead of three separate Services, with all the difficulties experienced in obtaining doctors, dentists and other men, I believe that if we combined them in one Service based on the Navy we should have a force adequate to our needs.
    6.3 p.m.
    Captain Walter Elliot: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) and I should like to take up one of the themes which he developed, but, first, I want to speak briefly on another aspect of the Navy upon which hon. Members have touched today. There seems to be general agreement that an amphibious support rôle for the Navy is the right rôle.

    1375
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) picked out paragraph 9 in the Defence White Paper, but the words which I picked out are slightly different from his. We are informed that it is the prevention of war that is vital and not preparations for a long-drawn-out conventional war. I think that we would all agree with that and, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, the shape of the Navy apparent from the Estimates is beginning to reflect this policy.
    I said "beginning" because I think that we have a long way to go. This policy of prevention of war certainly justifies the new emphasis that is being placed on amphibious operations and also on the provision, or intention to provide, the wide variety of ships needed to carry out a landing of armed forces whether opposed or not. I welcome for that reason our intention to build new aircraft carriers. They will be the core around which any amphibious forces will be built. They will be the core of any strike force.
    There has been a certain amount of discussion about the techniques of the aircraft carrier and I do not want to enter into those now. I would say only that although in some ways aircraft carriers may be vulnerable, they are a very tricky target to attack and they can give a very good account of themselves. In the defence debate, my right hon. friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) said:
    "Please let the Minister not say that as we give up bases ashore we must have bases afloat. A thousand men in a boat are not a base and never could be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 266.]
    Of course, a thousand men in a boat are not a base, any more than a thousand men ashore in nissen huts or under canvas form a base.
    As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said earlier in the debate, there must be a fleet of attendant ships. Of course there must—store ships, fuel ships, repair ships and even recreation ships. All these are as necessary for a base afloat as the stores they provide are needed in bases ashore. If we are to give up bases ashore, as we are doing, to ensure any bases at all we must have them afloat. They will be expensive, but they will be mobile and I hope we will need fewer of them.
    1376
    It can be argued that troops could be disembarked from ordinary merchant ships. But this would not allow the great advantages of disembarkation by helicopter which can be provided by a commando carrier. Nor must commando carriers be confused with the fleet carriers. These new carriers, which I hope will be built, will give air cover to the force and air support once the troops are ashore.
    My right hon. Friend also seemed to think that there were few, if any, parts of the world where amphibious operations would take place. I have speculated on this also, but it was a barren exercise. We have our C.E.N.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. treaties for very good reasons, and we have to be prepared to operate in areas covered by those treaties and in other areas. If the prevention of war is vital, we must provide the forces needed for that purpose, and where speed is vital a mobile base is equally vital. But however important the amphibious rôle, the Navy should not do the job of the army at the expense of its own. If it must do so, then this must be reflected in the Estimates of both services.
    When all is said and done, it is on the deterrent that we rely to avoid a nuclear war, and I turn now to my main theme—the best contribution which our naval forces can make to a deterrent. Our fire brigade forces should be able to stop local wars. It is of even greater importance that the deterrent should be credible. Here the Navy is weak, but it is here that it must be strong. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East cast doubt on the need for antisubmarine forces. The question has been asked, particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget): what is the use of anti-submarine forces when the country might be devastated by nuclear attack? The short answer is: why devastate a country when one can conquer it by cutting the sea lanes?
    That is much too simple a view, and I should like now to examine the case for increasing our anti-submarine forces. I believe that by doing this we shall increase not only the credibility of the deterrent but also the security of this

    1377
    country. In the context of antisubmarine warfare the job of the Navy, and, equally important, Royal Air Force Coastal Command, is to safeguard our sea communications in the Atlantic, in our home waters and in other strategic areas.
    Is this job of any importance, and ought the forces needed to be given any priority, especially when we might anticipate a global war starting with a devastating nuclear attack? Our dependence on our sea lanes of communications has not, of course, altered. Sea communications are of great importance to all N.A.T.O. countries, but the immediate threat is not to the supply lines. The immediate danger is no longer that we shall be strangled by the cutting off of our supplies. The overwhelming threat is the obliteration of our fighting capacity by sudden nuclear attack.
    The enemy would have two objectives: first, to destroy the Western strategic offensive, and, second, to destroy our will to fight and our war potential. I will call these phase 1 and phase 2. To achieve his objectives, the enemy would use a variety of missiles delivered by different means. Among these would be missile-firing submarines, and certainly among the main targets would be our nuclear bomber bases, our missile and rocket sites, our carrier striking forces and our centres of government and military control.
    In the face of this nuclear threat, our defence policy is one of deterrence, and rightly so. In the past, first priority has been given to this. As a result, other arms of the forces have fared badly in the allocation of national resources, both production and research, and here I refer particularly to maritime anti-submarine forces.
    Today it can be argued that we have reached a position of deterrent stalemate with the Russians. The deterrent itself is still of prime importance, but con5/10/2007ventioned forces, including those with a nuclear capability, which can be seen to support the deterrent are now emerging as of great importance.
    Where do maritime anti-submarine forces—I include in this maritime air forces—figure in this reassessment of priorities? I believe that these forces not only support the deterrent but also supplement it. They destroy Soviet
    1378
    missile firing submarines, and so by protecting our land-based nuclear striking forces they contribute directly to the initial nuclear exchange. They do it in the same way by protecting our carrier strike forces. They support the deterrent by a contribution parallel to that of the shield forces in Europe. They supplement the deterrent by their own capacity for nuclear attack. This may be used in circumstances short of all-out nuclear attack on Russia. Finally, they support the deterrent by anti-submarine operations designed to protect Western missile-firing submarines.
    What will be the rôle of maritime anti-submarine forces in limited war? I find it difficult to believe that an Atlantic-wide submarine war is a possibility. Such a war would go beyond the definition of a Soviet incursion or local hostile action, and the N.A.T.O. powers would not capitulate to such an attack without unleashing the Western nuclear deterrent. But in a more restricted context there may be limited wars with the opposing sides materially and morally supported by Russia and the West, and for these we must also have adequate maritime anti-submarine forces. One hostile nuclear submarine might have altered the outcome of the Kuwait operation.
    This brings me to the actual submarine threat, and it is great. In the future, however, changes will be likely not in increased numbers opposing us but in improved types and, above all, in a great increase in nuclear and missile-firing submarines. This, I believe, raises the Soviet submarine threat from phase 2 to phase 1, in fact to a threat to destroy or greatly weaken the Western nuclear strategic offensive.
    The significance of the increased priority which must be given to our maritime anti-submarine defences is obvious. We must develop a capacity to survey activity on or under the sea around the coasts of the N.A.T.O. countries in exactly the same way as we need to detect the approach of aircraft or missiles. If we do not, such installations as that at Fylingdales will be outflanked. The defensive shield should not be only on the European mainland; it must be all around our coasts.
    Let me look for a moment at the tasks for which the Soviets are likely to use

    1379
    their submarines. They will deploy the missile-firing submarines against Europe and the United States. There will be large numbers of submarines deployed to destroy our Atlantic striking force. A major task will be the destruction of the Polaris-firing submarines. No doubt a small number will be deployed to attack shipping.
    The tasks of our maritime antisubmarine forces now become apparent. The highest priority should be given to the anti-submarine protection of the Atlantic striking force. The second task would be to oppose the enemy submarine threat as close to its bases as possible. Thirdly, maritime antisubmarine forces will be needed to get shipping out of Europe and to fight in the first supply convoys. This third task may well be carried out in what used to be called the "broken back" period after the nuclear attack when the nations are striving to recover. Perhaps in this phase the submarine attack would approximate more to the conventional anti-shipping war, and the need for antisubmarine forces would then be as great as ever in the past.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In the light of recent developments, is it not just as likely that, instead of using all these nuclear submarines, the Russians will be able to destroy, say, the Polaris base in Scotland with a rocket?
    Captain Elliot: No doubt that is a possibility, but I do not want to go into that aspect.
    I have given my picture of a submarine war in the future and the part which maritime anti-submarine forces would play in it. I turn now to consider the anti-submarine forces which we have to carry out these tasks. In doing this. I hope I will avoid the mistake of comparing qualitatively the anti-submarine forces we have today with the submarines of tomorrow. But, in forecasting the future threat, we are entitled to ask what, if any, research and development are taking place to meet that threat.
    We know that the submarine threat is very great—greater both in numbers and quality than even at the height of the last war—and that the anti-submarine forces we have are very many fewer in number and relatively much less effective,
    1380
    at least against nuclear submarines. We can see the strength in the Navy Estimates, but—no doubt for good reason—we cannot tell how many anti-submarine ships would be in service if hostilities broke out. But Appendix I gives a good idea of the number of ships and submarines presently taking part in antisubmarine exercises. These figures are illuminating.
    In answer to a Question which I put to my hon. Friend the Civil Lord recently, in attempting to draw a comparison between the surface anti-submarine forces available at the height of the last war and what we have today, my hon. Friend gave the figures of 916 surface vessels in the last war compared with 100 today. I described that comparison as alarming. I know that N.A.T.O. will fight in alliance with us, but would even the total available in N.A.T.O. be less alarming? After all, we had allied forces in the last war. In an emergency, would N.A.T.O. forces be available? With the best will in the world, in certain circumstances it might not be possible for N.A.T.O. to send those forces, just as, in a crisis in the last war, we could not send naval forces to help Australia.
    What of the quality? Nuclear submarines are here and will be available to the Soviets in increasing numbers in the years ahead. In concluding, I want to pose some questions to my hon. Friend. I assure him I do not do this in any inquisitorial spirit. Nor do I expect an answer tonight.
    Is any surface vessel adequate to deal with a nuclear submarine? Have the 30 knots of the nuclear submarine made the surface anti-submarine vessel as obsolete as the blunderbuss? How is the helicopter fairing? Can it track a 30-knot submarine? We have heard about the all weather helicopter. Is it really possible for this aircraft to operate from a ship at sea in a full gale? Can it do that at night in low visibility, and, if so, at what efficiency?
    What of the conventional aircraft, whether shore or carrier based? In the last war aircraft, particularly shore-based aircraft, played a vital rôle in antisubmarine warfare. At the height of the crisis they turned the scale. Without them we would have been defeated. Because of their speed and wide-ranging qualities, coupled with radar, they could

    1381
    locate the submarine and destroy it, or, at worst, immobilise it.
    Can aircraft do that today with nuclear submarines? Can they locate a completely submerged nuclear submarine? If not, what research, if any, is going on in this country to restore to these conventional aircraft their power as a weapon against the submarine? Or are they also as obsolete as the blunderbuss? Are we as weak in numbers of maritime anti-submarine aircraft as we are in ships? It must be remembered that bombers can no longer be switched to this work as in the last war. The modern, high speed jet bomber is quite unsuitable.
    What of the anti-submarine submarine? We have such vessels. Have we enough? How effective are they as submarine killers? Have they the necessary speed margin over their adversary? And if they use that speed, can they use their locating devices? If they can locate but not catch, what then is the solution? Are they being trained to work with aircraft in the same way that aircraft worked with surface ships in the last war and so achieved victory in the submarine battle? Have we an adequate homing anti-submarine weapon? If not, what research is going on in this country to get one?
    I do not know the answers to these questions, but if my hon. Friend will study them I believe that he will find a great deal of expensive but very vital work to be done. I believe also that if the Royal Navy is made strong where now it is weak, it will be as great a reinforcement to the prevention of war as can be obtained in any other way. Should war come in spite of our efforts, our anti-submarine forces will be paramount in preserving the security of this country.
    6.26 p.m.
    Mr. William Small: I wish to make particular reference to junior entry in recruitment to the Royal Navy. The emphasis in such recruitment is on the career available. The Explanatory Statement says that, of the ratings who joined in 1961, no less than 2,525 were Juniors (U)—youths between the ages of 15 and 16¼ years. If there were transferability among the three Services, would that be the age for
    1382
    engagement for all of them? To the best of my belief, that would not be so. I am particularly interested in the way these young men are recruited. The Explanatory Statement says:
    "There is evidence of a tendency for school-leavers to be more discriminating about the type of career they wish to take up and, having chosen, to stick to their choice. So the Royal Navy recruiting and careers service is concentrating more on youngsters who are at or"—
    and these are the important words—
    "near the point of leaving school."
    Is there free entry for career officers? That is the inference, but I would deprecate free entry being exclusively for the Royal Navy and not for the other two Services. The Statement goes on:
    "The popularity of the Junior (U) entry shows the confidence which parents and teachers have in the form of training which it provides."
    Apparently the careers officer attends parent-teacher conferences. Are influences brought to bear within the school establishments or by the Minister of Education or by the Ministry of Labour? When a youth has cast the die at this age, what further guidance is given to him? What form of contract will these young men have to sign?
    I see from Appendix III that it is proposed to employ semi-skilled people as electrical mechanics or as radio electrical mechanics. I think that this should be brought to the notice of all concerned so that we can get some idea of how much pressure is being used to recruit people. I am not against recruitment to the Navy, but the type of discipline imposed on these young people may be considerably harder than that to which they would be subject in a comparable civilian occupation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) paid tribute to the designers of aircraft carriers. I suggest, however, that it would be better to concentrate on building nuclear-propelled surface vessels. The Estimates show that there is a 15 per cent. increase in underwater marine propulsion and it would be better to concentrate on building more nuclear-propelled surface vessels than to concentrate on building something which, because of technical changes in the Navy, may not be required by 1970.
    6.32 p.m.
    Brigadier Terence Clarke: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate at this early hour. Last year I waited until midnight and still did not take part in the debate. In previous years I managed to get in at six o'clock in the morning. It is much more pleasant to make a speech at six o'clock in the afternoon than six o'clock in the morning.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is much better at six o'clock in the morning. I speak from long experience.
    Brigadier Clarke: I am grateful for that tribute from my annual competitor. At one time we were able to sit up beyond midnight and be certain of making a speech, but last year some of us did not get in, and I think that that is perhaps why there are one or two fewer Members present today. I liked the days when one knew that one could speak on the Navy Estimates because the debate went on until everyone present was satisfied.
    I start tonight by paying tribute to Her Majesty's Navy during the last year in keeping British prestige and the British flag flying very high indeed. As always in times of difficulty, the Royal Navy came to the rescue of our nationals. A country like Britain which has a far-flung Empire—Britain still has a far-flung Empire although the wind of change is tending to dry it up a bit—needs a Navy to look after her nationals and protect her subjects. During the past year the Royal Navy has done a wonderful job of work in Kuwait, the Persian Gulf, Kenya, British Guiana and other places. Its presence saved many lives and kept peace and order.
    It is mainly my constituents who maintain and keep the Royal Navy in good working order, and it is this aspect which I am interested in presenting to the Committee tonight. I wish to speak about the dockyard workers in particular, and of course Portsmouth Dockyard is the biggest in Britain and the premier one. I might get into trouble with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) for saying this, but when ships go into her dockyard they seem to scrape their bottoms on
    1384
    the way in. When they go into my dockyard they do so much more safely.
    Last year, and every year, I raised with the Civil Lord the question of the low rates of wages in the dockyard. The Civil Lord generally writes me a letter, or I go to see him, and he blinds me with statistics, figures, and averages, to show that nearly all dockyard workers are almost in the Surtax class. This is far from true. I sent the Civil Lord a list of wages paid to painters. The first five on the list received the following wages—£7 14s. 2d., £7 12s. 10d., £7 l1s. l1d., £7 16s. 4d. and £8 18s. 4d. Not one painter received £9 a week.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): Has my hon. and gallant Friend a statement of the number of hours worked per week?
    Brigadier Clarke: The figures I gave were the wages taken home by the men. I have the pay packets in my black bag. I will give them to my hon. Friend if he requires them. The names of the men are on the pay packets, but they were anxious not to have their names made known. Even if they received £9 a week, that would still be very much below the national average.
    These painters were getting this low wage because of some dispute between the Admiralty and the trade unions, and as a result were losing £3 a week or more. I took this up with the Civil Lord, and he was kind enough to look into the matter and said that he hoped that the dispute would shortly come to an end, and that the parties would be able to come to some amicable arrangement and pay these men what they were being paid before the dispute arose.
    I do not know why dockyard wages are so low. We are told that the workers get a small gratuity at the end of their service and/or a pension, but the pension is extremely small. The men have to work for a long time to get it, and they certainly deserve it when they do, but anything below £9 is a low wage indeed for a man working in a city.
    The Admiralty should remember that these workers are loyal British subjects. There have recently been strikes in the engineering industry on Mondays, but the unions concerned were unable to get the dockyards to come out on strike. They have now decided that as the wages

    1385
    of these men are negotiated separately they will not ask them to come out on strike. This is excellent, and I think that the dockyards have set a good example by not coming out on strike.
    As far as I know, we have not had a strike in the dockyard this century. The workers there are well disciplined, and I hope that the Admiralty will not drive these men to taking action to get more wages. I should like the Admiralty to lead the way by giving these men more rather than have the increases forced on it by the men following in the footsteps of the shipyard workers. Workers in the shipyards may be all right, because they get paid overtime and therefore receive good pay packets, but this is not so in the dockyards where there is very little overtime and, as I showed from the figures I quoted, the wages are low.
    I must give the Civil Lord a bouquet where it is due. I am told that an excellent scheme has been started at Eastney. A successful work study is going on there in co-operation with the trades unions and the men are extremely pleased with the pay packets, bonuses and other benefits which they receive. More work is being done with less labour and things are going very well. Perhaps the Civil Lord can tell me whether it would be possible to produce a similar incentive scheme in the dockyards. It would be popular, and I think that the dockyard personnel deserve to be looked after better than they have been.
    I should like to draw the attention of the Civil Lord to a letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph, written by Admiral Hubback, recommending a five-yearly estimate and a five-yearly review. We could still have debates every year but if it were known five years ahead what was estimated it would be much easier to plan for nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and the like which cannot be built in a year. Yearly estimates may be suitable for most Government Departments, but I think that in the Admiralty consideration might be given to estimating over a longer period.
    An excellent review has been prepared by the Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth, and published in the Portsmouth Evening News, which draws attention to the failure to attract apprentices into
    1386
    the dockyards. There are fifty vacancies at Portsmouth. I should like the Civil Lord to investigate the reasons for the vacancies. Are the examinations too difficult? Is the pay too low? Is it the case that possible apprentices do not want to work for a five-year apprenticeship because the period is too long and they would prefer to earn money in other ways more quickly? Jobs in the dockyard are well worth having and some publicity should be given to this excellent form of employment.
    We have heard a lot about the integration of the three Services. In the Army storemen are rated as clerical workers and they enjoy all the consequent advantages, but Admiralty storemen do not. I raised this matter last year and the year before and I shall probably raise it again next year if I am here. Admiralty storemen are classified as industrial and experience poor conditions of work and pay as a result. I am told that this has something to do with a trade union objection to Admiralty storemen being classified as clerical, but I do not see why the unions should object in the case of the Navy when it is accepted in respect of Army storemen.
    I do not think that there are any other problems which I desire to air. I have a wonderful liaison with the Civil Lord who is one of the best occupants of that office which we have had. His predecessors were good but the present Civil Lord is extraordinarily good. He is most helpful over all the Service problems which I bring to him and I am grateful for the assistance which he has given me.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. James Boyden: The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) will not expect me to follow him in his discussion of constituency troubles with the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. There was a time when I was a fairly frequent visitor to Portsmouth Dockyard, and so I know something about it.
    I wish to draw attention to some of the financial and organisational weaknesses of the Admiralty. No one can escape from the fact that the trend of naval and Admiralty costs has risen steadily. The Estimates for 1960–61 were just short of £400 million. For 1961–62 they were £413 million and for the

    1387
    current Estimates the figure is £422 million. By relating those figures to the last ten years one sees some quite remarkable results. In 1952–53 there were 376 ships. In 1959–60 there were 235. Giving evidence to the Estimates Committee the Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty said that we could not expect the Admiralty Headquarters to shrink at the same rate as the number of ships because with reorganisation taking place and ships being scrapped or put into reserve there was a lot of work at Headquarters.
    From the figures one finds that the expected reduction of staff has not taken place. In 1952–53 when the number of ships was at its maximum, there were 10,744 people at Admiralty Headquarters. Eight years later the figure was 9,482. In those years the number of ships had dwindled by 40 per cent. but Admiralty Headquarters staff had decreased by only 10 per cent. In the course of giving further evidence to the Estimates Committee the Permanent Secretary said that the ships were becoming more complicated and there were more kinds of ships. In fact, two-thirds of the ships are in four categories—destroyers, frigates, submarines and minesweepers. So presumably the amount of work on the different types cannot be in the same proportion as the way in which the staff maintains itself.
    In the current estimates the figures in Vote 12 mount steadily. The figure was £10 million in 1960–61; £10½ million in 1961–62 and £10¾ million for the period under discussion. That is against a background of expenditure at Headquarters which in the ten years from 1950 to 1960 has practically doubled. The first figure was £5¼ million and for the end of the period £9¾ million. The Admiralty Headquarters staff has doubled since pre-war and the number of personnel, naval and industrial, is only slightly larger than pre-war.
    Mr. John Farr: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how many of the ships to which he has referred are operational and how many may be having a refit or be in reserve?
    Mr. Boyden: I cannot give figures. I am not trying to make a detailed point but to give a general picture of conditions over the last ten or eleven years.
    1388
    What is as revealing as the general trend of a large Headquarters staff and diminishing responsibility in the sphere of operations, as it were, is that the proportion of senior staff—as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—has not diminished. In fact, the numbers have increased. I spent a little time examining Vote 12 in detail and comparing the Estimates for 1960–61 with those for 1962–63. I found that in the Secretary's Department two principals or their equivalent had been upgraded to two assistant secretaries and in addition there are two assistant principals. In other words, it is obvious that the Secretariat at the Admiralty regards the top layer of Administration as a permanent feature. Otherwise it would not be recruiting two extra assistant principals. The same sort of thing is found in several other Departments. The clerical staff in the Secretary's Department had been reduced by 38, but there are three additional higher executive officers and three additional executive officers. I always thought that within the Admiralty office about half the executive officers were supervising and controlling clerical staff and the other half were on individual projects, but here we have a decrease of 38 clerical staff with an increase of six to control them.
    Take the Accounts Department. There is a new post of Principal Director of Accounts, with three senior accounts officers, two deputy senior accounts officers and two assistant accounts officers extra to control 52 fewer clerical staff. I find that there is a decrease of 34 paper-keepers but an increase of two senior paper-keepers to look after them. It may be true that the Admiralty has reduced the actual tonnage of paper, but it has more senior paper-keepers to look after it.
    In Victualling there is the same number of clerical staff but they are controlled by six extra executive officers. In armament supply there are eight fewer clerical staff but two assistant senior armament supply officers and eleven assistant armament supply officers to look after them. In the Stores Department there are 27 fewer clerical staff and there is a new grade of eleven senior naval store officers instead of 11 deputies or assistants. The whole picture

    1389
    is of increased executive and administrative officers to supervise fewer clerical officers and less clerical work.
    One of the exceptions is where the Estimates Committee probed very hard. The Estimates Committee made some strong recommendations about the Naval Staff. I must hand it to the Estimates Committee, because it was more effective than the Civil Lord inasmuch as its probing managed to decrease the number of naval officers in the Intelligence Division by eight as well as the number of clerical officers by nine. If the naval Intelligence Division can do that kind of thing, why cannot the administrative and executive grades do it in other departments?
    Inability to keep Admiralty costs within limits is a political matter. It stems from inability from the top to exercise adequate political pressures. It begins with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He came here not long ago and confessed to having failed by £100 million to contain the Defence Estimates. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot contain the overall figure, it is not surprising that the Civil Lord, who, after all, is not the senior political head—as was brought out forcibly by the Prime Minister when security was discussed—and who does not even take the chair when the First Lord is away, is almost powerless in the face of these rising costs.
    The Minister of Defence must bear a very considerable burden for failing to bring adequate pressure on to the Admiralty in this respect. Time and time again on these benches emphasis has been put on integrating services. We have had reference in the last few weeks to the inability to integrate dentists and doctors in the three Services. It would be a great deal more beneficial for the National Health Service and more economical for the defence Services if there were one unified medical and dental military service.
    The Ministry of Works manages to service the Civil Departments in relation to works services. Why cannot the Ministry of Defence do the same? Intelligence is obviously a subject which would be more economic if it were organised entirely by the Ministry of Defence and not dealt with on a departmental basis. What excuse is there for three sets of chaplains or for an instructor branch in
    1390
    the Navy an Education Branch in the R.A.F. and an education corps for the Army? Integration is sadly lacking in the "civil" groups in the Services. There would be a much better career for education officers in all the services if they could easily move into colleges of advanced technology at some stage. We would then get more efficiency and there would be better career prospects for them. Is it not absolutely ridiculous that the Royal Navy has its own system of aircraft accidents investigation and so have the Army and the Royal Air Force? By integration greater efficiency and a reduction of work could be produced.
    When it probed the Admiralty, the Estimates Committee was more effective than the Civil Lord and political heads have been over a period of years. The Committee managed to reduce the Naval Staff and to increase the organisation and methods department. I think it was by accident that it got rid of three psychologists. Some play was made about this. I fancy that behind the scenes there had been a certain amount of talk to the effect that "We don't need psychologists" so three were got rid of.
    It is extremely difficult for the secretariat to be tough about economies. The secretariat, the administrative and executive staff, exist to serve the Navy. They do it well and co-operation with the Navy is excellent. At the same time it is not fair to put the onus for cutting down costs and keeping them under control on that staff if there is not a strong lead from the top.
    We cannot expect civil servants in office to be as vigorous in probing if they are not given a strong political lead. I give an example, staff inspectors for investigations into complements and so on were re-introduced in 1960. This undoubtedly was because of the probing by the Estimates Committee. A witness before the Committee said:
    "The most difficult problems of Treasury control arise over the numbers of staff."
    How can one expect anything in the way of serious reductions if the Civil Service itself feels like this and there is no drive from the top?
    I turn to possible economies in the existing framework of the Admiralty. I am sure that there are some, but it is difficult for a back-bencher without access to the office records to be sure

    1391
    about particular economies. I am quite sure that some of these principles apply forcibly to the Admiralty, however. I quote the Zuckerman Report in relation to research and development. The phrase there is:
    "The best is too often the enemy of the good."
    To put it in another way. quoting now from the Plowden Report:
    "The management should always be on guard against a tendency to provide higher standards of services than are necessary for the purpose in hand."
    Hon. Members opposite are quite prepared to use that argument in relation to the social services. The Minister of Health was using it only a few days ago. This principle of over-provision, over-elaboration of equipment and so on, may well be true of the Admiralty.
    I am at once aware that when we commit men to war at sea we expose their lives and we must give them good equipment, but there is no doubt that in research and development this phrase from the Zuckerman Report has been absolutely proved. It must have a lot of validity in all sorts of corners in the Admiralty. I make another comment from the Plowden Report on Management Services. The Report says in paragraph 52:
    "Greater emphasis should undoubtedly be laid upon inculcating a better understanding of the capabilities of the various management services amongst administrators and their equivalents in the professional, scientific and other classes in the Civil Service."
    In the Admiralty all those classes are to be found. Naval officers are trained for war. I do not think there is much doubt that more pressure is needed to train naval officers and administrative staff in this kind of attitude, the attitude recommended by the Plowden Committee, to make all senior officers cost-conscious and efficiency-conscious, I again quote the Estimates Committee, which bears this out in a very forcible way in showing that this probing is not done on anything like the scale it should be. On page 10 of its Report, the Committee says:
    "Every now and then the Navy does take advantage of the existence of organisation and methods to look into something Navally run."
    1392
    That statement is a masterpiece of leaving out. Another phrase from page 51 of the same Report says:
    "We would not expect Treasury staff inspectors to be turned on to the fleet."
    In other words, there are 100,000 men who are exempt from Treasury staff inspectors and large blocks of operations in which organisation and methods is not particularly expected to be invited. To quote the Plowden Committee again, because I am sure that it applies to the Admiralty, when talking about the training of administrative staff in the Treasury on costing and using efficiency services, management services, the Committee said:
    "We are less certain that a large enough proportion of the abler Assistant Secretaries and equivalents … was likely in the course of their careers (or early enough) to get the benefit of the training"—
    that is, the Treasury training—
    "provided, and to develop the attitude of mind which actively seeks efficiency and economy."
    Again, to quote the Estimates Report on the Admiralty Headquarters, one witness said:
    "We do not have work study teams going round the Admiralty organising the offices."
    If an adequate number of administrative officers do not have this kind of training and are not inculcating this kind of idea, who is doing it?
    I do not imagine that if the full use of organisation and methods and works study systems was adopted some of the things which have been adopted elsewhere would at once revolutionise the costs, but there is no doubt that a traditional Department like the Admiralty, indeed, the Service Departments generally, are very resistant to this sort of thing, and, therefore, the pressure must come from the people at the head of Department, namely, the Civil Lord and the First Lord.
    Perhaps I could now turn to one or two more aspects of this kind of thing, and refer to the Plowden Committee's emphasis on the special importance of providing staff training, the provision of special skills and services—scientific, statistical, accountancy and organisation and methods. I have discovered that have dispensed with five statisticians and actuaries, and have reduced the number over the last eight years, the Admiralty

    1393
    of statisticians and actuaries from 17 to 12. I have already referred to the psychologists. It would appear that, even when they had these people—and they are in very short supply—they found that they were not able to use them. There is a decided overlapping, or, to put it another way, a decided confusion of functions.
    Why on earth, for example, has there to be a ship's cook and an officers' cook? In the Estimates Committee Report, it is stated that in a great emergency one cook could be transferred from one sphere to another but it would seem to be common sense that there should be a unified service. Another small point, why is it necessary to have a duty commander and a resident clerk on duty at the Admiralty during the quiet hours? I should have thought that one resident officer there, whether civilian or military, could get in touch with the right people if an emergency arose, and that if there were a general state of emergency the responsible people would be around very quickly.
    Again, why are there no women in the higher administrative grades in the Admiralty? I understand that in the view of the Admiralty Secretariat, women are not acceptable on ships—
    Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Are they not?
    Mr. Boyden: We find women scientists in the Admiralty Scientific Service and a lovely woman chief executive officer in the Secretary's Department but no principals or above. It is this kind of thing which makes one feel that the Admiralty is still hide-bound by tradition. The militant women's organisations ought to campaign for equality in the Admiralty! There was equality in the lower ranks during the war, when there were women temporary administrative assistants and temporary principals, and I fail to see why there should not be female assistant secretaries now.
    Perhaps I may conclude with making some comments on the Secretariat. I am sure that there is inadequate training of civil staff, and I think the Government are seriously to blame for the physical state of many offices. I will not enter into the quarrel about Bath or London, as one who has always advocated
    1394
    decentralisation, but I am quite sure that the building of new offices could be pursued far more vigorously today. It is quite obvious that Queen Anne's Mansions is much better suited for flats than for offices, and the Government generally have a very bad record, as has local government, too, for housing their servants properly. It is not only a matter of efficiency and providing good office arrangements, but it is bad for office morale. I think that the Admiralty would do much better if more of its resources were devoted to the building of better office quarters than to some of the other things.
    I am sure, too, that with the desire to attract men to the Services there is an over-tenderness towards the career aspect, both in the Secretariat as well as in the Fleet.
    So very often there are opportunities for economy which are lost because of carrying a top-heavy staff. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has got his priorities all wrong, and has given a demonstration of the wrong sorts of control. The Minister of Defence has stumbled from one false position to another, and the Civil Lord has proved less effective than the Estimates Committee, which has had to do his work for him.
    7.7 p.m.
    Mr. John Farr: I hope that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely. I found his speech both interesting and instructive, and I genuinely tried, at the beginning of his speech, to find out just how many of the ships to which he referred were actually on operational duties and how many were laid up in moth balls, because, quite obviously, a vessel on operational duties with a crew of sailors needs far more shore staff of Admiralty civilians to look after her than does a vessel laid up, afloat or ashore.
    The only other speech to which I should like to refer, before striking out on a special theme which I wish to raise myself, was that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke). It seemed to me that if skilled dockyard men are receiving less than £9 a week, that is a very low figure of remuneration indeed today. My hon. and gallant Friend told

    1395
    a narrowing tale of six men, none of them receiving £9 a week. Perhaps just to strengthen his plea, I might say that in Leicester I know of girls of 15 and 16 who are earning over £12 a week in the hosiery trade. It seems to me that there is something a little unbalanced when we hear of these two classes of people and their earnings.
    My chief object in rising tonight is, as briefly and as clearly as possible to call the attention of my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to the scarcity with which the vessels of the Royal Navy are deployed on the waters of the world. In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Navy Estimates for 1962–63 there are listed 140 vessels capable of being used operationally now. I say 140, but I know that, as came out earlier in the debate, quite a number of them are not in use at the moment. For instance, in the lists are classed two commando ships of which, as the Civil Lord told us, H.M.S. "Albion" will not come into use until July of this year. Of the 140 vessels operationally available today, some thirty-seven are minesweepers.
    Let us take for the purpose of my argument the fact that there are 140 vessels operationally available now. Those of most import are three aircraft carriers—H.M.S. "Hermes", in which I spent a very pleasant time afloat last year, thanks to the courtesy of the Civil Lord, H.M.S. "Centaur" and H.M.S. "Ark Royal". In addition, there is H.M.S. "Bulwark" which did a very good job off Kuwait.
    If one adds to those four vessels, together with H.M.S. "Albion", making five, the four operationally available cruisers, we have a total major effective strength today of nine major operational vessels. That is a figure which I consider to be totally inadequate and insignificant. I say that it is insignificant advisedly. If 140 operational vessels were possessed by a nation with perhaps the fairly limited responsibilities of Portugal or Italy or Egypt or Israel, one would say that there were more than enough vessels to deploy to look after their interests in various part of the world, but in no way is the number adequate to meet the global responsibilities that we in this country still have today.
    We all know that today the battleship is regarded as obsolete, but seventeen
    1396
    or eighteen years after the end of the First World War we possessed, together with some battleships, no fewer than 291 major front-line vessels, consisting of cruisers, battleships, destroyers, submarines and aircraft carriers. If one confines oneself to comparing our total strength of vessels of a similar major capability today, including cruisers, commando ships, aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates and submarines, we arrive at a total operational strength available of 93, or under one-third of our 1936 total.
    I have produced these figures so that I may ask my hon. Friend the Civil Lord whether he really thinks that today, sixteen or seventeen years after the end of the last war, our international obligations and responsibilities have declined to one-third of what they were in 1936. To my mind, our obligations abroad are just as onerous and far-reaching as they ever were. It is true that certain of our imperial obligations and responsibilities have decreased markedly. Since the last war, for instance, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and many other nations have achieved independence. In Africa new emergent States are appearing every day, and our responsibilities in that area have decreased considerably.
    The Civil Lord himself, however, when he opened the debate today, said that no less than 85 per cent. of our naval strength is now committed to N.A.T.O. responsibilities. If we add the S.E.A.T.O. responsibilities in the Far East, apart from any limited responsibilities of our own, we find that our overseas responsibilities today have certainly not fallen to one-third of what they were in 1936, and they are very nearly as important and realistic as they were then.
    One respect in which the situation today is different from what it was in 1936 is the fact that the Suez Canal, which has always been a vital lifeline to our country and Commonwealth, is no longer in friendly hands. It is owned by a nation whose attitude and whose actions, to say the very least, would cast considerable doubt on whether or not they could be relied upon to assist us in time of national emergency. That is an important fact to bear in mind because it obviously means that we need to have a certain amount of duplication east of Suez. Gone are the days when we could

    1397
    base a battle squadron at Malta, or in the Eastern Mediterranean, and know that within a few hours' or days' steaming it could reach a trouble spot in the vicinity of Aden or perhaps further afield in Asia. Those days are finished and it is necessary for us to duplicate east of the Canal.
    Reference has been made earlier in the debate to the operation which occurred in Kuwait and the advantage of having a readily available compact naval force on the spot, although, of course, the whole operation was on a very limited scale. My hon. Friend has already been asked what this country could have done if there had been two Kuwaits at the same time. What would we have done if there had been two trouble spots which were not close together, and if the Kuwait kettle, instead of simmering with lots of hot air and steam for some time, giving my hon. Friend plenty of time for naval deployment, had boiled up rather more quickly and if we had not conveniently had our one and only operational commando carrier in the vicinity?
    On the centre pages of the Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates for 1962–63 is a most interesting picture of an amphibious task force in operation. I calculate that if we were to mount an offensive by such an amphibious task force as is shown in this publication, it would leave available for use elsewhere one landing ship tank, no landing craft tank, no guided missile destroyers, no landing ship headquarters nor commando carriers. In other words, our total strength of all the vessels of that class are included in this typical amphibious task force indicated on the centre page of this booklet.
    My hon. Friend no doubt realises that I am pointing out what I consider to be a very startling decline in the strength of our operational naval fleet. He may try to justify this startling decline by expressing the belief that there was a greater threat of warlike action in 1936 than there is today. I hope, as all hon. Members do, that any preparations that we make of a military or naval character are based on defensive preparations and, moreover, will never be called to the test. I feel sure that I would be going beyond the bounds of your patience, Sir William, if I were to endeavour to assess the comparative
    1398
    international situations in 1936 and 1962. Suffice to say that I earnestly believe that there was never a time when it was more necessary for this country to be adequately prepared than today.
    Perhaps the international conference which is opening at Geneva today will eventually—we all hope it will—lead to some lessening of the need for armaments, but until then we must remain prepared and well armed. It appears that we in this country have prejudged the successful outcome of the international disarmament conference in Geneva by already having run down our Royal Navy to the very lowest possible limits of safety.
    If I may guess at my hon. Friend's reply tonight, he will, with his usual charm and lucidity, point out that the enormous cost of vessels makes it difficult to consider mounting a large fleet. He may point out that no longer is the capital ship or a big vessel of the Royal Navy our major deterrent. He may say that comparatively the vessels which we possess are capable of an increased firing power much greater than that of vessels of ten, fifteen or twenty years ago. He might, finally, endeavour to comfort me and other hon. Members who feel disturbed by saying that we always have our allies, that they are very much stronger than they were in the 1930s and that they are more dependable.
    Our views and those of our allies are not always identical. We had ample evidence of that at the time of Suez and since then, in a limited way at Kuwait. When speaking about the increased firing power of individual vessels today, let us remember, for example, that a destroyer of today is a far more dangerous and versatile vessel than it was even in the last war. But one destroyer, no matter what our backroom boffins do, can only be in one place at one time. One vessel, however powerfully armed and however speedy, can never be an adequate substitute for a multiplicity of weaker units. I suppose that the one thing on which my hon. Friend is on safe ground in saying is that there is only a limited amount of cash available and that we must cut our coat according to our cloth. That is absolutely true, but it is disappointing to read in the Estimates that for a total estimated expenditure of more than £460 million

    1399
    for 1961–62 we have only succeeded in producing, launching and commissioning one new submarine of a conventional type and six new frigates during the whole year. I appreciate that any vessel today must be virtually a floating statistical computor manned by technicians. The cost of individual vessels is absolutely enormous compared with pre-war days. But I remind my hon. Friend that it is no use having a Navy of nearly 100,000 men and women based in expensive installations ashore and spending a lot of money on them if we do not have the ships which, after all, any Navy is based on.
    Comparing the total number of new ships added to the Fleet in 1961–62 with the total expenditure, we find that for every £65 million spent on our naval forces we have succeeded this year in producing one new vessel. I must admit that the big difference between 1936 and 1962 is that no longer is the nation's major deterrent the capital ship. It is—and this, of course, is the radical difference—the threat of nuclear retaliation by aircraft. Nevertheless, allowing for this major change in tactics, is not the rundown of our Navy really too high? Has it not been reduced rather too much compared with 1936? As I say, one conventional submarine and six frigates were the only additions to the Fleet as replacements for 1961–62.
    Is my hon. Friend really satisfied that the paltry strength of the Fleet, augmented by the present paltry rate of replacement, is adequate to meet our responsibilities in the world in which we live today?
    Mr. Boyden: The figures I quoted earlier were those for the operational Fleet and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) will find the details in Table D on page 257 of the Estimates Committee Report.
    Mr. Farr: I will study it carefully.
    The Chairman (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Mr. Hoy.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I should like to ask, Sir William, at what stage the Amendment standing in my name, to move to reduce the Vote by 1,000 men, will be called.
    The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising that point of order now. It was not my intention to select the Amendment in the hon. Member's name, but, of course, the subject matter of it can be fully discussed during the course of the general debate.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. Might I ask you carefully to reconsider that Ruling, Sir William? With respect, it is in contradiction to what I understand to be the procedure of the Committee under the Standing Orders, and, if I am right, in direct conflict with one of the basic principles of our constitutional procedure. The Chairman's power to select Amendments arises in Standing Order No. 31, which states:
    "In respect of any motion, or in respect of any bill under consideration either in a committee of the whole House or on report, Mr. Speaker, or in a Committee the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Deputy Chairman, shall have power to select the new clauses or amendments to be proposed, and may, if he thinks fit, call upon any member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the object of the amendment as may enable him to form a judgment upon it."
    It is a power to select, and my first point is that, of course, power of selection presupposes that there is more than one Amendment to choose from. You cannot select the only one there is and that view of the matter is expressed—
    The Chairman: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member but it is not really in order to debate the selection of the Chair, and I know that neither he nor the Committee wants to go beyond what is in order. But my understanding of Standing Order No. 31, which the hon. Member has mentioned, is that the power of the Chairman to this Committee of Supply in no way differs from the power of the Chair at other times. It is the experience, I am sure, of all hon. Members of the Committee and of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that on many occasions, when a single Amendment alone stands, it has not been selected by the Chair and I believe that I am, at present, bound by that order in the same way as if I were in the Chair when the Committee was discussing a different subject.
    Mr. Silverman: I fully understand that, Sir William, but I am challenging

    1401
    the propriety of the exercise of the power of selection where there is only one Amendment in all oases, and I agree that it is necessary to look at this particular case with regard to the Committee of Supply.
    I say at once, Sir William, that I have two points, the first of which I am on now, and the second relating to the special situation in Committee of Supply. I have no intention whatever of debating it at this stage, but it is a matter to which we attach importance and, if it be necessary to debate it at some other stage, that will come in due course. I am submitting to you now that you might think it right to hear what the point is, without argument or debate, and, perhaps, consider what I have to say before finally ruling on the matter.
    I was saying that, on the question of selection, there is support in Erskine May for the view that a power of selection does not arise unless there are things to select between. On page 476, there is a heading "Multiplication of Amendments", and the paragraph, after first describing the old procedure with regard to several Amendments, goes on to say:
    "Experience has shown that in most cases the discretion conferred on the Chair by Standing Order No. 31 to select the amendments which may be moved is the best method of securing reasonable opportunities for all varieties of opinions. This power is exercised by the Chair in such a way as to bring out the salient points of criticism, to prevent repetition and overlapping, and, where several amendments deal with the same point, to choose the more effective and the better drafted."
    In other words, the power of selection was a power which the House and the Committee willingly gave to the Speaker and the Chairman in order to avoid multiplication of Amendments, and the implication appears to be that "selection" has its dictionary meaning of choosing among a variety of courses. That is all I say on that point.
    I come now to the special point regarding the Committee of Supply. This is dealt with in Erskine May at the bottom of page 731 and the top of page 732. I submit that this appears to be almost conclusive:
    "Except in the manner of proposing the question upon an amendment, the procedure of the Committee of Supply follows the ordinary usage of a Committee of the whole House."
    1402
    So far, therefore, whatever is true of the power of selection at other points is true of the power of selection in Committee of Supply. The paragraph goes on:
    "No amendment can be moved which is not relevant to the grant under consideration. The votes must be considered in the order in which they stand on the Paper. Any vote may be passed over and not moved; but a Motion for postponing a proposed resolution cannot be entertained. Each resolution for a grant forms a distinct motion, which can only be dealt with by being agreed to, reduced, negatived, superseded, or, by leave, withdrawn."
    I pause there to point out that this seems to make quite clear that a Resolution may be dealt with not only in any of the other methods indicated in that sentence but also by reduction.
    The paragraph continues:
    "… and the withdrawal can be made, although the decision of the committee has been taken upon amendments proposed to the resolution."
    I draw your special attention, Sir William, to the next two sentences and there I leave it:
    "Here the power of the committee ceases. The committee may vote or refuse a grant, or may reduce the amount thereof, either by a reduction of the whole grant, or by the omission or reduction of the items of expenditure of which the grant is composed; but the committee have no other function."
    It seems quite clear that one of the powers which the House has in Committee of Supply is a power to reduce a Vote. If there is no Amendment before the Committee by which the amount can be reduced, then that one of the functions or powers of the Committee of Supply has been arbitrarily denied by the Chair exercising the power of selection, in this case exercising a power of selection where there is nothing to choose between.
    I submit that the whole business of the House of Commons and the Committee rests on its Supply procedure and that, if the Committee is to be deprived at the discretion of the Chair of power to reduce a Vote, it is deprived also of the whole normal procedure by which, over very many years—over centuries, I think—the Opposition have been able to say of a particular Vote of the Government, "We do not say that you are not entitled to any men or not entitled to any money, but we say that you are asking for too many men or too much money and we wish to grant you less". That is supported by the form in which the Amendment is put, if it be called,

    1403
    where the Chair does not say, as it would say in other cases, that the Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part". Instead, the Chair puts the Question that "a reduced amount" be granted, the Amendment being put in the positive and not the negative form.
    This seems to support the argument which I am pressing, I hope not unduly, upon your consideration, that the Committee of Supply has by our constitutional practice over many generations the power either to grant or to refuse and also the power to reduce, and if the Amendment to reduce—there being only one—is not called by the Chair, to that extent the powers of the House of Commons to control expenditure by the Government in any matter—on this occasion in defence—are abrogated. I submit with great respect that this cannot be right, and I ask you to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. George Wigg: Further to that point of order, Sir William.
    The Chairman: I think that I ought to deal with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). It is a long one.
    Mr. Wigg: May I put something to you, Sir William, further to that point of order? There are certain considerations which I wish respectfully to put to you before you give your ruling.
    The House has accepted a modified procedure, modified since I came to the House, because, as you will recollect, before the modified procedure a debate on the Estimates was interrupted by a Motion which depended upon the luck of the Ballot. After that Motion had been cleared away, we then continued and the Government would seek to get Vote A and all the other Votes. The revised procedure, a wise change to make, I think, affected the rights of minorities in this way. You will recollect that when we move on to the Committee stage of the Estimates the only Votes which can then be discussed are Votes which are put down by the Government at the request of the Opposition Front Bench. I put this point respectfully to you, Sir William, as the guardian of the rights of minorities and of individual back benchers to raise
    1404
    matters on Supply. Although, of course, I have no wish to be disrespectful or suggest for a moment that your prerogative here is not absolute, I submit for your earnest consideration that the rights of back benchers, which have been deliberately given up in one respect, will be greatly affected if you do not accept an Amendment to reduce the numbers on Vote A. In fact, the last rights of the back bencher to have any direct influence over the control of the Armed Forces will have been taken from us.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order, Sir William.
    The Chairman: With respect, I think that the Committee should allow me to rule on what has been already said.
    I appreciated what was argued by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), but the passages from Erskine May which he quoted were permissive rather than mandatory. In considering the point in regard to which the hon. Member made much of the word "reduction", I refer the Committee to a book with which everyone is familiar, "An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons", by Lord Campion. On this subject it says:
    "The Committee of Supply finds itself confined … to giving general indications of its attitude. Thus the sum of £100 by which an amendment may seek to reduce a vote or item, concrete as it seems, now only has a symbolical meaning. It does not necessarily mean that those who vote in its favour hold that too much is being spent on such vote or item whether by that precise amount or not (as often as not the objection is that too little is being spent) but rather that the whole policy of the Government, as revealed by that vote or item, is open to objection."
    Clearly, this evening, when the debate comes to an end, hon. Members will have the opportunity to object to the whole of the Government's policy by voting against the main Question.
    I invite the hon. Gentleman and the Committee to examine the conclusion to which we should be driven if it were established that the occupant of the Chair should not, upon occasion, exercise his duty of selection. If an hon. Member chose to table an Amendment to these Service Votes on each of the three occasions on which they are considered, he would, regardless of the interests of other hon. Members, ensure

    1405
    unto himself the right to be called and to make a lengthy speech. I cannot feel that that would be in line with equity in the conduct of the Committee's proceedings. I am very reluctant to take up more of the Committee's time on this subject, and I therefore think it right that the Committee should continue with its business, accepting the Ruling which I have given.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. I gather from what you have said, Sir William, that you are taking into consideration what happened on the Army Estimates and on the Air Estimates. I should have thought that there was nothing in Erskine May or in the book from which you have just quoted—which is not binding on this Committee—which suggests that it is proper that you should—
    The Chairman: Order. Neither Lord Campion's book nor Erskine May is binding on this Committee.
    Mr. Foot: I am sure that you would agree, Sir William, that, if there were a choice between the two, Erskine May carries slightly more weight than the introduction to our procedure from which you have read. However, your proposition to us, as I understood it—if I have misunderstood it I apologise in advance—was that you were taking into account what happened on the Army and Air Estimates. It would be necessary to do this because the proposition which you have made to the Committee is in flagrant contradiction to what was proposed when we discussed the Army and Air Estimates. If your Ruling is correct, then the Ruling which was given when we discussed the Army and Air Estimates was, perhaps, wrong, because there was no question then that, if an hon. Member tabled an Amendment in the terms of the Amendment tabled to the Navy Estimates, it would not be called.
    The Chairman: Order. It was I who, in my service to the Committee as Chairman, selected the Amendment on the Air Estimates and the Amendment on the Army Estimates. That is not to say that the occupant of the Chair is bound to follow the same policy again and again.
    Mr. Foot: I understand that, Sir William, but if you are not following the precedent which you followed on previous occasions it is desirable that you should explain the grounds on which you followed precedent on the other occasions.
    The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going too far. It may be that I am, to a certain extent, at fault, because far from it being incumbent on the occupant of the Chair to explain why he selects Amendments, it is out of order for the Chair's selection of Amendments to be debated.
    I invite hon. Members to accept my Ruling and to return to it another time if they wish. We are engaged on an important debate. We are taking many minutes of hon. Members' time, and I should like the Committee to allow us to get on with the business.
    Mr. Foot: What you are denying to us by your Ruling, Sir William, is the right to put an Amendment to the proposition which the Government are putting forward and demanding—
    The Chairman The Chairman rose—
    Mr. Foot: —that we should only have the right to vote against.
    The Chairman: Order.
    Mr. Foot: This is quite unprecedented.
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that I am denying hon. Members the right to table an Amendment. What I am doing is exercising the duty to select speakers and Amendments which is imposed on the Chair. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) read out, that duty is imposed under Standing Order No. 31. There is no difference between the duty of the Chair in the matter of selecting Amendments in Committee of Supply and selecting them on other occasions. I have given my Ruling. Hon. Members know what steps they can take if they believe it to be wrong. I believe it to be right, and I invite the Committee to get on with its business.
    Mr. S. Silverman: May I put this final point to you, Sir William? I shall not press the matter beyond this. I am

    1407
    sure that all of us are grateful to you for your kindness and courtesy in listening to so much discussion about something which, I admit, comes close to what the Committee is not entitled to debate. However, we attach real importance to this matter and we are in considerable doubt as to whether your Ruling is correct.
    You have said that there will be an opportunity at the end of the debate for hon. Members to criticise Government policy by voting against the main Estimate and implied—indeed, I think you said it expressly—that this serves the same purpose—
    The Chairman: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have never suggested that there is any restriction on the right of criticism. The right of criticism persists. What I have said merely relates to the selection of this Amendment.
    Mr. Silverman: I fully appreciate that, Sir William, but it seemed to me that you were saying that that right could be as efficiently exercised by voting at the end of the debate against the main Estimate as it could by moving an Amendment to reduce it. If I am mistaken, I withdraw what I have said at once
    What I want to impress on you, Sir William, is that the two things have nothing in common. It is true that both axe, in a sense, symbolic. When we vote against the whole Estimate, that is a challenge to the whole of the Department's operations. We deny the Government money altogether. Very many hon. Members do not want to go as far as that but merely wish to say that, perhaps, on grounds of economy, too much money is being spent and too many men are being called up. There is the widest possible difference between voting against the whole and voting against a part. That is why Erskine May uses the word "reduction", which has to be given full weight. There is a power to reduce as well as a power to deny.
    As for the little book from which you read, Sir William, from my study of it, I do not think that what you quoted is the only inaccuracy in it. I dare say that in the next edition of it the passage which you read may be revised or taken out.
    The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making his point. The Committee must now get on with its work.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order.
    The Chairman: I can hear no more points of order.
    Mr. Hughes: I wish to call your attention, Sir William, to the precedents. Is it not in order to cite precedents?
    The Chairman: My duty is to allow the Committee to get on with its business. I have given a very distinct Ruling and have listened at considerable length to hon. Members. We have important work to do, and the time in which we have to do it is limited. Mr. Hoy.
    Mr. M. Foot: Further to that point of order.
    The Chairman: There comes a time when the Chair must end the discussion, and that time has now come. If any hon. Member wishes to raise a different point of order, I am ready to listen to it. But I have heard this point argued, I have given a Ruling on it and I should now like to get on with the business.
    Mr. Foot: I refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—
    The Chairman The Chairman rose—
    Mr. Foot: You have not heard what I was about to say, Sir William.
    The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will let me give my Ruling and stick to it and let us get on with the business.
    Mr. Foot: You have not heard what I was about to say, Sir William. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) put to you that there had been many changes in the procedure of the House of Commons in discussing Army Estimates. Apparently, what is happening now is a further grave derogation from the rights of independent Members and back-bench Members of the House of Commons in this respect. If we concede it now, it will be—
    The Chairman: Order. I appreciate the hon. Member's feelings, but I have taken into account what has been said. I

    1409
    have given what I believe to be a correct Ruling, backed by precedent, and I should like the Committee to get on with its work. Mr. Hoy.
    Mr. Hoy Mr. Hoy rose—
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to the point of order. I have a consideration which I wish to present to the Chair which has not been mentioned. There is a precedent concerning a reduction of 1,000 men in the Vote on the Navy Estimates five years ago in the case of Commander Crabbe. The official Opposition moved a reduction of 1,000 men in the Navy Estimates to draw attention to the incident. Somebody may have argued that the alternative was to vote against the whole Estimates, but there were hon. Members who wished to draw attention to the case of Commander Crabbe but were not prepared to vote against the whole Estimates. Some hon. Members might be prepared to vote for an Amendment to reduce the number of men by 1,000 but might not be prepared to vote against the whole Estimate.
    I have not moved any Amendment on either the Army or the Air Force Estimates. I should like you to say, Sir William, how an Amendment like this can be moved in the case of the Army and the Air Force, but not in the case of the Navy.
    The Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member has contributed much to our problem. We had better get on with the debate. Mr. Hoy.
    Mr. M. Foot: Further to the point of order, Sir William. In view of the study of constitutional matters which some of us have made, may I request whether you will reconsider the matter and give a further ruling of your judgment on the consitutional issues involved, particularly in view of the final point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)? It is a fact, and it is a new point, that he has not moved a reduction on the other Estimates. My hon. Friend is asking for the right—
    The Chairman: Order.
    Mr. Foot: —which has been denied to no one before.
    The Chairman: Of course, I shall take full account of everything that has been
    1410
    said. My mind is never closed. I am a seeker after truth and I will consult all the precedents, but I believe that I have given a correct Ruling.
    Mr. Foot: Thank you, Sir William.
    7.55 p.m.
    Mr. James H. Hoy: When I was called about half an hour ago, I was about to say something in reply to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I understand why he is not now present, but perhaps I might be allowed to say a word in his absence. The hon. Member's complaint at the end of his speech was that, despite an expenditure by the Admiralty of £460 million, there was little to show for it in the way of vessels. That is the charge which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) over a number of years, that despite this colossal expenditure by the Admiralty we have had little to show for it at the end of the day.
    It may be that as a result of planning something will happen in the future. It may be that we might even see results from the money which has been spent. I am bound to tell the Civil Lord, however, that the expenditure by the Admiralty has caused concern, not only to hon. Members in the House, but to those who serve on the Estimates Committee and on the Committee of Public Accounts. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who is occupying the Chair of the Committee for the first time.
    One of the things that we have to do, not only in this Committee but as Members of the House, is to examine expenditure by Departments. I cannot speak with an intimate knowledge of the Admiralty. I have not even accepted one invitation from the Civil Lord to pay a visit, although I am grateful to the Admiralty when it sends orders to my constituency. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I have for a considerable number of years, together with my colleagues, examined the expenditure of all the Service Departments. There is no doubt that the moneys spent frequently cause us concern, because there is wastage over which neither the Admiralty nor any of the Service Departments, nor the Treasury, appears to have control.

    1411
    I wish to follow the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who examined the Estimates from the viewpoint of the Estimates Committee. This afternoon the Civil Lord spent a little time on the educational establishments under the control of the Admiralty. I was a little surprised, in view of the considerable criticism which has been made about some of those establishments, that the Civil Lord did not take the opportunity to say what had happened as the result of certain criticisms.
    The two best establishments—the Britannia Royal Naval College at Dart-ford and the Royal Naval Engineering College at Manadon—came in for criticism, not so much because of the services or the job they do, but because of the money that was spent on them. The Britannia Royal Naval College provides academic and initial professional instruction for cadets and midshipmen. My last information was that there were about 490 students at the college. The Royal Naval Engineering College provides engineering instruction of a specialised character and courses in basic engineering, leading either to a degree or to membership of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. My figures show that there were 262 students at the college, more than one-third of whom were from overseas, mainly from the Commonwealth.
    What gave us trouble and the reason why we want an assurance that the money is being properly spent is that the fees charged by the Admiralty—and I am told that they were fixed arbitrarily in 1955—amounted to £600 per annum. On the best available information I have, the costs per student in these establishments are £1,250 per annum at Dartmouth and £1,500 per annum at Manadon, and even to get them down to those figures one has to discount any capital costs, superannuation and many other things. What we should like to know, before we agree to these Estimates, is what the Admiralty has done as a result of its promise to review those establishments. What I want to ask the Civil Lord is, has this review taken place? Perhaps if it has taken place the hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us bow the cost of these establishments
    1412
    compares with those in the other Services. We should like to know what has been the result of this consideration, if these joint consultations have taken place, because the hon. Gentleman has got to justify to this Committee what appear to be abnormal charges before it votes Supply.
    Having said that, I should like to turn to a subject which caused us in Committee upstairs some considerable concern, and that is the whole business of the Admiralty refitting and rebuilding ships. This has gone on for a considerable time, and the Admiralty has no right to come to this Committee to ask for Supply—and nor has any other Department—unless this Committee can be assured that in fact the money is being spent wisely and economically. I will give instances of one or two cases of the sort of thing which has to be avoided.
    In March, 1955, the Admiralty approved plans for modernisation of the cruiser, H.M.S. "Belfast". There was some considerable delay in preparing those drawings. Apparently, there was some shortage of staff or of equipment. The report took a considerable time, but by November, 1956, plans were presented with a preliminary estimate of £4 million. In January, 1957, the estimate had gone up to £4,950,000. By May, 1959, it had gone up to £5,426,000. The final bill presented for the cost of this project was £5,553,000, in other words £1½ million in excess of the original estimate. It may be that there is a case to be made out for this, but I am bound to say that I did not succeed in finding an excuse for this expenditure, and, after that money has been spent, if the Admiralty wants more for these types of purposes we have got to know what is happening. It would be interesting to know from the Civil Lord, having spent this £5½ million on this ship, what the ship is now doing. What has happened to it since the money was spent?
    There are a couple more examples which I will place together to save the time of the Committee We had the case of Her Majesty's destroyers the "St. James" and the "Gravelines". It was decided in January and February, 1958, that extended refits of those destroyers should be undertaken. The estimate was based on completion of refit by early

    1413
    1959, and it was estimated that £571,000 and £360,500, respectively, would be spent on those vessels. The work was slowed down and deterioration took place as a result of the work on the partly completed job being exposed to the weather. In April or May—I am not very certain—the Admiralty approved the stoppage of the work and called for a report. That was in April or May. The Civil Lord will be able to tell me which month it was. No report was presented until September, 1959, and even although it took all that time to present the report it was not until July, 1960, that the Admiralty gave orders for both these ships to be scrapped. In the meantime we had spent £228,000 on one of them and £208,000 on the other. So that despite all this delay and this ineptitude altogether £500,000 of the taxpayers' money was poured down the drain.
    It is not good enough for the Admiralty to do all this and then come to this Committee and ask for Supply without at least being able to assure the Committee there will not be further wastage of this kind.
    The same story can be told of the cruiser "Swiftsure." The first estimate was £4¼ million. Then it went up to £4,600,000, and it had many starts and an equal number of stops, and then at the end of the day the whole thing was scrapped, but not before £1,200,000 of the taxpayers' money had been spent
    So there are two or three examples which involve millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money, and when the Minister comes and asks for Supply from this Committee we are entitled to have an assurance that this sort of thing will stop. It is not only wasteful expenditure of public money. It is also the waste of the valuable time of workmen in our national economy. We call out for men of crafts and skills to carry out these jobs, and in addition to wasting the money we have also wasted the time of these workmen, and that is a thing which cannot be treated as expendable. It contrasts most unfavourably with the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming here, to ask us to exercise economy, and asking the workers to stop making demands for decent wages, when a Department then spends millions of pounds which might
    1414
    just as well have been tipped down the drain.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), in the fine speech with which he opened the debate on this side of the Committee today, said this contrasts very pointedly with the treatment meted out to Scotland when it asks for more money to try to alleviate the housing conditions which exist in our country. Apparently there is a shortage of it and means tests have got to be imposed, and yet here we have examples of public money being wasted, and wasted to a considerable extent.
    I understand that a committee was appointed a considerable time ago to undertake a complete reappraisal of dockyard labour and the load on the dockyards and the capacity of the dockyards to undertake work. If it has been sitting—and it has been sitting for a considerable time—then we are entitled to know tonight what the results of that examination have been. Surely it has had time to come to some conclusion on this matter? After all, it does not involve negotiations with foreign Powers, N.A.T.O., or anybody else like that. It is strictly confined to the Admiralty. Surely we can expect some information from the Admiralty tonight?
    Has, as a result of these deliberations, a conclusion been reached that the work will have to be more widely distributed? I am thinking of the craftsmen, the skilled workers and draughtsmen who undertake all these jobs. Has the committee recommended that this type of work should be more widely distributed throughout the country? I do not want to sound parochial or nationalistic, but, if the Committee has so recommended, I would point out that there are on Clydeside many yards and collections of first-class men with first-class skills. If as a result of this examination it is found that the dockyards in the South, naval dockyards in particular, are unable to carry out this work, all I am suggesting is that it might be distributed on Clyde-side where things have been very quiet. They would be delighted there to take these orders and at the same time thus to be able to preserve the collections of skilled men who have been gathered there to undertake this sort of job.

    1415
    I know that criticism has been levelled—I heard it in Questions by hon. Gentlemen the other day—at the Civil Lord about the speed at which ships are being built. I was delighted to hear him say that two are being built in my own constituency. The question of speed is determined by the Admiralty and not by the firms building the ships.
    I know that there are in other parts of the country skilled men who would be glad to undertake these jobs. I am not a strategical expert on these matters, because the service which I rendered in the course of the war was in the Army. The only thing that I was delighted to have from the Navy was a lift out to the Middle East, which was not so pleasant as the lift back.
    However, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee and one who has spent some time on it I have always had in mind that we must have efficiency and economy. I believe that we should have a good Navy in Britain and that the men we ask to man it should not man it with weapons less good than those of other people. I think that nothing but the best is good enough for them. We are entitled to expect in return, that the Government should give us an assurance that having got the money they will not waste it. Before we give the money, either in Committee of Supply or elsewhere, this Committee is entitled to have that assurance from the Civil Lord.
    8.13 p.m.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: On the benches on this side of the Committee from time to time we hear speeches from hon. Members opposite urging the Government to spend more money. I therefore welcome the observations made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and the speech of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) urging economy on the Government. I hope that they will have a talk with some of their hon. Friends on that side of the Committee and do what they can to spread the idea which they have put before us today. They will find plenty of support from hon. Members on these benches.
    I am sure that the hon. Member for Leith will not expect me to provide answers to the points he has raised. No
    1416
    doubt the Civil Lord will deal with them when the time comes for him to reply.
    I have complained on various occasions when I have had the privilege of taking part in the debates on the Navy Estimates that we are expected to make our observations on what I feel is somewhat inadequate evidence. I am having to speak with one hand behind my back today because I have, in addition, had to spend some time on a Select Committee and was unable to have the privilege of hearing what the Civil Lord had to say. I apologise to him for anything that I may say now with which he has already dealt.
    I should like to offer two words of congratulation to him. The first is that when the Service has got to the stage where there is a 62 per cent. re-engagement it means that the morale of the Service is good. Those who have had the privilege of being in touch with the Royal Navy for some years will know that that was not always the case. There was a time when we went into Her Majesty's ships and found that the one thing many of the men wanted to do was to leave the Navy as soon as possible. I certainly congratulate the Civil Lord on the situation prevailing today and on the fact that re-engagement is so satisfactory.
    My second congratulation to him is on his recent visit to "Sea Eagle". I had the privilege of going there a year or so ago. I raised this matter a year ago when I suggested that having seen a picture of the tactical trainer at Malta, a very small amount of additional expenditure on the equipment of "Sea Eagle" might be very valuable. I am glad to know that the Civil Lord has been there.
    The work that has been done in "Sea Eagle" seems to me to be absolutely first-class and extremely important in the present state of the Navy. The Civil Lord after he had been to "Sea Eagle "said that we were" expanding it because of the need for anti-submarine warfare training not only between our two Services but between the N.A.T.O. countries generally." He went on to say that "there had been some anxieties about anti-submarine capabilities. I should like to say a word about our anti-submarine

    1417
    capabilities and N.A.T.O. In the Explanatory Statement, 1961–62, we find on page 2 the heading "In Limited Wars and 'Bushfires'". The Statement went on:
    "… success depends on prompt intervention"
    and under the heading "Global War", it stated:
    "… the Royal Navy's role today would be as an integral part of the combined naval forces of the West."
    That seemed to me to be a rather nebulous statement of the position of the Navy.
    When we look at this year's Explanatory Statement, on page 1 we find that there is no reference at all to antisubmarine warfare, and N.A.T.O., as far as I can see, is mentioned on only three occasions, but I understand from other speeches that the Civil Lord did a certain amount to put that right this afternoon. There are, however, only three references to N.A.T.O. in the 1962–63 statement, and two of them relate only to training. When we look at the Defence White Paper we find in paragraph 9:
    "The Government do not believe that major war could long continue without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons."
    It seems to be a rather contradictory statement, because paragraph 26 states:
    "A continuing need will be for effective and up-to-date anti-submarine forces and equipment."
    I should like the Civil Lord to make clear whether in fact we wish to see a continuing need for anti-submarine forces and equipment, as the White Paper says. If that is the case I think that it is a pity that in the Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates there has not been a little more about antisubmarine work, anti-submarine equipment and perhaps about the work of N.A.T.O.
    The problem that arises in the minds of any of us who saw anything of what happened in the last war is whether we shall be faced with the difficulty of organising convoys in the next war. I know that there is a school of thought which thinks that we shall never see a convoy again. They may be right, but if we ate to see convoys we must pay a good deal of attention to anti-submarine warfare. If we are to have anti-submarine training, the new submarines are not necessarily submarines which will
    1418
    reveal themselves to a convoy of ships. There are submarines which will have to be fought by entirely different methods from those we have seen used on other occasions.
    I should have thought that it would have been right to have had something in the Explanatory Statement about the posible rôle of the Navy in defending our communications and that it should not have dealt exclusively, as it does in the first paragraph headed "The Rôle Of The Navy", with amphibious task forces which are also set out in the illustration published in the middle of the Explanatory Statement. Hon. Members will conclude from that picture that if there are any anti-submarine forces there at all, they must be included in the task group on the horizon, because there does not seem to be anything in the foreground of the picture which appears to be designed to deal with any submarine problem.
    My second point is that there has been a feeling, which I have no doubt is right, that the emphasis in this year's White Paper is not the same as it was last year. In the Defence White Paper last year there was more emphasis on nuclear weapons and the N.A.T.O. position, whereas this year's White Paper is related more to mobility and conventional forces which it is proposed to base at Aden and Singapore. If there has been a change in our defence thinking, and the Admiralty has been altering its course during the last twelve months, I should like the Civil Lord to tell us what be has been able to do by way of talking to the Commonwealth navies about these new requirements.
    In our last debate on this subject I put a point about Commonwealth navies and the Civil Lord then said that it was impossible for the Admiralty to impose its ideas on Commonwealth navies. He went on to say that we gave them all the advice we could. My hon. Friend knows that there are fifteen Commonwealth navies. If there was an alteration in the approach to these problems in this country during the last twelve months I should like to know what my hon. Friend has been able to do to enable that view to be co-ordinated throughout the Commonwealth navies.
    I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that I felt that hon. Members

    1419
    always had a slight difficulty in taking part in these debates because we rarely had the information which would enable us to offer our constituents any clear advice on whether the Government's policies were right or wrong. A couple of years ago the Minister of Defence explained that if somebody wanted that type of information there was a civilian agency which provided it, and he recommended a certain pamphlet which had been published by that agency. Another pamphlet has been published fairly recently. It sets out the strength of Soviet naval forces and relates it to the available strength in the West.
    It appears from that pamphlet that the Soviet Navy is in manpower about five times as numerous as the Royal Navy. It mentions that there are about 430 submarines and indicates that in the not far distant future we can expect at least 75 per cent. of those to be oceangoing and a certain number to be nuclear propelled. It is estimated that of these submarines 140 are in the Arctic, 85 in the Baltic and 65 in the Black Sea. These add up to 290 submarines which it would not be difficult to bring out into the Atlantic if it was so desired. In addition, there are 25 cruisers of which 17 are of the Sverdlov class, at one of which some of us had a look on an occasion not many years ago.
    This is a fairly massive naval strength, and the question we must ask ourselves is how we are to deal with such a navy. If we take it piecemeal, during one of the early occasions when I heard one of these debates the then Civil Lord said that the answer to the Russian cruiser was in the carrier and its escorts. We know that we have three carriers and not a great many escorts and the Russians have 17 of these cruisers available. According to the pamphlet to which I have referred, it is estimated that N.A.T.O. has 150 submarines available for anti-submarine work.
    Is it possible for us in the House of Commons to come to the conclusion on that evidence that we are in a situation in which we can tell our constituents that we are satisfied that we have the naval strength that we need? I feel that more information should be given to us in these debates so that we can come to a sound conclusion. The first point I
    1420
    made was about the difficulty of deciding whether or not we are an anti-submarine Power. There is no great difficulty about it being made quite clear. I have a copy of a statement issued to the Canadian Parliament about the Canadian Navy. That statement sets out exactly how many ships are assigned to N.A.T.O. and it makes the rôle of the Royal Canadian Navy quite clear. I would commend that type of approach to the Civil Lord so that we may be able to formulate our views a little more clearly.
    There are three smaller points that I want to make in conclusion. First, there was a time when the men in the Navy found it a great hardship to go ashore because their allowances were then so much less. I am not sure that there are not certain categories in which the principle has gone a little too far the other way. Take, for example, a commander who happens to be working in London. He gets the London allowance of l1s. 3d. a day, the lodging allowance of 19s. a day and the ration allowance of 6s. a day. That comes to slightly over £600 a year. Consequently, if that officer is sent to sea, he receives £600 a year less.
    It does not always follow that a married man with children leaving his London accommodation and going to sea is able to save £600 simply by his not being there. I suggest that it might be worth the Civil Lord looking at this. It applies not only to a man going to sea from a shore appointment in this country but also if he happens to go ashore when he is abroad, for the same difficulties arise.
    Commander J. S. Kerans: There is also the point that some of these allowances are taxable.
    Mr. Irvine: I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. That strengthens the point.
    The second smaller point is that there was a fairly widely read criticism in a Sunday newspaper on 4th March in which it was suggested that at least two of the weapons with which the Navy is being supplied are not really very effective. The Civil Lord might feel that it would be helpful if he were to say something about that. It was suggested that the Seaslug has a range of forty miles

    1421
    and that in these days it is not very difficult for a bomber fifty miles away with a stand-off missile to reach its target. If that criticism were correct, it would follow that the Seaslug might be very useful but only for the type of aircraft that the ship was not going to meet. If there is an answer to that, perhaps the Civil Lord would like to give it to us.
    The other criticism was that the Seacat—I do not see it mentioned in the Explanatory Statement—is useful against aircraft up to five miles away, and the newspaper went on to say that that was "an increasingly improbable target". The Civil Lord might find it worth saying something about that.
    My final very small point is that to me the picture of the research tank which is situated at Haslar and is included in the Statement seems to provide a good deal of interest. If it should be that the Civil Lord is able to arrange a visit to Haslar during the coming year, I think he would find that some of us would be very keen to take part.
    8.32 p.m.
    Commander Harry Pursey: Taking the speech of the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) with a number of others made by hon. Members opposite, I feel that the majority of them might have come from Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. One might have been listening to Alice in Wonderland. At times I have wondered whether because the copyright of Gilbert and Sullivan has run out hon. Members opposite are now hoping to produce a new H.M.S. "Pinafore".
    How many wars are hon. Members opposite preparing to fight? Also who are they going to fight them against? We have had arguments for the large aircraft carrier as a task force to fight one war. We have had an argument for the commando carriers to fight another war. We have had an argument for anti-submarine forces to fight a defensive war against submarines. We then had an argument for submarines, and particularity nuclear submarines, to fight submarines.
    In addition to that, we have had arguments about getting these big aircraft carriers and these expensive nuclear submarines as if one could order the aircraft carriers, at £100 million, by the dozen in Woolworths and nuclear submarines,
    1422
    at £50 million or whatever the price is, by the dozen in Marks and Spencer. Honestly, we must come down out of this Cloud-Cuckoo-Land and consider what money is available, who our possible enemies are and whom we are prepared to fight.
    Any unbiased individual listening to the speeches which we have had today from hon. Members opposite would be driven to one conclusion only—that the whole of the world is arming to fight Britain. Whom are we going to fight? We still have a large Commonwealth. Is that going to fight us? We still have large allies with N.A.T.O., CENTO, S.E.A.T.O. and everybody else, and we still have a hell of a lot of poor countries which cannot find the money for their food and have no navy. I will deal with the actual countries in a moment, but that is the background to my remarks. The crazy nonsense coming from the Conservative benches is quite unintelligible to any ordinary person.
    We have been presented with Estimates of over £400 million. What would that not do for our social services! It would be out of order for me to discuss that matter, however. These Estimates must be considered against the background of the total defence bill of more than £1,700 million. It is now sixteen years since the last war, but the party opposite is not only still fighting the last war, but also the Georgian wars, the Edwardian wars and even the Victorian gunboat wars, when Jackie Fisher, as a captain, bombarded the forts at Alexandria.
    We could have had far more security for far less money, particularly with the Royal Navy. Untold millions of pounds could have been saved for essential—and I emphasise the word "essential"—services such as housing, schools, hospitals and the poor old-age pensioners, who, the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said yesterday, were getting more food than ever before, which is a piece of arrant nonsense. The Government have their priorities wrong.
    The Government, and the Admiralty in particular, argue that Britain has world-wide commitments, as in the Victorian era, but this is the second Elizabethan era. Commonwealth countries are running their own affairs. They

    1423
    have their own navies for their protection. We also have our allies with naval forces. The Commonwealth navies together are greater than the British Navy today.
    Mr C. Ian Orr-Ewing Mr C. Ian Orr-Ewing indicated dissent.
    Commander Pursey: If the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt, then let him interrupt instead of nattering.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his courtesy in giving way.
    Commander Pursey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is not true that the Commonwealth navies are greater in total than the Royal Navy. They have no submarine arms. We are lending submarines to Australia and Canada. We provide the practice for their antisubmarine warfare. There is only one aircraft carrier in the Canadian navy and only one, which is due to go out of commission, in the Australian Navy. It is not correct to say that Commonwealth navies are in total greater than the Royal Navy—although that statement is in tune with some of the epithets Which the hon. and gallant Member has used.
    Commander Pursey: What I am saying is correct. I gave all the figures last year. I am not going to be put off my speech by being lured into repeating last year's speech.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. and gallant Member's motto is, "Don't muddle me with facts, for I have made up my mind".
    Commander Pursey: Of course, the hon. Gentleman has made up his mind. I do not expect to make any impression on him. He has gone beyond redemption.
    We are lending submarines to the Commonwealth, although we have only a few. Obviously, they are not of much value as an offensive arm, otherwise we would be concerned at having to lend them. But, listening to hon. Members opposite, one would think that we were getting ready to fight a war with everyone, that everyone was going to fight us, and that we needed all our forces to be available here. Yet our submarine force, on which some hon. Members
    1424
    opposite want to pin their conception of warfare, is scattered all over the world. If war broke out, the submarines in Australia could not be back here for months. What is the good of arguing that we must have submarines when their value is so rated by the Admiralty?
    What about our commitments? New Zealand", Australia, Pakistan and other Commonwealth countries in the Indian Ocean have forces which are far and away superior to those of every other country in that great area, because the others "ain't got none". The only nigger in the woodpile is Russia, with which I will deal separately. What applies to Australia applies to Canada. Who in America is against the Canadian forces?
    Consider the position of commitments in reverse. Why should not Japan with her world-wide trade claim to station forces in the North Sea to go to the aid of Holland if her sea defences are breached? This is the reverse of the argument that is put forward about Britain doing everybody else's job except her own.
    We must understand certain facts of life about defence. I will consider two essential points. Firstly, Great Britain cannot today engage in a major war without allies. Secondly, the only major potential aggressor is Russia. Obviously, Britain on her own will never fight Russia, so there is nobody else to fight. It is as easy as that. The Admiralty can take it as easily as falling off a log.
    There will be no major war with Russia, for two reasons; firstly, the nuclear deterrent, and, secondly, because United States forces are now on the Continent of Europe and will be there before the first shot is fired. If United States forces had been in Europe in 1914 and 1939 there would have been no war. I therefore say that there will be no war now. The remarkable thing is that that remarkable paper the Daily Express does not run its pre-war argument that there will be no war.
    What is the threat from Russia? I ask this because we must first consider the threat before considering what forces to make available to meet it. Details have been given, and I need not therefore give any figures. I have given them in previous years. There are no Russian battleships, no aircraft carriers

    1425
    and therefore no problem there. There are only a comparatively few cruisers and destroyers. It is not an offensive fleet for service overseas.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: What about submarines?
    Commander Pursey: I will deal with submarines in a moment. I do not want any help from the hon. Gentleman to make my speech. After all, I was in the Navy boy and man for thirty years before coming to the House sixteen years ago, and I do not need any help from the hon. Gentleman.
    I was saying that the Russian fleet is not an offensive one. It is mainly for home defence. Bath-chair admirals of the Navy League rave about 400 Russian submarines and argue that they will attack our convoys. But where are the submarines, and where are the surface ships? Some are in the Black Sea. They cannot get out and we cannot get in, so they must be deducted from the total. They can, of course, be bombed, but we need not waste time on them.
    Some are in the Baltic, and with our allies sealing the Baltic they are confined there, and we can get at the ships only by bombing them. That reduces the total number appreciably, even without any arithmetic. Then there are some in the White Sea and some in the Pacific.
    Commander Kerans: What about the Red Sea?
    Commander Pursey: The Americans are responsible for the Pacific, so we can take those ships out. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to make a contribution and is not to be called, I am prepared to give way to him. What is the British Navy concerned about as regards the Russian navy? Not the Pacific. Not the Black Sea. Not the Baltic. Only the White Sea. We are not going to conduct any naval operations against the Russians in the White Sea. So that has written the lot off.
    Now we will take submarines—400 of them. We have had this scare from the Tory Party for fifteen years now. It talks as if these submarines were lying off the Isle of Wight waiting for the first Channel convoys. A number of these submarines are old. A number of them are for defence purposes and they are also split up into four areas,
    1426
    but I will deal with the ones that are available. They have submarines available for seagoing purposes and for attack, and they have nuclear submarines. We have heard stories about the nuclear submarines being able to go anywhere and find anything and do anything. Let us consider that.
    At the beginning of the century when the submarine was introduced, its main purpose was to attack warships. In the First World War the Germans prostituted the submarine by using it to attack merchant shipping. A sideline development was that submarines attacked submarines, and they did quite well at it. These nuclear submarines have antisubmarine detection devices and all the advantages. They can go anywhere and do anything. Unfortunately, the other side have submarines which can do precisely the same.
    What do we start off with? We have nuclear submarines attacking nuclear submarines—blind man's buff. The Russians start to look for a submarine and we do the same, and by accident, as often happens in the Navy, they find each other. I once searched the Atlantic for five days looking for an aeroplane and we fell over it by accident. These nuclear submarines may find each other by detection devices or be directed by aircraft. Submarine A will fire at submarine B, and submarine B will fire at submarine A, and they are both expendable. What a game to be spending millions of pounds upon. Last year I advocated that the first step in disarmament to be taken should be to get the Russians and the Americans to agree to sink all the submarines. Then we could do away with the antisubmarine vessels as well. So much for submarines, except that I will come back to the subject of convoys after I have dealt with the aircraft carriers.
    I served in three aircraft carriers. After hearing the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) saying that carriers survived this, that and the other, I began to think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman must have served in india-rubber carriers, where the bombs bounced off and nothing happened. Some of our carriers went on for a considerable period because they were never really attacked. The antidote for aircraft attack obviously is aircraft

    1427
    attack. But once there is a bomb on the flight deck of the carrier it is out of action "pronto". So the aircraft carriers in the Pacific which were damaged were sent to U.S. bases.
    Stress has been laid on the value of aircraft carriers. The greatest drawback of the large aircraft carrier is its sink-ability. It is more vulnerable than any other ship. How do any other ships avoid attack, particularly aircraft attack? They do it by zig-zagging. At the critical moment in an attack an aircraft carrier cannot zig-zag. When aircraft are taking off from the flight deck the carrier must be steaming into the wind. When the aircraft are returning it must be steaming into the wind and it is then an easy target. There is nothing to prevent an enemy aircraft joining in the queue and landing on the carrier and "pulling the plug", when "pop goes the weasel !"
    Enemy submarines could follow ships into harbour with aircraft; that is far easier, particularly at night. There is no question but that the large aircraft carrier is the most vulnerable ship in the world. There is no justification for having one of these vessels today. Within twenty-four hours she would be sunk and all the aircraft gone. There can be only two places for a large aircraft carrier at the outbreak of war. Either she is so far away from the war that she is safe, or she is so close to it that she will be sunk. Then not only the ship would be lost but also the aircraft and all the millions of pounds.
    Now I come to the question of convoys. Do Conservative Members of Parliament think that in the event of trouble with Russia we should wait while she was sinking our convoys hand over fist before using the nuclear deterrent? Of course not. There will be no convoys; we shall never get to that stage. There would be no conventional war at sea with Russia. The moment Russia started at sea with nuclear submarines or any other nuclear device, in the air or otherwise, that would be the moment for the nuclear deterrent. Whatever the Army did on the Continent, whatever the Air Force did, would be a different proposition, but at sea would there be a stranglehold? No. Consequently the position is quite simple-no convoy war without releasing the
    1428
    deterrent; nobody is going to release the deterrent so there will be no war. So this large amount of money on three Services is largely thrown away.
    Having considered the naval threat to Britain—although I may have missed out some good argumentative points—the question is, what is the Navy to defend in these islands? What has this country got to defend and what forces are necessary? I have gone through (1) large aircraft carriers, (2) commando carriers, (3) submarines and (4) mine-laying forces. I am grateful to the Civil Lord for coming back into the Chamber to return to the private fight. I challenge him to say where we are to use these forces. Where are we to use the large aircraft carrier task force with all the protective forces required? I do not mind whether the number is one, two or three. We could not use that force against Russia in the White Sea and we could not use it against Russia anywhere else. There is no other country to use the major large aircraft carrier task force. I challenge the Civil Lord to say that there is. So there is no purpose at all for the large aircraft carrier task force. It is sheer and arrant nonsense.
    Now, the Commando carriers. There has been much song and dance about them. The men did a marvellous job at Kuwait, I agree, though they have not been paid for it yet. What sort of a job is there for them? Keeping a base at Aden for Commando carriers simply for "brush" operations against coloured populations, largely defenceless? Are we to use the Commando force to support or oppose Welensky? Are we to use it in South Africa? No. There is nowhere, except these "brush" forces attacking defenceless people. That is what we ought to have done at Suez, but we had not got a clue then.
    What are we to do with our conventional submarines? I have dealt with the nuclear ones. They are to play "blind man's buff" below the sea. The Russians are not going to send any ships out, so there is no justification ft" the submarines. The personnel factor is a large one. The Russians have been in four wars—in 1904, in 1914, in 1939 and their own private war. The Russians are not sailors, and they have made no contribution to naval warfare. I do not

    1429
    underrate the Russians. They are good in merchant ships and in building merchant ship machinery. They may be good at nuclear submarines, but that has yet to be seen.
    Now let us take the combined naval force. Where are we to use this mass combined naval force? Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that if we send it anywhere, we shall have nothing else left with which to defend this country. That is another crazy one. These forces are wanted here, it is said, and their home base is this country. Let us be clear about this. I will not deal with coastal countries but with whole continents. Against what countries in Europe are we to use any of these forces? None. Against what countries in Africa are we to use any of these forces? None. Against what countries in America? None. What countries in Asia? None, except Russia.
    The next point concerns this marvellous illustration which has been referred to by an hon. and gallant Member opposite as being praiseworthy. I have no praise for it. In the First Lord's Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Navy Estimates there is this two-page spread of marvellous illustration, and in paragraph 2 the First Lord says:
    "How all these ships would combine to support land and air forces in an assault is shown in the illustration of a typical Amphibious Task Force on pages 14 and 15."
    I challenge the Admiralty and the Civil Lord to deny that this is false advertising and a bogus prospectus. If a company promoter had produced it in the City he could be had up in court on a criminal charge.
    I challenge the Civil Lord to say off what coasts would such a force be assembled? None. There are other more important questions to ask, but that is a base to start off with. Such a force would only be assembled for a major war. It could not be sent against Russia, or all our ships would be sunk. There is no other country involved. In any case, the majority of these skips would be required for the defence of our own country and bases.
    Let us consider how many of these ships are in existence at the moment, and I will tick them off as I go. First, carrier task force; very few. Radar picket; none. Commando ship, one.
    1430
    Underway replenishment group; it would not be there. Guided missile destroyer; I understand there are none. Landing ship headquarters; that could be anything from a motorboat upwards. Landing ship tank, none. Coastal minesweepers; they do not matter.
    The majority of these ships which the Admiralty has the audacity to include in an illustration of an amphibious task force do not exist. If there were ever false advertising, and a bogus prospectus to mislead the public into believing that we have a marvellous amphibious task force, this is it.
    Now I pass to the question of recruitment. The Admiralty has said that recruitment and re-engagement are good, and I am glad of it. But recruitment and re-engagement will not continue to be good if conditions of service are not good and if proper rates are not paid in accordance with the cost of living. The Services have always lagged behind throughout the hundred years of continuous service introduced after the Crimean and Baltic wars. My grandfather, my father and I suffered from it. In fact, we all drew the same rates of pay. This Government made a contract to review the Services' pay every two years. A review is now due, and the increase should be 5 per cent. in round figures.
    The Government intend to defraud the Service men, the Kuwait people and others, by paying only 2½ per cent. This is the second time in thirty-odd years that the Tory Party has swindled the Services out of their proper pay. The result in 1931 was the mutiny at Inver-gordon. I was there, in the front row of the stalls, in the flagship. One reason which the Government then gave for reducing Service pay was to maintain the gold standard. What happened was this. The Fleet arrived back in port on Saturday. The country went off the gold standard on Sunday, and on Monday the matter was debated in the House. Up to that time the Services were not committed to reduced rates of pay because the House had not approved them.
    The announcement had originally been made that Service pay was to be cut by 20 per cent.—in the case of able seamen from 4s. to 3s. They refused duty.

    1431
    On the Monday the then Prime Minister announced that the whole matter had been considered and that cuts would be limited to 10 per cent. But that did not put the Service pay reduction into effective operation.
    I now want to quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT for Tuesday, 22nd September, 1931. I refer to the Committee stage of the National Economy Bill when Mr. Ammon moved an Amendment to Clause I. That Clause concerned the power to make Orders in Council for effecting certain economies and Mr. Ammon, a Labour hon. Member, moved an Amendment and said:
    "This Amendment will have this effect of omitting the reference in the Clause to the remuneration paid to members of His Majesty's Army and Navy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd September, 1931; Vol. 256, c. 1501.]
    In other words, the Amendment sought to exempt the fighting services from the 10 per cent. pay cut which was due to take effect on 1st October that year and for the men to retain their previous rates of pay. The Division on this matter is recorded in column 1567 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date and I mention that I have HANSARD here in case there should be any criticism or argument from hon. Gentlemen opposite about what I am saying. In the Division, 274 Tory hon. Members and their supporters favoured the Service pay cuts. Two hundred and twenty-one Labour hon. Members opposed the cuts and there are hon. Members in the House today Who were in the House then, and one of them had spoken in that debate.
    The Tory hon. Members who were all for the cuts in Service pay included Sir Austen Chamberlain, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, who was responsible for actually putting the cuts into operation for the Navy, Commander Southby, Lady Astor, Captain Balfour and Vice-Admiral Taylor. There can be no question that, on that occasion, the Tory Party was responsible for that 10 per cent. out in Services pay.
    Today the Tory Party and the Tory Government have again ratted on their contract. What has been the result? It is nearly as bad as stealing pennies from a blind man's tin. What does it all mean in actual cash? It means, of course,
    1432
    only pennies a day. Yet a previous speaker today complained about naval commanders being paid £600 a year by way of London allowances in addition to their normal pay, whereupon another hon. Member commented, "But it is taxed".
    Honestly, hon. Gentlemen opposite have no sense of values. They are just City minded and the situation resembles very much that of 1931. We are told that it is all because of the failure of our exports. Do not hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that if the men of the Services worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week—in Kuwait or anywhere else—they could not improve our exports? Obviously they could not. Only private enterprise and big business can do that; I.C.I, and company. It seems that the Tory Government did not care then, in 1931, and that they do not care now.
    What about the companies with twelve Rolls Royces lined up outside the Dorchester Hotel for a firm's dinner. Do we ever read that such firms have reduced their expenses by 15, 20 or even 10 per cent.? Their expenses alone amount to more that what a matelot gets for doing the job of defending this country so that these guys can make their fortunes. And, on top of that, the Government give them £88 million in Surtax relief. This is the most criminal thing that has happened in the history of this Government. More-over, what is said throughout the world? Other countries say, "Look at Great Britain, the big shot with the big Navy, the big Army and the big Air Force, yet she cannot pay the Services the proper rate of pay".
    How much is involved? Where will the money come from? It will come from the men's families, as it did in 1931. A married man is already handing over all he can to his wife and children, so the wife and children will suffer. Less milk for the children. Less welfare foods. Less school meals because they cannot pay for them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, less school meals because they cannot pay for them.
    What can a man in Portsmouth or Plymouth do about it? Will the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) say what the pay of a Naval seaman is today? We have heard about the pay in the dockyards. It is shillings, shillings for a man who

    1433
    has to keep two homes going because he is on a foreign station. We have had only one hon. Member opposite from a naval port speaking in the debate so far, the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke). I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport has not been able to speak earlier, because I have always had reasonably friendly relations with her.
    I put this challenge to the hon. Lady. Will she tell the House what an able seaman or a stoker is drawing per day in shillings and tell the Committee what the deduction is in pennies? Will she then make the point that the pay awards should never have been delayed, and that it amounts to cheating Service men out of twelve months' increase? It is a biennial assessment. They should have had their 2½ per cent. twelve months ago, so they are already behind with 2½ per cent., and now they will be delayed with 5 per cent. Will the hon. Lady also make the point that other emoluments are subject to the cost of living? The victualling allowance goes up and down as it did in 1931, and other allowances go up and down. Consequently, any reduction or delay means that they already have part of their emoluments outside their control. This is a scandal of the worst magnitude, and I hope that the Government never survive it.
    The Civil Lord did not make clear the number of pukka promotions whereby a man who joins on the lower deck can obtain a commission and enter the main stream. A good point was made about giving men education for commissioned rank. Cadets who go to Britannia Naval College are educated for Naval commissions by the State, at State expense. But in any case, what is all the song and dance about education? The orphanage which I came from produced three admirals who served at sea, two of them being vice-admirals who received titles. They commanded fleets, and one of them finally commanded Devonport Dockyard. What is all this business about education? A man can have the power of command and take charge of forces without having all the Xs added up the right way and all the noughts the wrong way. I wanted him particularly to deal with the case of men who are "chucked" out at the age of
    1434
    40. Conservative Members say that this does not happen.
    What employment in civilian life is open to a chief petty officer of the seamen's branch who has been a torpedo instructor, as I was, when he leaves the Service? [HON. MEMBERS: "He can become a Member of Parliament."] Perhaps he can get a job as a messenger, commissionaire or something of that kind. The Civil Lord never reacts in the right way. He is not quick enough on the uptake. The Civil Lord had a marvellous opportunity to say that the Admiralty will prepare a man for civil employment when he leaves the Service. Obviously not much of that is done judging from the cases dealt with by the Regular Forces Employment Association.
    What does the Navy do to train its men to get the right qualifications to joint a union and take up a trade when they leave the Service? A man may have twenty years' training in technical matters. As with the other grades in the Navy, that does not qualify him for any employment in civil life. Consequently, he is not acceptable to an employer.
    My final point is a constituency one. In view of the high unemployment in Hull, what steps is the Admiralty taking to ensure that the third largest port in the country shares in some of this vast expenditure of thousands of millions of £s on ships and naval equipment? There is no building yard in Hull. We are dependent on repair work. After the First World War, building yards on the Clyde or the Tyne were not closed. The only building yard closed was in Hull. We have a nucleus of men skilled in ship repairing which should be preserved so that in the event of war a labour force will be available for the repair of ships, mercantile and others. In this way, the unemployment figure will be reduced. I say to the Government that if shipbuilding contracts cannot be placed in Hull, make certain that sub-contracts are placed there.
    As I have said, there will be no nuclear war with Russia, and, therefore, no war with Russia. That being so, there is no justification for this multiplicity of ships to go anywhere and to do anything or for this vast expenditure of thousands of millions of £s.
    9.18 p.m.
    Miss Joan Vickers: I' have been challenged by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) concerning the pay of able seamen. Perhaps he will look at page 225 of the Estimates, where he will find their rate of pay set out.
    Commander Pursey: I have asked the hon. Lady to tell the Committee the rates of pay.
    Miss Vickers: I think that all hon. Members can read. It would be a great pity, therefore, to waste time by reading them.
    I should like to take up two points which the hon. and gallant Gentleman made. I assure him that we are concerned not with preparing to fight a wax but with preventing a war. That is the whole object of the exercise. The purpose of our discussion is to find out how we can make ourselves sufficiently secure in order to prevent the possibility of our being attacked.
    Commander Pursey: I hope that I have helped in that.
    Miss Vickers: I think that all hon. and gallant Gentleman has, too. I remind him that we spend £60 per head on the social services as opposed to £30 a head on defence. I therefore think that we have our priorities right.
    I should now like to return to Vote A and, first, to read paragraph 1 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 1639, which states:
    "This year's statement deals with the further evolution of defence policy."
    It is interesting to consider how completely the rôle of the Navy has changed since 1957. I thought that in 1957 the Navy had very little future. One of our great difficulties today is that it has suddenly been placed on a very different basis. The Admiralty is now to play a far larger pant than previously was considered.
    Since it takes so long to build the ships and the annual Estimates deal largely with what has, in fact, happened, plans should be made at least five or ten years ahead. This has been done, for example, with the hospitals. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has managed to achieve hospital planning. When a ship takes at least five years to build, the
    1436
    sensible policy would be to have planning for at least ten years ahead.
    I wish to refer to the question of aircraft carriers. The late Admiral of the Fleet Sir Charles Lamb once said:
    "Unless we find some entirely new strategy, we shall go on needing aircraft carriers."
    What is to be the new strategy if we do not have aircraft carriers? Page 4 of the White Paper states that there is at present no need to order a new carrier but that the necessary design work has been put in hand. If we are not to have an aircraft carrier, it is a complete waste of time to work on the designs when there is a shortage of skilled designers in the dockyards and shipyards who might more profitably be designing ships which are needed quickly, like the "Belfast". I hope that as a result of today's debate, we will be told what policy is to be continued with aircraft carriers.
    According to Cmnd. Paper 129, the Navy's rôle is to be defence in local wars rather than in a global war. In local wars, such as the incident at Kuwait, we have come to depend more and more on the Royal Navy. As far as I can see, the Navy's future will be in maintaining protection of the seas and protecting the smaller countries like Kuwait. We should all like to say how successful the Kuwait operation was. It is the type of action which the Navy will have to take from time to time.
    There is a permanent rôle for the Navy in places like Tristan da Cunha, whose inhabitants it rescued, and in giving help, for example, to British Honduras, helping on the occasion of the Kenya floods, anti-piracy patrols off North Borneo and fishery protection. All these tasks demand not the carrier type of Navy but an active Navy which can provide this form of protection.
    Paragraph 22 of the Statement on Defence deals with the future rôle of the Navy and our forces in general. It states:
    "We support N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. with land, sea and air forces, and CENTO with our air striking force."
    As I read that passage, it would appear that we are not taking much active part in operations in the Mediterranean area. It seems that we are to have our forces based in the United Kingdom and in the Far East. I should like to know

    1437
    who is undertaking protection of the Mediterranean.
    That brings me to the question of Malta. Malta has been dependent upon us for many years and I should not like to see us, especially the Admiralty, letting Malta down. I hope that before taking further action in withdrawing our forces from Malta, we will ensure that there is full or sufficient employment for the people whom we may have to dismiss.
    In mentioning Malta, I should like to say a word about the dockyard technical college, about which I have been in contact with my hon. Friend the Civil Lord. I understand that the Government of Malta agreed to take over the college on condition that naval apprentices could be trained there. When I was in Malta, however, I discovered that there was no college of technical education for the Maltese. I hope that there will be early action to take over the college so that people can be trained.
    In view of what has been said about CENTO, I should like to know what is to be the future of Gibraltar. This is an important place for us. We have an excellent dockyard there. It still does refits and it is a very good place for the Navy to call. Are we going to continue our base at Gibraltar?
    It appears that we are to operate in future in two spheres, having our main bases in Britain and the Far East. Therefore I think the Committee must be grateful to the Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman. We shall have to continue to use Singapore at the present time and, if we are, I would suggest that modernisation should take place. We have not modernised it for some time because we did not know how long we should be there. Conditions now need looking into. I was glad to see when I was there last time that some action had been taken about H.M.S. "Terror", which is the shore establishment where the ratings live when their ships are being recommissioned. However, I think that if we are to use the base permanently things should be improved still more. Furthermore, housing conditions of the naval officers, particularly in what is known as Rimau, are very poor. I have been trying for some time to get them improved for the local personnel employed
    1438
    in and about the yard. I was told that this was not possible because we were not certain of our future there. Now that our future is certain and we are to use this as our second major base I hope conditions will be made bettter.
    We shall have to concentrate particularly on mobility of our forces since we are going to do away with most of our bases in various parts of the Commonwealth. Mobility will count particularly if we are to have only these two focal points, in the Far East and in this country.
    I should like to say something about nuclear submarines. I understand that "Dreadnought" is nearly ready and that H.M.S. "Valiant" will be ready in two years. If these submarines are really necessary—and I think we do need them—we should press on with this programme. I am sure it is not beyond possibility to produce one every year and a quarter or at any rate one every year and a half. It is useless to have only one of these nuclear submarines, and if we are to have this limitation of bases I think we should have three of those submarines in the Far East and three in these waters here. I hope we shall press on with that programme on those lines.
    I took the opportunity of visiting the Tribal Class ship, H.M.S. "Ashanti", and I was very impressed especially by the air conditioning. As far as I understand it, this is the first ship to have such complete air conditioning. One is not allowed to open a porthole without an engineer coming along about it, and the reason is fear of upsetting the balance of ventilation. This ship will be nice for the men to live in. However, I should like to know exactly what is the purpose of these Tribal ships. What are they to be used for? They are not very fast and they have only one single turret. Are they general, all-purpose frigates, and what is to be their real purpose in the future?
    There is another matter about which I shall not go into detail because other hon. Members have mentioned it, but I should like to know about the future of the anti-submarine carriers. How many ships have we now which carry helicopters which can be used for this anti-submarine work? We had trials recently at Devonport where work has recently been done on Seaslug, which destroyers are finding

    1439
    useful. I am told that the second edition will be better still.
    I want also to refer to the question of dockyards, and first to Devonport Dockyard where H.M.S. "Eagle" has been having her four-year major refit. I am very glad to be able to tell the Committee that I understand that it is up to date, that the workmanship is good, and that she should be ready on schedule. H.M.S. "Tartar" is very nearly finished. Consequently, we would like another keel in Devonport. Hon. Members may remember—especially will the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot)—that in the days when he sat for Devonport the dockyard was specially enlarged, particularly the South Yard, and now we want to have work in this yard, and it really should be shipbuilding work.
    It is very disappointing to find that the yards have not been modernised. We had the Nihil Report, and I believe that the Galbraith Committee is dealing with this subject. In the Select Committee's Report as far back as 1959–60 we were told that a pilot scheme was being put in at Chatham and later one at Rosyth. As far as I can understand, the reorganisation does not seem to be a success. In Chatham there are now an extra 97 non-industrials, and in Rosyth another 36. I thought that one of the ideas was to cut down personnel, to put in more efficient workings, or modernise them, and all that we are finding is an increase in personnel and no modern machinery. It seems to me that there are too many executives now in charge.
    One hon. Member mentioned that in his constituency there was not enough work, and I think that at the present time all the yards are pressed with work. The estimating has been done, I regret to say, in rather a hit or miss manner—in fact, a lot of guesses. The modern ship is very expensive to refit, as one has seen from the Estimates, and the estimating for building these ships has not been very successful up to date. I hope that it will be brought into line in future. It is very confusing when we are told that these ships are to cost so much and then find that they cost nearly three times as much.
    I should like to know why the expenditure on electrical stores has been
    1440
    increased by £5 million. It seems to me a lot of money. Fuel is also up by £3 million. This means more steaming and therefore more refitting.
    There seems to be a change in policy with regard to dockyards overseas, because the established posts are cut lower and the hired ones are up. This has never happened before, and I should be grateful to know if this is a complete change in policy.
    The overseas dockyards have been luckier in getting new machinery than the home yards. In going around the United Kingdom one sees in the dockyards equipment which, I think, certainly needs to be renewed. It would be interesting to take the average age of lots of the machines and tools there. I think that they are far older than those in most of the commercial yards.
    One of the battles which I had with the Admiralty was in regard to the building of the wall around the dockyard in Devonport, at a cost of £180,000. I was told that this and other measures would make it less necessary to employ dockyard police, so I was very interested to see that the number of police has gone up. I would prefer to have less of the wall.
    I should like to mention the arms supply depôt which has suffered a considerable cut in manpower, actually about 8 per cent. I wonder why this is so. Is this a safe thing to do? There are being handled in these depôts guided missiles and a very complex type of torpedo. I wonder how safe this is. I shall be very grateful if that could be looked into.
    I was pleased that by right hon. Friend mentioned in his opening remarks the question of the W.R.N.S. It seems a great pity that they are not mentioned at all in the Explanatory Statement, considering the excellent work they do.
    If we are thinking of recruiting to the W.R.N.S., I suggest, as I did in a Question which I put down the other day, that their accommodation should be looked into. In many cases it is of a very low standard. I should also like to know whether the W.R.N.S. will be going overseas, for example to Singapore, which will be a future base. I have asked several times in debate

    1441
    about education and particularly about the length of training. In view of the fact that most of the young men who are coming into the Services now have far better education than was previously the case, I should like to ask whether the length of apprenticeship and training generally is not now too long. One hon. Member referred to Manadon and Dartmouth and the great cost of running those establishments. Perhaps it might be possible now to cut down the period of training at these places.
    I should like to make one or two suggestions about recruiting. I find that one of the great difficulties which the wives of Navy men experience is in the education of their children. Most of the wives have to make up their minds whether to accompany their husbands overseas, which they have greater opportunity to do nowadays, or to remain at home with their children. If they accompany their husbands overseas they have to put the children in boarding schools or leave them with parents.
    I gather that one of the reasons why these wives often wish to leave the children behind is that when they travel overseas the children have to attend so many schools. One child aged 12, for example, has been to nine schools. Another had been to five schools in England, two in Malta, and one in Australia. This is very bad for their education. It is true that education allowances are made, but I suggest the possibility of giving tax relief on those allowances. They should not be taxed because this makes it extremely difficult for people in the Services to keep their children consecutively at any one school when they have to go overseas. I gather that there is a good deal of discontent in the 40–45 age-group because the question of education becomes a severe burden and men are apt to think that they should leave the Service at that age because they would then have a better opportunity of securing a civilian job and of giving their children a better education. I hope that some attention will be given to this problem.
    As to housing, I know that the Admiralty has provided a great deal of accommodation, though not as much as have the other Services because this is a somewhat new policy. It leads to a great many difficulties, however, because Admiralty houses can be used only in
    1442
    certain circumstances and for a certain period of years. I suggest that the Admiralty should give housing loans to men in its service so that they can build their own houses. In many cases these men have not the money to put down a deposit on a house, but I gather that many of them would like to buy their own homes and thus avoid a great deal of worry about their families when they are serving overseas. If these men had a permanent home it would alleviate many of their anxieties.
    I feel that far more people from the Commonwealth might be employed among the personnel on board ship. I have visited several ships where I have found Chinese employed as tailors and Goanese as cooks. They like these jobs and are very satisfactory. Their employment allows other people with perhaps a better education to do more difficult jobs. These people are very welcome on board ship and they do excellent work.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East mentioned the pay pause. I understand that in general those employed by the Admiralty are not so fussy about the pause but they are worried about their pensions. They wonder how their pensions will be based when they come out of the Service. They ask whether they will be based on the money which they should have received had there not been a pay pause or on the cut rate. This is an important point for the future.
    I should also like further consideration to be given to the position of retired pensioners. It is a great pity that a number of these people and particularly the widows of retired pensioners should now have to be receiving a supplementary pension. I cannot see why these people should not be treated on the same basis as the Grigg Report recommended for those serving on this very bad rate should not be allowed to have their situation looked into each year.
    I thank my hon. Friend for the fact that he has made the Royal Naval Hospital at Devonport available for civilians. I asked for this to be done a couple of years ago, and it has been a very great success. Last year there were 1,666 civilians in the hospital. This is a great help in reducing civilian hospital

    1443
    waiting lists, and it gives Navy doctors more experience. This type of cooperation is very helpful.
    Finally, we are delighted at the fact that the Royal Marine Barracks are to be rebuilt and that we shall be able to welcome the Royal Marines back to Devonport.
    9.41 p.m.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: I support the plea by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) to the Civil Lord to consider making loans to enable Service men to build or buy their own homes. I believe that the Army has already made such a recommendation. The Under-Secretary of State for War is sitting on the Government Front Bench, and I have no doubt that he could convey to the Civil Lord the fact that the Admiralty would do well to emulate the War Office in this respect at least.
    I join the hon. Lady in her tribute to the skill of the men in the dockyards. This is a nationalised industry, and I am pleased to hear a tribute paid to the men employed in it. I am afraid that the hon. Lady's criticism of the estimating does not reflect very great credit on the higher ranks in the Admiralty headquarters in Whitehall, but I have no desire to develop that aspect of the Estimates because it has been done quite well already.
    I am not a Navy expert, but there are some points which as a back bencher I feel I have a right to ventilate here. One point in the Civil Lord's speech struck me, and I think he noticed it. He said that the recruitment of young boys was excellent last year. I believe he stated that 2,600 were recruited at the age of 15. I asked him what the term of engagement was, and he answered that it was twelve years. Therefore, we have here 2,600 boys who have at the immature age of 15 enlisted into the Royal Navy for an engagement lasting twelve years. I am sure that, on reflection, hon. Members will agree that that is a very wrong procedure.
    Some hon. Members will recall that a report on early leaving from secondary schools was presented to the House by the Central Advisory Council for Education at the request of the Minister of
    1444
    Education as far back as December, 1954. It was an exhaustive report which took two years to prepare. In essence, it said that youngsters in secondary schools who for one reason or another did not stay till they reached 16 or until their term of education was completed were far too immature to make responsible decisions.
    I have raised this point twice before in Navy Estimates debates, and shall continue to raise it until the Admiralty shows a little more common sense and humanity in dealing with requests from boys who want to be released from the Navy altogether. They are often highly educated, enterprising and resourceful, but they joined the Navy at too young an age to appreciate the irksomeness of naval discipline. I am not saying that the Navy has an irrational discipline—of course it has not. I should like to be able to come out openly and urge youngsters to join, but I am inhibited from doing so because of the many cases I have had, which I have taken up with Admiralty Ministers, of boys trying to get released from this obligation.
    I have been invited to go to a Territorial Army distribution of awards on Saturday evening. I shall certainly speak in praise of the work of the young cadets and of the Territorials. I joined the Territorial Army at the age of 17 and have never regretted it. But I cannot say that I can openly advocate that youngsters should join the Navy as boys until they have the opportunity, having joined, of getting released if they find the discipline and naval life too irksome.
    I am not a lawyer, but I think that it is true to say that a minor cannot be sued in the civil courts for a breach of contract. Even if he happens to be a married man of 18, 19 or 20, who has entered into hire-purchase agreements, he cannot be sued. Why should the Navy be able to use a contract of this kind, signed by a boy of 15, to tell him, "We have you press-ganged for twelve years"? That is monstrous. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it would be far more humane and sensible to allow these few discontented boys to be released without obligation.
    One of the arguments put up by the Admiralty, and by its Ministers, is that the Admiralty has spent so much on

    1445
    training these boys; but surely in this day and age that is a trifling thing to be considered. During the last war, I was in civil defence at the beginning, and when the Home Guard was formed I wanted to transfer. I was told that I could not do so because the civil defence had borne the cost of my training. I was of very low rank. In the end I insisted and was transferred to the Home Guard. I suggest that the Admiralty is being equally silly over this one matter, and I hope that the Civil Lord will pay attention to this and persuade the Admiralty to change its outlook.
    I have had correspondence with him of this and I should like to be able to say to boys generally, "I think you will find a very happy and useful life if you join the Navy." But so long as it is stipulated that a boy of 15 must remain for twelve years I cannot do that.
    Paragraph 27 of the Defence White Paper, "The Next Five Years" says:
    "Looking further ahead, existing aircraft carriers will be coming to the end of their lives, starling with H.M.S. "Victorious" in about 1970."
    A new generation of carriers will then be needed to replace the present ones. I gather from what the Civil Lord said this afternoon that each carrier will cost at least £50 million, and from a question put to him by one of my hon. Friends, it seems that the aircraft which will be carried by the carrier may cost over £50 million. I presume that each carrier will have a protective screen of cruisers or frigates, each of which will cost several million pounds. What, therefore, will be the cost of putting a new carrier into the fleet?
    I come next to the point made by many hon. Members about the vulnerability of such a huge vessel. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) asked, "Can one zig-zag a carrier?" I presume that one cannot. Therefore, I think that we are entitled to something more than this rather hazy talk about new expensive carriers eight or nine years hence.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport referred to Singapore as an overseas base. I very much doubt the value of Singapore as a base, because I am old enough to have read the debates in this House
    1446
    about the value of it as a base, even while it was being built. I recall the shock felt by millions of people when Singapore fell in 1942, almost without a shot being fired. Unless I am mistaken, the defences were facing the wrong way. Hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite are far more knowledgeable about these naval affairs than I am, and if I am wrong I shall be glad to be corrected.
    I think that we have to consider this demand by the Admiralty for these expensive aircraft carriers in the dim and distant future. The total gross cost of the Navy Estimates this year is £466 million. I wonder whether the Admiralty has considered what the figure will be when this "new generation of aircraft carriers" as it is called comes into operation, because if they are to be so expensive that we cannot afford them, I think that the Admiralty might as well save time and not plan for them.
    Yesterday the Government refused to grant a modest increase in pensions and in rates of pay for aged and disabled people. The amounts paid now to millions of people are a disgrace to a country which claims such great traditions as we do. I hope that before we spend huge sums of money on doubtful ships we will at least see that the older people and the infirm are given a decent income.
    I wish to refer again to a matter which I raised in the debate last year, because I think it is still relevant. When naval exercises are carried out fishermen fishing in the locality are debarred from following their lawful occupation, but they get no compensation for the resulting loss of income although they maybe compensated for damage to gear. I am quite sure that hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite who served in the Navy will agree that that is a mean way to treat a gallant body of men who in time of war man the minesweepers which are of such assistance to the Royal Navy and to the Merchant Navy.
    The great naval aerodrome of Culdrose borders on my constituency and I should like to pay a tribute to the magnificent work done along the Cornish beaches during the summer, and at other times in the year, by helicopter crews from Culdrose. In this morning's newspapers

    1447
    there are pictures of one of these helicopters rescuing someone who had fallen from the cliffs at Zennor and been injured. Not only the people of Cornwall but visitors from all over the country are relieved to know that these helicopters are standing by ready to assist at any time should there be an accident on the cliffs, someone in difficulties in the sea, or some occurrence of that kind. Last Friday I was in Penzance and saw the damage to the seafront caused by the unaccustomed gales. I saw three electric driers from Culdrose being used to dry out houses which had been flooded. We owe a debt to the Navy for assistance of that kind which it gives to the civil administration.
    I should like the Minister to say something about the houses which I believe the Admiralty desires to build in Camborne-Redruth as part of the accommodation for the personnel at Culdrose. It is proposed, I understand, to build there because if at any time they should no longer be needed for the Culdrose personnel the houses would be in the centre of a fairly big town and available for use by civilians. I consider that an excellent idea which will be welcomed in Camborne-Redruth.
    I should like to know whether the Admiralty has any plan for disarmament if by any unexpected chance the Disarmament Conference at Geneva comes to some agreement which would cause a limitation in the requirements of Her Majesty's Navy and the dockyards. I am quite sure that Parliament would like an assurance that the great dockyard towns like Plymouth and Portsmouth would be provided with some suitable engineering work and civil employment which would suit the skills and experience of the tens of thousands of men employed in our dockyards.
    Dr. Alan Thompson: And at Rosyth.
    Mr. Hayman: Yes, at Rosyth and any other naval dockyard. I mentioned Portsmouth and Devonport, because I know those dockyards.
    it being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.
    Ordered,
    That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for Two Hours after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing.]
    Supply again considered in Committee.
    Mr. Hayman: I was about to say that I echo what was said this afternoon in appreciation of the courtesy extended to Members of Parliament when they go on such exercises as "Shop Window" and visits such as the one I paid as a member of a Parliamentary group to the naval aircraft station at Culdrose.
    There is a particular point in my correspondence with the Civil Lord to which I wish to draw attention. On 6th February, I sent him a letter about a compassionate posting. It was a case in which there had been considerable delay. I received an interim reply on 22nd February. I hope that it might be possible to have a final reply soon and that it will be a comforting one for my constituent. This is a compassionate posting, not a compassionate release.
    Another matter I wish to raise is the danger from diesel fumes in Her Majesty's dockyards and other places where men are exposed to these fumes. Someone I know who was employed by the Admiralty died this week. He was a non-smoker and I have no doubt whatever that the trouble with his lungs arose from working amidst diesel fumes, possibly for a considerable time. I am a non-smoker, but I realise that some of those who feel that the high incidence of lung cancer is wrongly attributed to cigarette smoking may have some point in their argument that diesel fumes may account in part for the increase of lung cancer. I have no doubt whatever that cigarette smoking is very largely accountable for lung cancer, but I feel that when men in industry are exposed to the danger of inhaling diesel fumes something ought to be done about it. I hope that the Civil Lord will arrange for the Admiralty to institute an inquiry into this general problem.
    10.4 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Wall: I hope the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks directly, particularly as I wish to refer to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), my Parliamentary neighbour.
    Two points in his speech should be refuted. The first was when he referred to the picture of the amphibious task force in the Explanatory Statement to the Estimates and proceeded to delete all the ships there illustrated, saying that they should not be there, or were not available, or had never existed. I understand that every one of those ships, with the exception of the two guided missile destroyers, is available now, and that the guided missile destroyers will be available at the end of the year. It was wrong of the hon. and gallant Member to refer to the document, as he did, as a false prospectus.
    It should also be said that this is the first Government which has linked Service pay directly to the rise or fall of civilian pay. In the past the Services have had to wait year after year and, after a lot of trouble and discussion, they have had rates of pay adjusted to a level which put them about on balance with civilian pay. Then they had to wait another five or six years for a further increase. Now at last we have a direct link between Service and civilian pay, which is wholly satisfactory to all members of the Services, and which is probably reflected in the 62 per cent. re-engagement rate for the Royal Navy.
    I congratulate, as many of my hon. Friends have done, the Civil Lord on this year's Report on the Royal Navy. I believe that the morale of the Navy is high because it has now a positive and active role. Hon. Members will remember that this has not always been the case. They will recall the unfortunate circumstances after the end of the war, when we had quite a lot of sabotage and trouble in the Navy, even though very great work was done by the Royal Navy and the Commonwealth Navies in Korea. Due to the explosion of the hydrogen bomb the impression had begun to grow that there was no positive rôle for the
    1450
    Navy. I look back to the key defence White Paper, that of 1957, and I quote from paragraph 24:
    "The rôle of naval forces in total war is somewhat uncertain. It may well be that the initial nuclear bombardment and counter-bombardment by aircraft or rockets would be so crippling as to bring the war to an end within a few weeks or even days, in which case naval operations would not play any significant part."
    Then, in the Explanatory Statement to the Navy Estimates that year, we find, in paragraph 10, a similar idea creeping in, and I quote again:
    "The cause of total war is necessarily speculative. … A global war might be fought to a quick end by the use of nuclear missiles. It might well, on the other hand, drag on, and in that event the Navy would be needed to protect our merchant ships, as in the past, and to reinforce the hitting power of our allies:"
    I think that was the period when there was much talk about "broken-backed warfare". We do not hear so much about that today.
    Now, some five years later we have a very much clearer rôle, and a great tribute should be paid, not only to the Ministers in charge of the Admiralty, but also to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, who has shown a real appreciation of maritime strategy and what it means to this country. In the White Paper this year, it is made clear that we need a balanced force, both nuclear and conventional. It is also clear that we are going all out for a maritime strategy, which has always been the one which, historically, has served this country best. In that strategy, the Navy plays an offensive rôle, both in the nuclear and conventional types of warfare, and it is to these two types of warfare that I should like to direct the burden of my remarks.
    With regard to the nuclear deterrent, I think most hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that the deterrent must be carried by the V-bombers, developed for Skybolt, and possibly by other means, until they are worn out in about 1970. After that, what happens? Are we to develop a new generation of supersonic aircraft or to develop these vast aircraft carriers, such as the American "Enterprise", nuclear-propelled and costing £80 million or £90 million, which my hon. Friend

    1451
    the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) referred to as floating advanced airfields, or are we to have Polaris missile submarines? I believe that this decision has to be made fairly soon, and I am surprised that there is no reference, or very little reference, to the Polaris in this year's Navy Estimates. Obviously, it is going to take a long time to build new generations of supersonic aircraft or Polaris submarines or large aircraft carriers. We will not need them until 1970, but it seems to me that we shall have to start very soon asking for or developing the first of this new type of ship or aircraft. Inevitably the decision about the Polaris submarine is tied up to the decision about the future aircraft carrier, and I hope that next year we shall have some indication of the lines along which the Admiralty is thinking in this connecton.
    While on the subject of nuclear submarines, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he really thinks that we are getting the best value for money in the two nuclear-powered submarines that we are now building? They are hunter-killer submarines. For about half as much again we could build Polaris submarines. The Polaris submarine not only contributes to the deterrent but when it has discharged its missiles it can act as a hunter-killer submarine, whereas the reverse process is not true.
    I am told that the Americans—indeed, I believe my hon. Friend the Civil Lord referred to this today—expect to have forty-five Polaris submarines by 1970. I wonder whether he noticed an article by the naval correspondent of the Daily Telegraph last summer in which he mentioned this fact and said that the Americans were finding difficulty in manning the vast fleet that they now have above and under the water. He suggested that in the years ahead they might well turn some of these submarines over to us so that they could be manned by British naval personnel under the White Ensign. That would contribute a great British share to the Western deterrent and it would not involve us in the enormous expenditure of building a large number of these vessels.
    While I am on the question of the deterrent, may I once again emphasise the point that I have made previously?
    1452
    It is the distorting effect that the method chosen for carrying the deterrent has upon the Estimates of the individual services. If we exclude the V-bomber force the R.A.F. has not got much left. If we decide that in future the Royal Navy is to supply submarines for this purpose, we shall distort the shape of the Royal Navy and there will not be much money left for the conventional ships required for amphibious and other operations. I once again plead with the Government to consider taking the cost of the carrying of the deterrent out of the Service Estimates and putting it in another Estimate, presumably that of the Ministry of Defence. That would make future decisions more easy and more palatable and would reduce unavoidable inter-Service rivalry.
    I now wish to refer to conventional warfare which is today the Navy's main rôle. There has been a lot of talk today about the new generation of aircraft carriers. We all agree that we do not want the type of aircraft carrier which is now being developed by the Americans, the nuclear-powered "Enterprise"; she is too big, expensive and vulnerable, that is, if there is to be another generation.
    The Civil Lord said that we wanted support aircraft carriers whose main rôle would be to support amphibious and anti-submarine operations. But he also said that these carriers would have to operate Royal Air Force aircraft, and therefore they would be of 50,000 tons. That seems to be rather large with the consequent factor of vulnerability. I hope that when all the questions of the V.T.O. aircraft and other methods of providing this support have been considered, it will be possible to provide a ship not much larger than the present "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" and designed specifically for support purposes rather than for strike purposes. We have got to do something about providing adequate support for amphibious operations, and we have got to do it quickly.
    As has been said, there are now two commando carriers and five normal conventional aircraft carriers. Two of these are in reserve. At any one time we have, therefore, only one operational aircraft carrier east of Suez and one, or possibly two, in home waters. It is lucky

    1453
    that we managed to concentrate "Bulwark" and "Victorious" at the time of Kuwait. But that was not an opposed landing and it must be realised that in an opposed landing the support of conventional aircraft carriers will be essential. In other words, we shall not be able to carry out that type of operation unless we concentrate two or more carriers together.
    If the opposing power has an air force—as those who were in the Pacific during the last war will remember—it is important that a carrier task force should have two decks because obviously one bomb can put one deck out of action and if there is only one carrier available all the aircraft will be lost. To be reasonably safe in an opposed landing in a conventional, small-scale war it is wise to concentrate three aircraft carriers, two for support and one for helicopter and commando operations.
    That is not going to be easy with our existing carrier strength, especially when one considers their age. Several hon. Members have referred to this, but it is worth mentioning again that "Victorious" will be 32 years old by 1971 and "Eagle" will be getting on for 25 years old. This, therefore, gives emphasis to the plea that I have made concerning the question of the future of the carrier and the linked question of the development of the Polaris submarine. These questions must be decided soon, and I look forward to there being a reasonable indication of the line of thought from the Admiralty when the time comes for us to debate this matter again in 1963.
    Regarding assault ships—and this point was made from the Opposition Front Bench—the first assault ship took six months for tenders to be placed. We are told today, according to the builders, that they will take four years to build. We understand that the second assault ship will be ready about a year later.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The time was three and a half years from the time of tendering and the placing of the order, and we said that we thought the second one would come along much faster, so that it may come forward at the same time.
    Mr. Wall: I am glad to hear that, but if she takes three and a half years to build it will still be four years before she can be in operational service. Until we have these vessels in operation we have no method, other than aircraft, of supporting these landings; in other words, no methods of landing tanks in the early stages of assault, because they cannot be landed from L.S.T.s in the early stages of an opposed landing. L.S.T.s are follow-up vessels, and I hope that everything will be done to speed up the construction of these two vitally important craft assault ships.
    I must refer to the Royal Marines, a subject which has received the attention of several hon. Members. I think that it is the espirit de corps and the training of the Royal Marines which makes them the most flexible of Her Majesty's Forces. Perhaps I might give two illustrations of the kind of thing I mean, both taken from the last war. Hon. Members will recall that there was a Royal Marines division which was committed for various operations, some of which took place and some of which did not. Later it was decided to disband this division.
    Out of its members, when it was disbanded, were formed the First Royal Marine Commandos and flotillas and squadrons of landing craft used in Overlord and other operations. Army tanks were manned by the Marines from the same division when the assault was made on Normandy. The second example concerns my own experience in the war. Not only was I a gunnery officer of a battleship, I was also in the commandos, learned to fall out of aeroplanes with the aid of a parachute, and learned how to pilot light aircraft, and was in charge of a number of assault craft. That was by no means a unique or exceptional experience on my part, but it illustrates the flexibility of this Corps which is, of course, its greatest asset.
    One can look at the Marines two ways. One can either say that they are always ready to jump in to any action at the time of an emergency, as they have so often done in the past, or that they are neither fish, fowl nor good red herring. Perhaps I might translate what I mean in more modern terms. The Marines could be the nucleus on which

    1455
    inter-Service co-operation—I hesitate to say amalgamation—could be based; or the Marines could be the first armed forces to go to the wall when the three Services really co-operate. I am very glad that we are coming back to the true concept of maritime strategy, because this underlines the real rôle of the Royal Marines, to act as a bridge between the various Services.
    The Corps of Royal Marines is too small to exist on its own and it must have a parent, and that parent is and always has been the Royal Navy. I was a little alarmed at Question Time today when my hon. Friend told me that there were only 17 per cent. of Royal Marines serving afloat today. The figure of 1,536 which he gave me included an embarked commando, the commando embarked in "Bulwark", which comprises about 536 and which, of course, is not always embarked. What is really means is that serving in Her Majesty's ships today are only about 1,000 marines. This is a very small percentage of the Corps, and it makes our direct link with the Royal Navy a weak one. I admit that this worries me a good deal.
    When I attended the Tanganyika Independence celebrations at Dar-es-Salaam last December, everyone was delighted to see H.M.S. "Belfast" representing the Royal Navy, and it was wonderful to see this large 13,000 ton ship in the harbour where one normally sees only frigates or destroyers. However, going on board to the usual wonderful party organised for the celebrations, I found that the Royal Marine detachment in that ship was only just over forty marines. My first ship, the "Devonshire", of about 10,000 tons had a detachment of over eighty. Why is it that the detachments in the few ships which carry marines have been so greatly reduced? I suppose that the reason may be the shortage of Vote A strength, and because we are producing new commandos, but surely, if recruiting is going so well, we should be able to increase the strength of these detachments.
    Again, on the subject of serving at sea, I feel that I must quote from a letter I received the other day from an old friend who was a Blue Marine gunner about forty years ago when he
    1456
    first enlisted. He wrote to me when he read in his evening paper that the Royal Regiment of Artillery was to provide a gun battery for an assault ship. I will quote a few passages from his letter:
    "Yesterday evening, when I turned to page 1 of my Portsmouth Evening News, I nearly tumbled out of my old war-socks with shock, when I read that they are shipping landlubber gunners in 'The Andrew', to assist the Royal Marines—with gunnery!!—and this when they have just hauled all the guns out of the old Royal Marine Gunnery School at Eastney, sacked all the gunnery instructors, and filled the joint up with 250 pen-pushers and typewriter-ticklers".
    He goes on to say that this is
    "A very dangerous game, because some of the bright-boy young Gunner officers might say somewhere (innocently, of course!), that 'These R.M. Commando chaps cannot talk Larkhill and Pirbright lingo with us, and maybe P.B.I, from Aldershot could do it better'."
    I refer to that letter because it emphasises that this is a job which could be carried out as well by the Artillery or by the Royal Marines, and I hope that we shall not get away from the idea that the Royal Marines can do almost any job. If we forget their flexibility, we shall sign their death warrant.
    The Civil Lord, in opening, made the point that the assult ship was for landing the Army not the Marines, but I must remind him that the guns and the tanks of the support ship will be supporting the initial assault, not the follow-up, and, therefore, it will be supporting the Royal Marine Commandos, so I do not think that that argument can apply in the case I have mentioned.
    I believe that the basis of our maritime strategy is to have a Royal Navy task force composed of carriers, commando carriers and assault ships, from which the initial landing should be performed by Royal Marines supported by the Royal Navy, the follow-up being done by the Army. I believe that the Royal Corps must remain a maid of all work but also must be the master of all work and be recognised as such. It must retain its greatest asset of all, flexibility.
    The Navy is undoubtedly in good heart and, I believe, in good hands. However, next year we must decide the future of carriers and the future method of delivering the deterrent. I believe that Polaris will be needed and that that will confirm the Royal Navy in its rightful place as the Senior Service.
    10.25 p.m.
    Dr. Alan Thompson: This debate, like all good debates, has ranged over the general and the particular. The general proposition argued from these benches is one which the Labour Party deeply holds, namely, that Britain needs defending and that the Navy is a vital part of our defences. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), in his eloquent speech, said that, in our view, the Navy can be made more effective, more scientifically based and more economical to run and yet have even greater striking power. By his words he mirrored the feeling on these benches.
    Other hon. Members have spoken, not of the general problems of naval strategy, problems with which we on this side are just as much concerned as hon. Members opposite, but of particular problems in their constituencies. I speak for a constituency the fortunes of which have been interwoven with those of the Royal Navy for sixty years. Sixty years ago, the Admiralty acquired 1,000 acres of land and 48 acres of foreshore in my constituency for the purpose of constructing a naval base in the Forth area. Since then, for better and for worse, my constituency has seen its fortunes linked to those of the Admiralty.
    In 1914, we saw a great boom. Thousands of workers flocked to Rosyth and Inverkeithing from the South. In one year, 1914, millions of tons of shipping entered the dockyard in my constituency. The Dunfermline Town Council and the civic authorities built houses for these workers and provided schools for their children. Fourteen million pounds were spent on Rosyth. A garden city costing £1½ million was built, a reservoir was built, and halls and business premises were built. A whole economic enterprise grew round this naval base. I therefore speak with some interest in what the Admiralty is doing.
    At that time, Rosyth was the only dockyard in the United Kingdom in which the whole of the Grand Fleet could anchor whatever the state of the tide. I need not go into details. There may be hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who served in the Navy and stood on Inverkeithing Station on a November night, with the wind blowing, waiting for a train to take them
    1458
    to Edinburgh. Their troubles began only when they reached Edinburgh. They had to get another train, after waiting perhaps 12 or 24 hours, to other parts of the United Kingdom.
    I do not wish to bore hon. Members with history, but I make these points in the hope that the Civil Lord is listening carefully. The history of the relationship of Rosyth Dockyard with the Dunfermline Town Council and my civic authorities is not altogether happy. There have been problems and I hope that the Civil Lord will listen to them. If I dwell for two or three minutes on history, I hope that it will not be thought that it is out of mere antiquarian interest but as a warning to the future.
    The axe fell on Rosyth in the mid-twenties. In 1925, it was put on a care and maintenance basis. Then began the years of neglect, not only for Rosyth, but for the defences of this country. The numbers of skilled men fell, machinery was shipped to Singapore and the social capital which Dunfermline Town Council and the surrounding areas had invested in the future of this dockyard seemed to be going to waste.
    In 1940 came the call to arms again, bringing with it a new influx of employees. About 2,500 workers came back to my constituency to help Rosyth to become a great naval base again.
    One of the attractions by which we got workers to return to Rosyth who had left because of the inaccessible nature of the dockyard was to give them assisted travel. Because of the geography of the place, many of the workers have to live some miles outside the dockyard. I have written to the Civil Lord about the matter, and I hope that he will consider the possibility of giving better assisted travel facilities for Admiralty employees.
    We regarded as an incredible folly the period when this great dockyard was reduced to a care and maintenance basis. In the Second World War, Rosyth was the one dockyard in which ships could be repaired throughout the conflict without the yard being bombed. The Second World War proved three points, and I urge them upon the Civil Lord so that he will continue to regard Rosyth as an essential part of our defences.

    1459
    Not only did the Second World War show that Rosyth was the best protected dockyard in the country, but it proved, secondly, that it had plenty of deep water, both inside and outside the dockyard, and, thirdly, that in spite of its accessibility to the Forth, it was nevertheless far enough inland to be protected. For all these reasons, I urge the hon. Gentleman to regard Rosyth as a going concern. The history of the inter-war years showed that, however lavish the promises of the Admiralty between 1914 and 1918, when the Department ceased to need the place it fell into disuse and neglect. I hope that we shall not see history repeat itself, and that the Admiralty will continue to regard Rosyth as a going concern.
    That leads me to inquire about the future of this important dockyard. What kind of plans has the Civil Lord in mind for its development? We regard as important the fact that it has become a manning port, because Her Majesty's Dockyard at Rosyth is the only real link that the Scottish people have with the Royal Navy, and the Scottish people are proud of the Royal Navy. The relationships between the town councils in my constituency and the Navy are cordial and close.
    I trust that in the use of Rosyth as a manning port, the Admiralty will recognise how it depends upon the Scottish people to provide recruits—if I may say so modestly, some of the best recruits—for all levels of the Service. It is not in the best interests of Scotland that this tie should ever be severed. Rather is there need to strengthen it. Therefore, we regard the resurrection of Rosyth as a manning port as of the greatest importance. I am sure that in saying this, I speak for most of my constituents.
    The fact remains, however, that the making of Rosyth into a manning port again brings us face to face with certain problems that have to be solved. If it is to become a great manning port, it must have proper living accommodation. Some of the people who work for the Admiralty in my constituency live in the most deplorable conditions. The best endeavours of the Civil Lord are required if the standards of living accommodation are to be raised.
    Secondly, if Rosyth is to be a manning port, we have to consider the question
    1460
    of recruiting for the Navy, which, unfortunately, has always been low in Scotland. As long as the recruits were drawn from the South, this did not matter. It is important to extend the propaganda and the appeal of recruiting much more in Scotland. If we are to get the very best young people for the Navy, we need the widest possible range of recruitment, as the Civil Lord will agree. For this reason, we hope that he will consider extending the range of recruitment so that the Navy will have a lot of people from whom to choose. The more that the Navy has to select from, the better chance it has of getting the best people.
    I come now more specifically to the future of H.M.S. "Caledonia." My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East has taken an interest in this, and over a long period of Questions and debates he has prodded the Civil Lord on this matter. We have a 10-year programme, for which we are grateful, a programme which will involve the expenditure of £2 million over ten years. Our view on this is that we should like to see the Civil Lord shorten the programme to a period of five years and double the annual expenditure from £200,000 to £400,000. It is not all that amount of money, considering the importance of this base, and considering the good work which H.M.S. "Caledonia" does. It does very good work. I have no hesitation in congratulating the Civil Lord on this matter. I occasionally pay visits to it and I am impressed by work which goes on there. In urging him to spend more on it I do so because it is not money poured down the drain.
    Speaking at the moment of apprentice training in the Navy generally, and certainly of how it goes on in my constituency, I only wish that private employers would take the same conscientious interest in apprentices as the Navy does, not only in their technical training but in their character training. I am always very glad that the children of my constituents, young boys who get admission as apprentices, have opportunity for a course of training which, at its own level, is as good as a university training in the more academic disciplines.
    My only criticism is that these facilities are under-utilised. The excellent

    1461
    courses of instruction which those people get are under-utilised. There is scope for more boys to be taken on without increasing the staff, without increasing the amenities available to them. It is never an easy task to congratulate a Minister on anything, and I should hate to end on a note of congratulation, because this is not the proper purpose of an Opposition.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Or anybody else.
    Dr. Thompson: Nevertheless, I do congratulate the Minister on the excellence of his apprentice training schemes. What I would urge on the Minister quite strongly is that in trying to appeal to a wider range of boys for admission to the Navy he should stress the newer aspects of naval training, the fact that the Navy is now becoming a technological Service, that it will need highly-qualified entrants, many of whom must be capable of doing very highly-skilled work. We know—many Members have pointed it out-how the electronic complexity of ships and weapons has grown enormously in the post-war years, and this affords a much wider range to skills and abilities, which can capture the imagination of boys with a technical or engineering bent of mind. I think that the Navy, in addition to getting across the fact that it offers adventure, which is important in attracting young people, must get across the importance of overseas service, which, again, strongly attracts the interest of young people. It has also to get across the fact that it offers a skilled career, a career in technical and engineering work and that, I think, will enlist enthusiasm.
    On the civilian side, I hope that the Civil Lord will pay more regard to joint consultation and keeping in touch with and taking along with him the trades unions and the workers. I think that there is a tendency for the Service disciplinary attitudes to spill over on to the civilian side, often with unfortunate consequences.
    I hope, of course, that there will be some civilianisation—if I can use that horrid word—of the dockyards, because it clearly gives more stability and more employment in my constituency if there can be better distribution between uniformed and civilian manpower. Some posts obviously call for the exercise of
    1462
    naval discipline and experience. Other posts are more satisfactorily filled by civilians. There are some posts which can be equally filled by either. In those posts we hope that the Civil Lord will give priority to civilians.
    I speak again frankly and openly on behalf of my constituency. As I have said, there is always scope in debate for the general and the particular. Some of my hon. Friends have already spoken for the general. I am speaking very particularly tonight for my constituency where unemployment is threatening so gravely that we should like to see the civilian side built up. It helps not only to solve the Navy's problems but to solve the problem which I would hesitate to go into now lest the Committee should get exasperated—the unemployment problem in Scotland.
    10.41 p.m.
    Commander J. S. Kerans: I, too, have great memories of Rosyth from the time when I first went to sea and right through the war and subsequently. Rosyth does a great deal for the Fleet. One of the happiest is when a halfpenny lands on the forecastle. It is the tradition for Scotsmen to throw the smallest coin they have from a passing train. [An HON. MEMBER: "A threepenny bit."] No, I have never had a threepenny bit. The Navy owes a great debt of gratitude to Rosyth for the amenities of the area, and it is very nice when one leaves it to go to Edinburgh for a weekend.
    I did some research in the Library and I looked up the Navy Estimate debate of 2nd March, 1881. I found to my surprise that a Kerans, the Member for Lincoln, took part in the debate then. The debate was attended by fourteen Members at midnight. They were discussing Navy Estimates of 71,000 men for the Fleet and a cost of £14¼ million, a slight contrast with today's 100,000 men and a cost of £422 million plus. [An HON. MEMBER: "And fewer ships."] That is exactly what I am coming to.
    There is no doubt that many people are concerned at the apparent small size of our Fleet today. We read about the guided missile destroyer, but it is 520 feet long. "Destroyer", therefore, is virtually a misnomer. It is surely a cruiser, with a cruiser's capabilities.

    1463
    What is the exact requirement for a guided missile destroyer which is virtually a cruiser? I am glad to see that we have two nearing completion, but when they will finally go into operation is another matter. We have two more to come.
    We have 32 frigates and 20 destroyers in the operational Fleet. It seems to be a terribly small number for antisubmarine defence, but with long-range asdics and sonar from helicopters and other ancillary equipment it is considered adequate for the future. I should like to know a little more about the capabilities, bearing in mind, of course, the security facets. There is no doubt that a high degree of skill and training is required to operate these machines, and of necessity one must pay great tribute to the scientists who vet the production of these methods. The Royal Naval Scientific Service is fairly young in years but is doing a first-class job. Constant research has to be done day after day, week after week into the varying temperatures of the oceans, currents, tide-rips, local conditions and so on. All these things play a very great part in the development of asdic equipment and means of surmounting it.
    Vote 6 is for £24 million plus on scientific research. My hon. Friend said that that is £3 million more than last year. That goes to show that we are concentrating on the advance of our scientific methods to combat the submarine. As my hon. Friend said, great improvements have taken place in H.M.S. "Sea Eagle" in Londonderry where co-operation between the R.A.F. and ourselves and other N.A.T.O. countries is producing a first-class team looking into these matters with modern ships in support of the establishment.
    I turn to a small item which I find a little alarming. There are no ocean minesweepers or fleet sweepers with the active Fleet today. Instead we have thirty-three coastal and four inshore sweepers. From a Question I asked today I was somewhat surprised to find that some nine ocean mine sweepers are being scrapped in 1961–62. I had the honour to command one of them in 1953, based at Rosyth and doing mine sweeping trials at Port Edgar. At that time we were told that mine sweeping
    1464
    was a very high priority for the Royal Navy. People like myself who had been sitting behind desks and had not been to sea were suddenly switched to mine sweepers to learn something about it so that we should have a nucleus of trained personnel when the next war came along, bearing in mind that the R.N.R. and the R.N.V.R. of the day who had formed the trained mine sweeper officers and the ratings of the last war would be a little old in the tooth for the next one.
    We were also told that the Russian mining threat was very great indeed, and, especially, that some of their mines were virtually unsweepable. That was why I along with others took Thames barges up to Rosyth to find some method of combating the acoustic mine.
    I ask my hon. Friend why this situation has changed overnight. Why are we relying entirely on the coastal and inshore mine sweepers? It seems to be a sudden change. There are five ships down for scrapping—including the Scottish shipping protection vessel that was—and all of them had very long and expensive refits in 1953 or 1954. Within a short measure of time they have found themselves in reserve. I find it a little hard to understand why this should come about. As the Russians are adequately equipped for mine laying by submarine and surface vessel and by air, why has this change come about overnight?
    Captain W. Elliot: I am very interested in what my hon. and gallant Friend is saying about Russian mine laying. Will he not confirm that throughout their naval history the Russians have been very good at mining? Is that not illustrated by the fact that during the Russo-Japanese war they blew up several of the Japanese ships attacking Port Arthur?
    Commander Kerans: I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. That is probably true. But I know what the Civil Lord will say—that there will be no such need because the Russians will not be able to approach close to our shores. But convoy routes to this country converge in mineable waters and the threat still exists. It is a little unfortunate, when one steams up the Solent, to see vast numbers of these coastal and inshore minesweepers laid

    1465
    up in reserve, some ashore and some off Hythe. Fifty-six coastals and sixty-eight inshores in reserve is a very great number indeed. Is their maintenance adequate? Are they being kept up to date? How many are sold to foreign Governments and how are they disposed of? What manpower is there to look after them and how much civilian staff can be utilised.
    I wish to turn very briefly to another subject, the aircraft carrier of the future. I know that a lot has been said tonight, and a lot more will be said, on the subject, but I find the last sentence of the Explanatory Statement hard to take. It states:
    "There is no need to order a new carrier yet, but the necessary design work has been put in hand."
    That, to my mind, smacks of indecision. I would ask my hon. Friend the Civil Lord if this matter cannot be reconsidered in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence. We cannot wait year after year to formulate a decision, spend money on design and on the prototype, wait four or five years, then scrap the whole project after a lot of money has gone for a burton and have to start the thing all over again.
    That apparent indecision is disturbing to the general public who interest themselves in this matter. As a layman, I would say that a small carrier is probably the only answer—a small carrier with vertical take-off aircraft. There is no doubt that the large carrier is very costly indeed. It takes a long time to produce, and between 1971 and 1991 the whole concept of maritime warfare may have changed again. I admit that in these days we have to plan up to fifteen years ahead and that we have to face the prohibitive cost of building these vessels, but I ask that a decision might be taken in the not too far distant future.
    The White Paper quite clearly emphasises the mobility of the Fleet, and that is the essence of the matter in the years ahead. Once we have these task units distributed east of Suez, in the Mediterranean and so on, they will have to have tremendous support. It is interesting to note that the auxiliary tail of the Fleet is almost exactly half of the operational Fleet. Therefore, the more mobility we want, the greater the tail
    1466
    must be when we cannot rely on our bases abroad.
    There has been a lot of criticism to the effect that the Navy is thin on the ground, but, somehow or other, the Navy has the ability to be in the right place at the right time. For example, this was so in Kuwait, in Kenya, the famine relief, the riots of Georgetown, and even in Tristan da Cunha. What happened in all these widely separated parts of the globe shows quite clearly that the Navy is not too far away when things go wrong.
    Quite apart from that, the Navy takes part in N.A.T.O. exercises, S.E.A.O. and CENTO. Not so very long ago H.M.S. "Lion" and two or three frigates carried out a South American cruise. This was the first time that this had happened for a very long time, and it has been very beneficial. These ships had very good publicity, and I am sure that their cruise has done quite a lot for our trade and public relations in South America. I only wish that there had been a little more publicity in this country. The moral is that unless there are T.V. cameras on the spot, or photographs can be brought back to this country in time for the morning newspapers, the interest has gone.
    With my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) I am concerned about the question of bases. There is no doubt that we cannot consider Singapore to be a secure operational base for the future. What are the alternatives? Are we to fall back on Borneo or Seria? Or are we to fall back on Australia? In the concept of Malaysia that merits deep consideration. Even with a mobile task force we must have a holding base somewhere in that vast area.
    Re-engagements as shown in the White Paper are a good omen for the future. That alone refutes all the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) who spoke at such great length, and maintained that the Navy was falling into disrepute. The hon. and gallant Member has done a great disservice to the Royal Navy and I deprecate every word he said. I hope that that will be recorded and go to the right quarters.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: That will not worry him.
    Commander Kerans: I am sure that it will not, and that is the trouble.
    One thing that the Navy now offers is a skilled craft for the man when he leaves the Service. I was one who had no skilled craft. It is no use saying that one can drive a destroyer or fire a gun, or that one knows something about intelligence when one is looking for a civilian job. A man with a knowledge of electronics, engineering or accountancy has something to fall back on when the great day arrives and he accepts his "golden bowler" or a bowler which is not so golden, as the case may be. There is also the attraction of the commando carrier and I hope that in future we may see a few more Royal Marines at sea.
    I should like to mention the great assistance given by the Admiralty in respect of compassionate cases and the speed with which people are brought from "point X" to this country. In my experience an officer was brought back from Africa in forty-eight hours which I considered was a first-class operation and the sort of thing which goes a long way to ameliorate the hardships which some people are alleged to endure in the Navy. There is no doubt that welfare plays a most important part in recruiting, not only in the Navy but in the other Services as well. When a disgruntled wife or parent goes into the "local" and says what he or she thinks about the Navy it can result in the loss of a lot of potential recruits. Questions relating to pay and leave mean much more than one realises when one is in the Service.
    I have a great respect for the W.R.N.S. and some people may know why. During the summer I visited H.M.S. "Dauntless" near Reading where I found that there were recruits from all parts of the country. They were well organised and happy and there is no doubt that the officers in charge there do a very good job of work.
    In paragraph 80 of the White Paper there is mention of the run-down of shore establishments in this country and abroad. I ask what reductions are considered for the future? I think that there are too many isolated bits of Admiralty equipment in shore establishments in various parts of the country.
    I mention briefly the question of security. My time is very short.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: No, it is long.
    Commander Kerans: I recently saw the Director of Security of the Admiralty. I was much impressed by the efforts he is making to train officers, ratings and civil servants in the Admiralty in what security means.
    Mr. Richard Marsh: It is not very successful.
    Commander Kerans: I think it too early to comment on whether it is working well or not, but these people are working together as a team. I think that will bear fruit in future.
    Mr. David James: Is it not a fact that efforts at security are more successful now than those when the party opposite was in power?
    Commander Kerans: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Marsh: In view of that intervention, has the hon. and gallant Member noticed the six major breaches in security in naval establishments in the last twelve months?
    Commander Kerans: I am sure that they are no worse than in the other Services. They will happen in any navy or industry in the world.
    I come to Vote 12 and ask my hon. Friend whether reductions can be made in the numbers employed on D.N.I. I do not think it right that naval intelligence should deal with political intelligence. Surely that can be obtained from the Foreign Office. In that way we could reduce the numbers in D.N.I. There are now eighty-eight and last year there were ninety—bearing in mind the numbers of those who have gone to security.
    I do not think there is anything wrong with the Navy for the future. The Civil Lord and the First Lord have the right plans. Much as I should like to continue my speaking, I must sit down now.
    11.3 p.m.
    Mr. G. W. Reynolds Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North) rose—
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Sir William. You will remember that a little time ago, although you were not bound to do so, you were courteous enough to give to the Committee your

    1469
    reasons for not calling my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to move his Amendment. I am, of course, not going back to that subject, but in the course of giving those reasons you were good enough to say two things which I should like to recall to your mind. One was that one of the reasons for not calling the Amendment was that the same thing could be done on the main Estimate. The other was that every opportunity would be given for every point of view, including that of those of us who wish to oppose the main Estimate, in the absence of an opportunity to move for a reduction. Throughout the whole debate there has been no speech on the basis of opposing the main Estimate.
    The Chairman (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hear what the hon. Members says and take note of it. Mr. Reynolds.
    Mr. Silverman: On that point of order. I know from long experience how reluctant every occupant of the Chair is, and especially, Sir, yourself, to drag the Chair down into the arena in Committee or in the House. If one firm clear point of view is left in this debate without any opportunity whatever of being heard, that is exactly what, inadvertently no doubt, you will be doing.
    Mr. M. Foot: Further to that point of order, Sir William.
    The Chairman: No, there is no point of order for me to deal with. We must get on with the debate. We had a long argument on order earlier which took up valuable time which could have been used for the debate.
    Mr. Reynolds Mr. Reynolds rose—
    Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Sir William. You said earlier when I raised a point of order on a different matter that you would consider the precedents and you said that you had an open mind on the matter. I think we are entitled to an answer about it. Would you tell the Committee whether there is any precedent whatsoever in the discussion on Estimates for the Army, Navy or Air Force, for the Ruling to be made from the Chair that an hon. Member who puts down an Amendment for a reduction in the Vote or any of his hon. Friends should be denied the right to participate
    1470
    in the debate; in other words, that £500 million are to go through without an hon. Member having the right to oppose it in the House of Commons? It is a disgrace to the House of Commons.
    The Chairman: There are many precedents of hon. Members with a point of view being unable to put that point of view because of the difficulty of time. We are now accentuating the difficulty of the shortage of time by taking up further time on points of order on which I have already given a Ruling. Hon. Members know what steps they can take if they believe my Ruling to be at fault, but I must insist that the Committee conduct its business in the remaining time that we have on proper lines.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order—
    Mr. Reynolds: If those hon. Members below the Gangway would like a sheet of paper to write down the appropriate resolution, I shall be pleased to help and vote against it.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of order—
    The Chairman: If the hon. Member has a different point of order, I will accept it.
    Mr. Silverman: It is a different point of order arising directly out of what you have just said, Sir William. You have talked about a shortage of time, and you have said that is why the points of view of those of us who wish to oppose this Vote cannot be heard. There is no shortage of time. There are forty-seven minutes left. I ask you to consider whether, in the light of the development of our constitutional procedure, it is consonant with the dignity and traditions of this Committee that nearly £500 million of expenditure should be given to the Government without having the right to say why it should—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] Hon. Members will regret it. Let them wait till their turn comes.
    The Chairman: I appreciate that the hon. Member feels strongly, but when it comes to the question of time, it is in accordance with precedent and practice that the two Front Benches should be given an opportunity of developing an argument winding up the debate.
    Mr. Silverman: But there has been no debate. Those on the Front Bench—
    Mr. M. Foot: My hon. Friend will get no protection from them.
    The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of order—
    Mr. Reynolds: We have had an interesting debate—
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of order—
    Mr. Reynolds: This has been far better than the debates that we have had on other Estimates during the past ten days or so—
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of order—
    Mr. Reynolds: We are also in a position where we are coming—
    Mr. Silverman: I am on a point of order.
    Mr. Reynolds:—to the end—
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of order—
    Mr. Reynolds: If the hon. Gentleman will sit down, I will get on. He has already wasted forty minutes of the time—
    Mr. Silverman: You sit down.
    The Chairman: Order, order. I hope the hon. Member will restrain himself. When he uses the word "you" it refers directly to the occupant of the Chair. I have dealt with the hon. Member's point of order—
    Mr. Silverman: You do not know the point of order that I am going to raise.
    The Chairman: If it is a fresh point of order, pray let the hon. Member make it shortly, and let us get on.
    Mr. Silverman: I will indeed make my remarks short, and I hope I will be allowed to make them without interruption either from the hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench or from anyone else. My point of order is that you have. Sir William, without any authority whatever, now given currency to the doctrine that, somehow or other—
    Mr. Reynolds: It is the same point.
    Mr. Silverman: Let me continue—in this Committee the last hour is to be shared between the two Front Benches. There is no such rule or practice and it takes place only by courtesy. That courtesy is normally shown and, surely, it should be shown to all hon. Members.
    The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will allow the hon. Member I called to be courteously heard.
    Mr. Reynolds: I was saying—
    Mr. Silverman: Most unfair.
    Mr. Reynolds: —that we are reaching the end of this series of debates on defence and I have been pleased to see more interest shown today than was shown in some of the earlier debates during the past week.
    Mr. Silverman: This is not a debate.
    Mr. Reynolds: There has certainly been more interest shown in the Navy Estimates than was displayed earlier in the week in the Army and Air Force Estimates. This increased interest is evident because we have had speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and they have ranged over the general position of the Navy. I shall now have to be brief in order to give the Civil Lord time in which to reply to the many questions he has been asked, for many of them concern matters on which we should like more information.
    Mr. Silverman: Shame.
    Mr. Reynolds: Some of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are still making a lot of noise, but not quite as much today as they made in some of the earlier Estimates' debates, which were rather ruined because of that noise.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) referred to the 1957 White Paper saying that it did not really deal with the rôle of the Navy in a total war. He commented on what he considered should be the rôle of the Navy in such a war but despite what he said, and despite what is contained in the White Paper, I still find myself rather confused as to what it is exactly intended the Navy's rôle should be in

    1473
    the unfortunate event of total war. We have heard a lot about the amphibious task force but we still seem to be rather in the air as to the exact rôle of the Navy should there be a large-scale war.
    It seems, according to the thesis laid down in the Defence White Paper, that large-scale war would obviously be a nuclear war and, thus, a short one. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) referred to other aspects of this matter, especially the large number of minelayers and other craft that are laid up at present. There is a certain amount of indifference as to what the rôle of the Navy will be in a full-scale war and the craft that the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned are important for that rôle. It is, therefore, important that we should have further information about these craft.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) drew attention to overspending and alleged waste and we expect some answers from the Civil Lord on this matter. I was struck by the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) about the capital programme of the Navy. She referred to the 10-year hospital building programme put forward by the Minister of Health and suggested that it might be a good idea to do something similar in the way of a long-term plan for the Navy.
    I was not so impressed by the hon. Lady's argument—although she did not press it too strongly—concerning the modernising of the base at Singapore. I was more in agreement with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Haltemprice of a base in North Australia with an advanced base somewhere further out.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) referred to an essential matter: the Navy assisting in the provision of nuclear-propulsion units for surface ships. We now have two nuclear-powered submarines under construction and we have the unit at Dounreay for experimental and training purposes.
    I agree with the argument that an aircraft carrier is not necessarily the best type of ship in which to put a nuclear-propulsion unit. Unless we, as a nation, are not to be left behind in the field
    1474
    of nuclear propulsion for surface ships someone must take the initiative in making facilities available for experimental work to be carried out. There is no other way in which we can get experience of this. I cannot see that this type of work will be done at all unless it is done by the Navy.
    I hope that the Civil Lord will make it possible for the Navy to have nuclear propulsion for surface ships, for an under-way replenishment ship or an under-way replenishment tanker—some ship which might be conveniently fitted with nuclear propulsion—so that we do not fall behind America and other countries which might be advancing in the near future in these techniques.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and several other hon. Members have commented on the failure of the Government to keep the promise given under the Grigg recommendations to make sure that the pay of both officers and men of all the three Services kept pace with the corresponding payments made to people in similar work in civilian life. Even with that sort of agreement, the Service man is obviously two years, or almost two years, behind the person in civilian employment because we have to wait for a couple of years until the assessment of earnings in civilian employment has been made, then relate Service pay to earnings in civilian employment, and take the decision to bring the pay of Service men up to that level. The Service man is behind in any case, and it is thoroughly unfair to take a group of men—officers and all ranks in the three Services—who are already behind in their level of pay, although the intention is that they should be brought up to the general level, and then say that, although they are already behind, we will apply to them a similar, though not, I admit, exactly the same, stop on wages and salaries as has been imposed on civilians. Whatever the Civil Lord may think about it, it almost certainly will have an adverse effect—though to what extent I cannot say—on recruiting to all branches of the Service.
    I assume, since this has been a smooth debate, that there will not be a vote against the Estimates tonight when our proceedings close in about forty minutes. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member

    1475
    for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in arguing a point of order with the Chair a little while ago, said that to vote against the Estimates was, of course, to challenge the whole operation of the Department. [Interruption.] When the hon. Gentleman looks at HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that, when speaking at that point, though perhaps without realising it, he said that to vote against the Estimates was to challenge the whole operation of the Department. Many hon. Members would not wish to do that. To vote against the Estimates tonight would be to vote against the type of work which the Navy has been doing during the past two years in British Guiana, British Honduras, Tristan da Cunha, the taking of food supplies to the Western Isles—
    Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose—
    Mr. Reynolds: No, I will not give way—in South America, in rescue and relief work after the floods in Kenya, in rescue and salvage work in the Persian Gulf, in the China Seas and in Malaya, in fishery protection off the coast of Iceland, and a large number of hydrographic surveys and map preparation work done for the maritime services of the world.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of order, Sir William. My hon. Friend has misquoted and misrepresented what I said and also has put himself in conflict with the Ruling which you gave from the Chair, which was that the Amendment need not be called because the same point could be raised on the Estimates themselves by a vote against them. It is true that I did not agree with that Ruling, and I do not agree with it now, but I had to accept it, and now we are left with no opportunity to express our point of view except by voting against the Estimates. That is not our fault. We wanted to vote for a reduction, but you, Sir William, would not allow it.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: There is no point of order in that.
    The Chairman: Mr. Reynolds.
    Mr. Reynolds: My hon. Friend is well aware that that was not a point of order, but it has taken another three
    1476
    minutes off the time available for debate, which is his main intention this evening.
    The Civil Lord was asked about the anti-tank missile, the French SS.11, which is to be used not only from helicopters but also by the enlarged commando on the "Bulwark" or the other commando carrier. He was asked why this was to be used and not Vigilant. The hon. Gentleman said that the Army would presumably want the Vigilant weapon for itself to start with. But the Under-Secretary of State for War dealt with the matter in the debate on the Army Estimates a few days ago, and he pointed out that the two weapons are not quite the same. The Vigilant is man-portable, whereas the French SS.11 has to be carried on a jeep or in some other way. I hope that the Civil Lord will consider the matter again and consult with the Secretary of State for War about it, because it seems a little ridiculous that we should have Marines going from a commando carrier with an anti-tank weapon which is not man-portable but which must have some sort of carrying vehicle and requires one kind of ammunition, when they would be followed up a matter of hours or days later by Army men landing from an assault ship with the Vigilant, which is man-portable and fires different ammunition.
    Surely, something could be done to ensure that units which operate in close co-operation with each other in this type of venture would be able to use the same type of equipment, especially when it is of this nature, and so help to reduce some of the supply difficulties which become apparent if two different types of equipment have to be taken in for troops operating from two different vessels simply because one happens to be a Marine unit and the other an Army unit. I hope that this will be reconsidered before a final decision is taken.
    I turn now to the amphibious task forces, of which a great deal has been said during the debate, and particularly to the picture which is given in the middle of the Explanatory Statement, of the amphibious forces with the carrier task group, which appears to me to have two aircraft carriers, and also of the underway replenishment group behind. Paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Statement lays down the task which, it is felt,

    1477
    a force of this nature will be expected to carry out.
    We are told in paragraph 26 of the Statement on Defence, however, that
    "By the use of task forces"—
    I stress that it is in the plural—
    "with a significant amphibious capability, seaborne military and air power can be exerted wherever our interests require it."
    I draw the Civil Lord's attention particularly to paragraph 27 of the Statement on Defence, which refers to seaborne task forces, again in the plural, and states that they
    "will include commando ships and assault ships."
    It is in the light of these statements, which seem to indicate that at least two amphibious task forces will be in operation, that I wish to consider the diagram in the Explanatory Statement and the resources available to the Navy for amphibious task forces.
    We have the two commando ships "Bulwark" and "Albion," but we all know that as soon as the "Albion" comes into operation later this year, "Bulwark" will have to come back for refit lasting, presumably, 12 or 15 months. That means that one or other will be completely or partially out of action whenever either "Albion" or "Bulwark" requires a refit. I cannot think that this is good planning or will provide us with the forces that are required, either east of Suez or elsewhere. There appear to be no other proposals for further commando ships, and, of course, the Defence White Paper deals generally with a five-year programme.
    In addition, there appears to be only one other aircraft carrier in existence which it might be possible to turn into a third commando carrier. That would appear to be the "Magnificent," which was completed in May, 1948, was on loan to the Canadian Government until 1957 and is now listed as being in the Reserve Fleet. I was surprised to read in "Jane's Fighting Ships," however, that this carrier is to be disposed of in the near future.
    I do not know whether that is correct, but it is clearly stated. If it is correct, I hope that further consideration will be given before a final decision is taken, because if we are to have two assault task forces we must, presumably, have
    1478
    three commando carriers and it appears that "Magnificent" is the only ship available without going to the colossal expense of new construction to provide us with the possibility of having two amphibious task forces afloat at the same time.
    We have no assault ships. One has been ordered and another is about to be ordered. These craft obtained a great deal of publicity since their drawings were first published a few months ago. It is well to remind ourselves that the United States already has eight of the Thomaston class vessels for similar use and is building six of the Raleigh class, which, as far as I can see, will have an almost similar carrying capacity of troops and equipment to the two which it is proposed to build during the next three or four years for use in our own amphibious task forces. It is rather a pity, I think, that we are only just beginning this type of development when the United States Navy has had this type of vessel for some considerable time. This vessel is not shown in the plans of the amphibious task force in the centre pages of the Explanatory Memorandum. That is presumably because, the hon. Gentleman will say, we have not got it at the present moment. Neither have we got the guided-missile destroyers two of which are shown, though I agree that they will come in sooner because they are nearing completion at the moment, but we have here only two of these vessels which will become operational during the next twelve months and we shall not get the others till the end of 1963 or 1964, so that we can have only one amphibious task force for at least another two years. I assume that in due course these particular vessels will provide a bombardment cover for the troops from the commando carrier and the assault ship as well.
    Mr. M. Foot: Before my hon. Friend finishes his speech, would he deal with the question of the Government's support for the Polaris weapon which is being accepted in this country, particularly in view of the fact that the Labour Party at its last conference voted against this weapon altogether? Would he say whether he is going to present the Labour Party's view on this matter to the Committee, as some of

    1479
    us have not had an opportunity of doing it in the debate, and of putting the official policy of the party? We are assuming he will, because it has not been done up to now.
    Mr. Reynolds: I regard the Polaris equipped submarine as the best and safest form of the deterrent yet invented, and I intend to say nothing more about that this evening.
    We come on to the radar picket for which, as far as I can see, there is an adequate number of ships available, but it was mentioned on the other side of the Committee that though we are to have an amphibious task force as the Memorandum indicates, we have at the moment only one landing ship headquarters. I hope that in due course arrangements will be made to provide another vessel for this purpose,
    I should have liked to have said considerably more about the amphibious task force, but there is not time. It is obvious to me that if, as we were told by the Civil Lord, we have 85 per cent. of the vessels at present in service allocated or assigned somewhere or another in fulfilling our N.A.T.O. commitments, we have some 25 per cent. of our force shown in the drawing in the middle of the Memorandum. I do not know, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us, but presumably this means that some vessels which have been assigned to N.A.T.O. have got to steam all the way from Singapore or some other place in that part of the world if ever they are required for duties and responsibilities under our agreements and assignments to N.A.T.O.
    I want to refer now to the aircraft carriers. We have a carrier task group. We have at present only three in service. It has been announced by the Civil Lord that we shall probably have one of about 50,000 tons, that is, the aircraft carrier being designed to come into operation about 1971. If a carrier is to be provided as part of an air cover—or as the air cover—for an amphibious task force for the type of activities which we know it is primarily intended for, I would not oppose that, but if it is intended that the new carrier should be in some way or another part of an extended or new version of an independent
    1480
    or British contribution to a Western nuclear deterrent, I cannot see why there is any particular point in proceeding with the construction of a vessel for that purpose.
    If the vessels are to be part of an amphibious task force I cannot see why it is necessary to have as large vessels as 50,000 ton carriers. We are talking of 1970 or 1971, and presumably by that time we are expecting that there will be in service at least some and probably many planes based on the vertical takeoff principle. I assume that one of the reasons why Rotodyne was abandoned was that it has been overtaken by the vertical take-off principle. Therefore, if we are to have vertical take-off aircraft I cannot believe that we want 800-ft. long flight decks and a 50,000 ton carrier. The "Ark Royal" is roughly 44,000 tons, and I should have thought it possible to have managed with vessels of between 20,000 and 30,000 tons, and that they would have given a long enough platform for vertical take-off aircraft. Electronic development and installations, transistors, printed circuits and so on, which will become smaller and take less space than at present, would also tend to point towards smaller carriers.
    I cannot believe that it is necessary to go to the extent of having 50,000-ton vessels to provide cover for amphibious task forces and I would only be prepared to support such a proposal if that was its primary purpose. I should have thought that it was far better to have two similar aircraft carriers than one large one. If one large carrier were with an amphibious task force and it were sunk, the task force could be in a difficult position. Two smaller carriers would make the position safer in that respect, though I realise that cost enters into this.
    I should have liked to have said a great deal about our N.A.T.O. commitments but time is running out. We have been informed in the course of the debate that the Canadian Government publish details of their forces assigned to N.A.T.O. and the North Atlantic Command. Apparently other Governments are doing the same. In view of that, I hope that, if not in this debate, we can be informed in next year's Explanatory Statement what vessels we have assigned to the North Atlantic

    1481
    Command, the Mediterranean Command and to the Channel Command. Without going into the matter further at this stage, I would say that I still hold the view, which I have held for a considerable time, that the main purpose of the Channel Command is that we politically in the United Kingdom shall have an appropriate share of N.A.T.O. commands. I feel that for administrative reasons a large number of commands of this nature at the junction of the Atlantic Command and the North European Central Command can only be a hindrance rather than a help in the unfortunate event of an outbreak of war. The Channel Command might well be got rid of altogether.
    I hope that we shall have information on what we are committed to provide to N.A.T.O., because without it we cannot tell whether some of the impressive figures in the Estimates or the drawings in the Explanatory Statement mean anything, since we do not know whether the equipment enumerated there is available for an amphibious task force unless we know what we are committed to provide for other aspects of the responsibilities which the Navy has to fulfil.
    I conclude with my thanks for the facilities which are made available to hon. Members to visit the Fleet. I have been able to avail myself of them only once when in the submarine Sea Scout I had an excellent lunch 70 ft. down in the Channel. I understand that that submarine has now been turned into razor blades.
    The task of the Admiralty in the next year or two is made all the more difficult because there is a great shortage of money and resources. This applies to the social services, to housing, education and hospitals, and this is primarily because in the last ten years this country has not advanced along the economic road to increased production anything like as fast as it should have done. If we had only had the rate of progress which we had between 1946 and 1951 many of these problems would have been easier of solution.
    11.34 p.m.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) not only on his robust speech but on the speed with which he delivered it, which must have tested the
    1482
    HANSARD staff to the full. I am sure that he must have beaten the record hitherto held by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
    The debate has been noteworthy, in that we have had almost 30 hon. and right hon. Members in the Chamber throughout, about 20 Members have spoken, and at the moment there are 60 present. All sorts of points of view have been put, and I am sure that all would agree that this has been as good a Navy debate as we have had for a long time.
    One of the main things that I was asked to explain was what it is that limits the size of the Fleet. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked whether it is numbers, ships or money. It is money. We have a certain amount of money allocated for us within the general defence ceiling and the defence budget itself has a certain amount of money within the national ceiling. Therefore, we have to produce a balanced fleet which in the judgment of my noble Friend and the Board of Admiralty is the best that we can do for the money available. Sometimes it may mean more men and fewer ships, and sometimes fewer men and more ships. It is a compromise between the two.
    The ships had not fallen remarkably in number, as someone said they had. The operational fleet on trials and training was 189 three years ago, 185 two years ago and 177 last year. We still have a large number of operational ships in the Fleet. The point I am making is that as we go to more modern ships I am afraid that we need more men to man each ship. This is a vital point because of the complexity of equipment and the necessary sophistication of a modern ship. That is well illustrated in the frigate class where the Loch class, which has just come out of service after useful service in the Persian Gulf, had a complement of 145, and was followed by the Whitby class with 200, and the Leanders, which are following on again, have 250. Therefore, we need to have more men to man the same number of ships as more modern ships replace old ones.
    Mr. Willis: I asked what the limitation was upon the number of men being recruited in view of the very large selection.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I see the hon. Gentleman's point. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said that these ceilings were not to be too hard and fast. He gave the numbers as between 390,000 and 400,000 over the three Services, and said that there might be some veer and haul within those figures. This year we are asking for 100,000.
    I turn to the question of the task force. It is true, as the hon. Member said, that for some of the time we shall have only one commando carrier available, but for 75 per cent. of the time we shall have two commando carriers available. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we ought to have a third commando carrier. We shall certainly bear in mind what he said.
    The hon. Gentleman suggested, less forcibly than others did, that we had tried to mislead the Committee in the diagram. I think that on closer examination he will agree that every one of the ships is shown in the early pages of the Memorandum in my noble Friend's lists of the operational Fleet and the fleet in reserve. Those not shown are the two guided-missile destroyers. These are the Estimates for 1962–63, and one of these, the "Devonshire", comes into service during the summer and the other in the autumn, and I think it is not unreasonable that we should show them for the coming year.
    Mr. Reynolds: I agree, but this is "an amphibious task force". The impression is given at several points in the Memorandum that the intention is to have "task forces".
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Perhaps we have shown the most complex and most complete task force, but in an operation one does not always need the full spectrum of ships that we have shown in the diagram.
    I turn to a subject which raised a great deal of interest and was touched upon by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Capt. W. Elliot), my hon. Friend the Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Cmdr. Kerans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett)—aircraft carriers. It was opposed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu)—who apologised for not being able to
    1484
    be here now—and the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Cmdr. Pursey).
    I want to make it clear first that we are only at the stage of the design of a new aircraft carrier. We have had no decision, and we do not wish to have a decision to go ahead for two or three years, because the design will take that time. There is still plenty of time before we need a replacement in 1970 or 1971.
    The second point is that these are not designed primarily for strategic purposes. As bases become less certain overseas, it would be stupid for me at the Dispatch Box to tell our potential enemies that they would never be used in that vein. After all, one complicates the enemy's problem by not letting him know from which direction the strike may come, and one makes the deterrent ever more believable.
    But that is not the primary rôle. The primary rôle is the rôle the hon. Gentleman discussed and which we have set out in the amphibious force description in the Memorandum.
    I was asked also about the size. There has been some misunderstanding about the size. I said roughly 50,000 tons. The fact is that the deep displacement of H.M.S. "Ark Royal" and H.M.S. "Eagle" is around 50,000 tons. It is the same size as these ships. It is only a sketch at the moment and there is a lot of design work to be done.
    To those who ask whether it is necessary and whether it is not too vulnerable, I would put the question that if we want to deploy soldiers to different parts of the world in order to meet threats do they think that they would be safer with or without an aircraft carrier in attendance. They would obviously be safer and much happier with an aircraft carrier in attendance..
    The second point made was whether the mobile air platform or the static base is less vulnerable. Surely, even if we have a static base from which to operate, the answer must be that the mobile air platform is less vulnerable and that a static base could be knocked out with greater ease.
    Lastly, on the question of detection, just because an aircraft carrier can be detected on the radar screen it does not mean that one can positively identify it.

    1485
    Air Chief Marshal Broadhurst was quoted. I well remember an exercise off the Spanish and Portuguese coasts in which aircraft carriers were mixed in with the merchant fleet. Although Bomber Command detected them it was not able to define the difference between large tankers, large merchant ships, and aircraft carriers. An aircraft cannot come down from 40,000 feet in order to identify each ship and then go up again. Therefore, one may assume that although a carrier may be a good target for radar there cannot be positive identification.
    Mr. Paget: Does that also apply to infra-red?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think that infra-red has the range or the necessary definition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air could give the answer to that question.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked about Vote A. Vote A includes the Royal Marines, the Fleet Air Arm, the W.R.N.S., many of whom are not afloat. I think that the figure of 38 per cent. quoted by the hon. Gentleman must have been arrived at when some big ship came out of commission and before another went into commission. I have watched these figures for four years and they have remained practically static, although the tendency has been for them to go up a trifle.
    The figure is between 38 and 40 per cent. all the time. When the Navy is at sea the figure is around 45 per cent. This includes repair ships, and so on. It is about 40 per cent. if they are excluded. Men in a position to go into action must be supported by the tail. We have tried to comb the tail in order to save manpower and money and to make it more efficient so that we can keep as many training men at sea as possible.
    I was asked about educational facilities for commissions. I want to make the point here because I would not want it thought that the channels for promotion from the lower deck were in any way blocked. We have gone out of our way to keep the channels open. It is true to say that the best qualified ratings, especially artificers, are coming into the Service with much higher educational standards than they were a few years
    1486
    ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a scheme for upper yardmen to work up to their two A level passes so that they may be up to the educational standards of the general list.
    We have thirty young men at the moment at Dartmouth. They are preparing themselves to take the A level and then they can join the rest of the Dartmouth entry. There is the Special Duty list which provides commissions for ratings where such exacting qualifications as two A levels are not necessary. We are prepared to help every serving rating to obtain the qualifications needed for promotion.
    The hon. Gentleman said that ratings in support ships had not been given much chance to make any advance. I hope that the case which the hon. Gentleman quoted was a special one. Perhaps he will send me the details and I will look into it. I will take that up. I am sure it is a special case and not at all typical. Last year, 3,385 subject passes at O level were obtained by nearly 3,000 naval ratings who sat for their G.C.E. and that number of passes proves that facilities must be provided.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) touched on the question of training. More weapons and equipment are coming into the Service continually. Over recent years we have paid a great deal of attention to examining training and streamlining it where possible, taking into account the fact that people from the national schools come in with higher qualifications. In some cases we have been able to cut the training by a week or a month, and sometime even by three months and thus save time and also save on the Navy Vote. We have eliminated a number of courses altogether and the basic course for seamen gunners and underwater weapon training is to be done at sea. Like the training within industry scheme, it is sometimes more economical to train in the ship.
    We have tried to concentrate training establishments and bring them together wherever they are doing similar work. This could pay tremendous dividends. I have had all the establishments priced. We have examined the overheads, the number of administrative personnel, headquarters personnel and auxiliary

    1487
    personnel and students. We have notified each establishment of how it compares with its neighbour so that there is a sort of "league" of those which are good and those which are bad. There are wide variations, as in the hospital service, where the costs of hospitals are fed across the board so that people can judge whether they are operating efficiently.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) mentioned the question of overheads at Dartmouth. The numbers are expected to rise during the next few years with the result that training costs per head should go down. My hon. Friend mentioned H.M.S. "Harrier," the Naval School of Aircraft Direction, whose task has been transferred to H.M.S. "Heron" at Yeovilton. We have classes for atomic defence and damage control at Devonport and Portsmouth.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) spoke about the dockyards. Before I turn to that matter, I should like to deal with the accusation that at Chatham we wasted a good deal of money on "Swiftsure". We had to take a decision whether it would be better to go ahead with an expensive modernisation scheme. We were held up and we realised that it was not an essential operational requirement to have the ship; and that the courageous thing to do was to cut the loss. We might have gone on and then we might not have been criticised so much. But we held back on "Swiftsure" for the positive reason that in the same dockyard we were refitting H.M.S. "Albion" for the amphibious warfare squadron and by the time that was going on and with a reappraisal of our position and with the new Tiger class cruiser coming along we came to the conclusion that we should not want "Swiftsure". I still think it was a wise decision, although I understand why we were criticised.
    The hon. Member also asked if the "Belfast" had paid her way. It has been of inestimable value. In addition to the three Tigers, the fourth cruiser has been of great assistance. As my hon. Friend
    1488
    the Member for Haltemprice said, it has done a first-class job in the Far East. It is now on its way back,
    I was asked what has happened to the committee set up to examine the organisation in the dockyards. That committee has been doing a good job. It is called the Dockyard Capacity Committee. It is an internal committee to try to probe their working and to iron out some of the humps. I think we have succeeded in doing this and have a rough balance, but we are completely upset if there is an accident and something occurs to make a change in operational requirements. That can upset the programme.
    We had "Triumph" in Portsmouth dockyard. It has been stripped and awaiting conversion. We have had to put it back because we wanted to get on with "Albion". We thought it vitally important to get on with that and had to hold up work on "Triumph". I still think that was the right decision.
    The reorganisation of the dockyards is going ahead. The management structure is almost complete at Chatham and we shall turn next to Rosyth. The General Manager at Chatham has now five separate departments, production, planning, personnel, yard services and finance. The dockyard procedures of planning and ship repairing and control are being reorganised. In addition, there has been a planned study of drawing office work.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs asked if I could assure him that there is a future for Rosyth Dockyard. There is a future for it and for all our dockyards at home. We have spent a great deal of money on them. In 1950–51 we were spending about £2 million under our works Vote in the dockyards in modernising buildings and bringing them up to date. That has now risen to £4 million under that one Vote. We have speeded up the modernisation of machinery in the dockyards and are injecting £2¼ million into the dockyards each year. That is a measure of the confidence we have in their future. We would not be sinking capital into bricks and mortar and machinery if we did not have such confidence that they have a job to do in refitting and modernising the Navy.

    1489
    I turn to other points made in the debate. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West raised a number of small points on which I shall write to him. He also asked about the incentive scheme at Eastney. I went there a fortnight ago. It is producing worth-while results and has been introduced as a consequence of a work study. We have tried to organise the works committee which is doing the maintenance at Eastney barracks. Productivity has doubled and the incentive pay is better. Therefore, they are perfectly happy. We should like to spread out if we can with the co-operation of the trade unions, but this means a training programme for instructors in work study methods to bring in the dividends which has been produced at Eastney. We have made proposals to the Admiralty Industrial Council for expansion and will see how that goes.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) asked about Seacat and Seaslug. This is one of the difficult questions to answer. If I gave the facts I think I should be hazarding the ships which will be fitted with the device. A number of people overseas are interested and would not be buying it if it did not have a performance as good as its contemporaries. It is a substitute for the Bofors and results have far exceeded expectations. We have got two good weapons. Seacat is further behind, but Seaslug is proven and should be with us in a few months.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport asked whether the extra non-industrials at Chatham and Rosyth after reorganisation were really necessary. She suggested that this was producing too many executives and not enough manpower. This is the trend throughout all industry. Wherever one goes in private industry or anywhere else, one finds more and more people on the organising side. There are more white-coated workers and fewer people with dirty hands, and this is not a bad trend. We are investing in new labour-saving machinery and, therefore, it is necessary to organise the use of that machinery and raw materials, all of which are very expensive, so as to produce the best possible result.
    1490
    My hon. Friend also asked whether we could have a ten-year programme. We try to produce within the Admiralty a programme for the renewal and building of our ships. I think this has probably always been so. But it is so uncertain more than five years ahead that I do not think it would be worth while adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion. Certainly we could not publish it because it would be highly secret. It has to be adjusted, however, in the light of the trend in the development of our strategic and defence policy. I do not want the Committee to think that we are not thinking all the time ten years ahead, programming when the useful life of the ships will end and when new ships should be laid down, and also trying to iron out any peaks so that we do not have a vast peak of capital expenditure on new ships and follow that with a trough. This would be inefficient and would have serious repercussions not only in the Navy but in the building yards as well.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice asked me about the Royal Marines and flexibility. I am aware of the need for maintaining flexibility in the Royal Marines. He asked why we do not have a larger detachment in the ships. There are two reasons. The first reason is that ships' complements are much more highly specialised than they were before, and also the Royal Marines are even more specialised than in my hon. Friend's day. They have got more sophisticated weapons. They have more jobs to do in the amphibious squadron and elsewhere, and, although we want to keep flexibility, we realise that it cannot be specialised and expert in all these fields.
    I hope that it is felt by the Committee that we have a balanced fleet. We have presented the case as fairly as we can. I am glad to have the support and endorsement of the Opposition, and I hope the Committee will pass these Estimates with acclamation.
    Mr. M. Foot Mr. M. Foot rose—
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne)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:—

    Division No. 127.]

    AYES

    [11.58 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Pitman, Sir James

    Aitken, w. T.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Hastings, Stephen

    Pott, Percivall

    Balniel, Lord

    Hay, John

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hiley, Joseph

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Barter, John

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pym, Francis

    Batsford, Brian

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

    Ramsden, James

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Biffen, John

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hobson, Sir John

    Rees, Hugh

    Bishop, F. P.

    Holland, Philip

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hollingworth, John

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Bossom, Clive

    Hornby, R. P.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hughes-young, Michael

    Roots, William

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Russell, Ronald

    Braine, Bernard

    Jackson, John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Brewis, John

    James, David

    Seymour, Leslie

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Shepherd, William

    Bullard, Denys

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chlswick)

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Smithers, Peter

    Chataway, Christopher

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Cole, Norman

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Talbot, John E.

    Collard, Richard

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Longbottom, Charles

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

    Coulson, Michael

    Longden, Gilbert

    Teeling, Sir William

    Critchley, Julian

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Temple, John M.

    Curran, Charles

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    McLaren, Martin

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Drayson, G. B.

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    du Cann, Edward

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Walder, David

    Elllot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Maddan, Martin

    Walker, Peter

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

    Maitland, Sir John

    Wall, Patrick

    Emery, Peter

    Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Mawby, Ray

    Whitelaw, William

    Farr, John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Finlay, Graeme

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

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mills, Stratton

    Wise, A. R.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Morgan, William

    Woollam, John

    Gilmour, sir John

    Noble, Michael

    Worsley, Marcus

    Goodhart, Philip

    Orr-Ewlng, C. Ian

    Gower, Raymond

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Green, Alan

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Mr. Chichester-Clark

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Pannell, Norman (Klrkdale)

    Mr. John Peel.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    NOES

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mr. Emrys Hughes and

    Mr. Sydney Silverman.

    Question put accordingly:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 151, Noes 2.
    The Committee divided: Ayes 145, Noes 2.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Emery, Peter

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Leavey, J. A.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Roots, William

    Farr, John

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Russell, Ronald

    Finlay, Graeme

    Longbottom, Charles

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fisher, Nigel

    Longden, Gilbert

    Seymour, Leslie

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Shepherd, William

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh

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

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Mac Arthur, Ian

    Smithers, Peter

    Goodhart, Philip

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Gower, Raymond

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Green, Alan

    Maddan, Martin

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.

    Maitland, Sir John

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Talbot, John E.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meridsn)

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Mawby, Ray

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

    Hastings, Stephen

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Teeling, Sir William

    Hay, John

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

    Temple, John M.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Mills, Stratton

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

    Morgan, William

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Noble, Michael

    Walder, David

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Walker, Peter

    Hobson, Sir John

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Wall, Patrick

    Holland, Philip

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Hollingworth, John

    Pannell Norman (Kirkdale)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Peel, John

    Whitelaw, William

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Pitman, Sir James

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Jackson, John

    Pott, Percivall

    Wise, A. R.

    James David

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Woollam, John

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Worsley, Marcus

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pym, Francis

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Ramsden, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Mr. Frank Pearson and

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Mr. Martin McLaren.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Rees, Hugh

    NOES

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mr. Sydney Silverman and

    Mr. Emrys Hughes.

    Resolved,
    That 100,000 Officers, Seamen and Juniors and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine establishments, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963.
    Resolution to be reported.
    Report to be received this day: Committee to sit again this day.

  ROADS, GREENWICH (BUILDING PROJECTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  12.17 a.m.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: The problem I want to raise this evening is one which affects my constituency immediately but also has a big effect upon transport generally, particularly in London and, to some extent, in south-east England. A lot of us in south-east London have felt for a long
  1494
  time that we have been badly treated in road developments. There has been enormous expenditure incurred in west London—on the Chiswick flyover and the Cromwell Road developments, and so on—but very little in south-east London.
  For some time it has been clear that a major problem was growing in keeping traffic moving from north London through the Blackwall Tunnel into Greenwich to join the A.2 and A.20. A large proportion of that traffic coming from north London to either the A.2 to Dover or the A.20 to Folkestone must go through Greenwich, and a large proportion goes through the Blackwall Tunnel. Everybody would agree that the Blackwall Tunnel is totally inadequate for the amount of traffic which goes through it.
  A few months ago the Minister introduced a diversion, in consultation with various bodies, in an effort to meet the problem. It was a diversion through a number of side streets. The flow of traffic was improved, but those roads are totally unsuited to the sort of traffic

  1495
  now travelling through them. I have not got accurate figures, but I understand that the traffic at peak periods through Blackwall Tunnel is 1,700 vehicles per hour. This concentration of traffic includes very heavy long distance vehicles.
  It takes very little imagination to realise the effect upon the people who live in those side turnings. The noise is intolerable. I have discovered this from personal experience. It is a pity the Minister was not able to take up the invitations made to him by some of the residents to spend a night there. The vehicles include 8-wheeler diesel-driven long-distance lorries passing within a yard or two of bedroom windows. The houses shake and the fumes come up in clouds. There is the question of danger to children, and the big problem for these people is the enormous depreciation of property that follows.
  These are small people whose whole savings are invested in their houses. The houses are small but they are beautifully kept and they represent almost the sole and certainly the most important possession of the people who live in them. No one wants the houses now. These people could not give them away, much less sell them. They have seen their total savings depreciate overnight in a way which they cannot control. They cannot move away and they cannot sell the houses and they are not the sort of people who have large savings with which they can purchase other property. They are living in conditions which all hon. Members would agree were quite intolerable if they applied to us.
  I will not go far into a matter which arouses unhappy memories for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and myself, but we have been engaged in discussing and nipping through the Transport Bill.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Nipping through?
  Mr. Marsh: Clause 11 (6) of that Bill refers to the Transport Boards and says:
  "A Board shall not exercise the power of developing land which is conferred on them by this section on land which is within the prescribed distance from any of the royal palaces or parks without the consent of the Minister."
  1496
  The prescribed distance for Windsor Castle is two miles and the prescribed distance from any other Royal palace is half a mile. The distance for my constituents is about 1½ yards. While one can appreciate in this unequal world that we cannot have complete equality, I think that the difference in these cases is sufficent when it is remembered that in most of the Royal palaces the gardens are rather larger than those to be found in the side streets at the back of Greenwich.
  There is a bigger problem. It is the personal problem of individuals, and a great thing about this House and Parliament is that we can stop dead in the discussion of big things and turn to discussing the problems of small people.
  There is a transport problem. The capacity of Blackwall Tunnel will be about doubled when the additional tunnel is opened in the spring of 1965. Presumably the traffic then at the peak period will be between 2,500 and 3,000 vehicles an hour. Whatever may be the problem of the moment with this diversion, there will be complete chaos if that sort of traffic is to be pushed through. The southern approach road to take this traffic from Blackwall Tunnel on to the A2 and A20 at Blackheath is to be started in 1966 and, as far as I can establish, to be completed in 1969.
  It is, therefore, suggested that these people will not only undergo the present unpleasantness of their personal position, but in addition all the traffic is to have its progress facilitated through the tunnel and then diverted along little side-roads which are capable of taking milkmen's vans and bicycles but certainly cannot undertake for long to take thousands of vehicles an hour. This is terrifying in terms of transport, and the prospect in the summer months is of chaos for two or three miles.
  As I understand it, the only reason for the time-lag between the two is shortage of cash. That is the reason which most documents have given for the last hundred years or so for doing nothing. Yet on the same road, the A.2, the same Ministry is busily engaged in the Bexley Heath area in widening the three-lane road and making it into a six-lane carriageway. In the process, it is involved in demolishing 34 modern houses. It is a development which nobody

  1497
  locally wants. I have lived in the area many years, and I cannot understand the purpose of widening this stretch of road into a six-lane carriageway when only two miles or so away the roundabout makes a bottleneck in the road and the road becomes narrow. I have driven up the road thousands of times. It has a 40 m.p.h. limit. I should have thought it would have taken 50–60 m.p.h. without very much difficulty.
  So there is enormous capital development on the road where nobody locally wants it—the residents are violently opposed to it—while at the same time four or five miles away on the same road there is a crying need for development. I believe that further developments are to be undertaken at Dartford, and there are problems south of Dartford.
  I suggest that co-ordination of these major projects appears to be nonexistent. I am not blaming the Minister. But it is difficult to see any coordination between these three projects. It looks like a major bungle. The most urgent need of the three is the southern approach road. I feel that because of the problems which are evident to everybody and the widespread opposition and uneasiness occasioned by all three developments, we have reached a stage where there would not be any great loss of face if the Minister held a public inquiry, reappraised the situation and had second thoughts about it.
  One cannot develop a road system like this. This is a very big area. The idea of having the traffic pouring out of Blackwall Tunnel and bottling up for about one and a half miles until it reaches the A.2 or the A.20 and then on the A.2 zooming into a six-lane carriageway seems to show a most extraordinary lack of co-ordination.
  I think the Minister will agree that the problem is his baby. It cannot be shelved on to the local authorities. I am sure he will take full responsibility for the diversion and the problems arising from it. But this is not an issue where one is particularly worried about apportioning blame to a Ministry or Minister.
  The fact of the matter is that traffic in that part of London is in danger of coming to a complete standstill. In the summer months when there is an enormous amount of coastal coach traffic from north London through the tunnel these
  1498
  roads are at the best of times very much in use. To double the capacity of the tunnel and at the same time have a gap of about four years, if that is the period—perhaps the Minister can give the right period—before the road is built to carry the traffic away from the tunnel seems to be extraordinary, particularly since it seems perfectly possible to transfer expenditure and labour from another part of the same road where, to say the least, it is not in very great demand to where everyone would be in favour of it.
  As I said, there are two problems. For the people it is a tragic human problem. I know these people and their houses. They are in a serious situation. While one cannot at this stage discuss compensation, there is a need to look after people in these circumstances who see their life's savings and their homes absolutely wrecked. I would not live there; neither would the Minister or anybody else if they could live elsewhere. But one appreciates that traffic has to be kept moving, and it might well be possible to justify this as a temporary expedient for a very limited period. I submit that there can be no justification whatsoever on grounds of humanity as far as the residents are concerned, nor efficiency as far as traffic is concerned, for a period which appears to be likely to last some four or five years.
  12.30 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I will not delay my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary from replying for more than a few moments. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has raised through a specific instance in his constituency a matter of major principle. This instance shows that at any moment the residents of a residential street may find that the general flow of traffic is turned down that street—heavy lorries and noisy traffic being diverted down a quiet residential street—without the right of any appeal and without any compensation for physical injury to health and financial loss to property.
  This seems to me to be dictatorship in its ugliest form. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with the matter very seriously and will realise the injury that can be caused by a wave of the Ministerial wand and an order that traffic should go down a residential street. I support the hon. Member for Greenwich on the point he has raised.
  12.32 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who had the good fortune to raise this subject affecting his constituency on the Adjournment tonight, said that there was little doubt in his mind that here was a problem which was the Minister's baby. If I may correct him, I think that there are three problems here, three babies. There is the problem of the A.2, the problem of the one-way traffic system in the centre of Greenwich and the problem of the tunnel approach road. If I may carry the hon. Gentleman's simile a little further, I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is the father of one of these babies, the foster parent of the second, and, with regard to the third, that he is probably making, or will make, payments under an affiliation order.
  I understand the feeling of the hon. Gentleman and of his constituents, and I should like to say a little about all three problems because I do not think that one can treat them in isolation. The main problem is really the tunnel approach road. The hon. Gentleman said that work is now proceeding on the duplication of the Blackwall Tunnel. This is a London County Council project and the tunnel approach road will equally be a London County Council project. These are classified road projects for which my right hon. Friend is not directly responsible but to which he makes substantial contributions. To that extent he has a general responsibility.
  The position about the duplication of the tunnel is that it should be finished some time in 1965, as the hon. Gentleman says. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the traffic volumes. The information which I have is that the figure of about 3,000 vehicles per hour which he mentioned is a peak hour figure and is unlikely to be reached until 1969. So perhaps the situation as far as the flow of traffic through the duplicate tunnel is concerned will not be so severe as soon as he suggested, and certainly there will be less than 3,000 vehicles per hour at off-peak times.
  By 1969, when we expect that traffic volumes will reach the figure of 3,000
  1500
  vehicles an hour at peak times, the southern approach road should be ready, and this is how the two projects have dovetailed in. Before the southern approach road can be built there are a number of things that have got to be done. As I have said, this is an L.C.C. project, and the first thing is that the L.C.C. will next Session have to take powers from Parliament by its General Powers Bill to enable it to build the southern approach road. The L.C.C. expects, if it can get its Bill through during the next Session, to start work in about four to five years and to complete the scheme, as I said, by 1969. It is a question of planning the work and not simply a question of finding the money. The problem of the southern approach road is simply that there are a large number of people who have to be rehoused. About 1,100 have to be rehoused because of this scheme, and this is a big problem for the London County Council.
  Because we feel that the traffic volume coming through the Blackwall Tunnel and heading down the A2 is already high we introduced a series of one-way traffic measures round the junction of Woolwich Road, Tunnel Avenue and Westcombe Hill. The object is to enable the traffic to move and to circulate more smoothly. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have banned all right turns and introduced a one-way system. I wish to emphasise, and I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would in turn emphasise it to his constituents, that this system which was introduced in November is am experiment which on the face of it is working fairly well. Traffic is flowing more freely. We are watching the experiment all the time.
  I was interested to hear of the complaints of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and I note what he said. So far we have received few complaints at the Ministry. I am told that we have had only one letter of complaint from a local resident and one letter from the Pedestrians' Association with which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is connected. The Association said that this was:
  "a gross injustice and a moral wrong committed against a helpless minority."
  Mr. Marsh: I have led a deputation of residents to the Ministry of Transport and there has been a lot of complaint.
  Mr. Hay: I heard that the hon. Gentleman brought a deputation to the Ministry. But that was in October before the system was started. The one way system started on 16th November, and the hon. Gentleman brought his deputation on 19th October, so that all the points made by the deputation were taken into account before the system started. I am talking about the amount of complaint in the period following 16th November. This experiment is quite usual. My right hon. Friend is conducting a number of traffic experiments of this kind in London to try to improve the flow of traffic. He is having considerable success. But we must not deny that problems are created for residents in residential streets.
  If we are faced with problems of severe congestion on a main road and beside the main road there are a number of other streets which are residential and which bear practically no traffic at all, common sense alone would advise that we should try to make use of the capacity in the existing side streets to relieve the pressure on the central artery. We watch all the experiments closely, and if we feel that they are causing intolerable hardship or damage to property we shall be only too willing to modify the experiment or perhaps to drop it altogether.
  My right hon. Friend has a great responsibility regarding the A2. This is a trunk road. At present it is carrying twice the volume of traffic for which it was designed. Through Bexley it is a single three-lane carriageway. We aim at improving it to dual three-lane standards and the cost of the improvement will be about £3 million. It is in the five-year trunk road programme. Last October we published the draft side road Order and we have received a substantial number of objections to it. I have to tell the House that the Minister has decided in the light of these objections to hold a public inquiry. At the same time, an inquiry will be held into the draft orders for two other improvement schemes on the A2, including the Dartford diversion. I emphasise that this improvement is an essential
  1502
  part of the overall improvement of the A2 which is what we call the Channel Ports Route. It is one of the five major projects of the Ministry. This scheme is very difficult and expensive because it passes through a heavily built-up area, but it is in the programme and, subject to what the inquiry finds, we intend to go ahead with it.
  The hon. Member suggested that perhaps funds to complete the tunnel approach road more quickly might be found if we abandoned or postponed the improvement of A2. We cannot do that for three specific reasons. The first is, as he suggested, these are two entirely different schemes. The tunnel approach road forms part of the comprehensive improvement of the North-South route to the east of London. The A2 is part of the Channel Ports Route which is an east-west route. The A2 scheme is a trunk road scheme whereas the tunnel approach road is a classified road. My right hon. Friend is responsible for the first and pays 100 per cent. of the cost. He is not entirely responsible for the second although he make a contribution of 75 per cent. as this is a classified road improvement. The House votes funds for these improvements under separate Votes and we are not allowed to transfer money earmarked for trunk road schemes to meet obligations on classified road schemes.
  There is a third convincing reason. It is that to delay one of these schemes would not in fact enable faster progress to be made on the other. Major road schemes cannot be started at short notice just because funds happen to be available. It may often take several years to prepare a major trunk road scheme to the contract letting stage, particularly where, as here, the road has to pass through a densely populated area and we have all the consequential problems of re-housing people and finding other accommodation for interests which are displaced. We are under obligation by Act of Parliament to do these things.
  The preparation of a major road improvement proceeds steadily all the time up to the contract letting stage quite independently of any other schemes which may be in the programme. When all those schemes are brought forward to the contract letting stage we make

  1503
  our choice. We have now determined our five year programme and we know which schemes come into the programme in successive years. Each scheme will come in when the funds are ready. It is a somewhat difficult and complicated job to make sure that the money is available when the scheme is ready to start, the design work done and everything else is done, but we manage more or less successfully to do it. Occasionally one scheme will slip and we have to put in another. Broadly speak-in, this is how we organise the programme. I hope that I have made clear that we could not stop work on the A.2 and transfer the money to the tunnel approach road. I can assure the hon. Member that we shall keep the problem under close review. The experiment will
  1504
  be carefully reviewed after the first six months and certainly I have taken note of all he has said.
  Mr. Marsh: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the responsibility for diversion was the responsibility of the Minister?
  Mr. Hay: Yes. I said that my right hon. Friend was to some extent the foster parent here. The traffic scheme was worked out jointly by the Borough of Greenwich and the Ministry, so my right hon. Friend has a very strong interest and will take the final decision whether to retain it or not.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to One o'clock.

ROYAL NAVY
  Admiralty Charts
  Admiralty Charts
  Royal Marine Sick Quarters, Deal
  Royal Marine Sick Quarters, Deal
  Ships (Scrapping)
  Ships (Scrapping)
  Donibristle Site, Fife
  Donibristle Site, Fife
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Fylingdales Early Warning Station (Bridleway)
  Fylingdales Early Warning Station (Bridleway)
SCOTLAND
  Forth Road Bridge
  Forth Road Bridge
  Occupational Therapy (Staff)
  Occupational Therapy (Staff)
  Tobacco Sales (Children)
  Tobacco Sales (Children)
  Hospital Staff
  Hospital Staff
  Remand Homes
  Remand Homes
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
ROADS
  St. James's Square and Pall Mall (Pedestrian Crossing)
  St. James's Square and Pall Mall (Pedestrian Crossing)
  Woodhurst Park Road, Oxted
  Woodhurst Park Road, Oxted
  Bath Road
  Bath Road
  Trunk Roads (Speed Limit)
  Trunk Roads (Speed Limit)
TRANSPORT
  Road Safety Campaign
  Road Safety Campaign
  Public Car Parks (Rating)
  Public Car Parks (Rating)
SHIPPING
  Ship-repairing Industry, Cardiff
  Ship-repairing Industry, Cardiff
SCIENCE
  Meat Research Centre
  Meat Research Centre
  Salt Water Conversion
  Salt Water Conversion
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Wool (Canary Stain)
  Wool (Canary Stain)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Aviation Kerosene and J.P.4 (Report)
  Aviation Kerosene and J.P.4 (Report)
EDUCATION
  Day Releases
  Day Releases
  School Windows (Blinds)
  School Windows (Blinds)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Newspapers and Periodicals
  Newspapers and Periodicals
  University Salaries and Recurrent Grants
  University Salaries and Recurrent Grants
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Wigs
  Wigs
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Richmond Park
  Richmond Park

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

INQUIRY INTO PREVENTIVE DETENTION
2.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders has completed the inquiry into Preventive Detention and whether they will publish the Council's report.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, the preventive detention system is being considered by a sub-committee of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders. I am told that the Sub-Committee has made substantial progress, but that it is not yet possible to say when the inquiry will be completed. My right honourable friend has no reason to think that it will not be possible to follow the usual practice of publishing the Council's reports.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this inquiry has been going on for a very long time, during which period some hundreds of men have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for repetitive petty thefts? Is he further aware that the Lord Chief Justice only recently urged those in authority not to pass sentences of preventive detention on the younger men, and pointed to the fact that some 30 per cent. of such sentences had been changed on appeal to straight gaol sentences? Having regard to these facts, would it not be possible to suspend these savage sentences for petty crimes until the Committee has reported?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the inquiry has been going on for some time. On the other hand, the Sub-Committee of the Advisory Council started to sit in May, 1961, which is not so very long for such a complicated subject. My attention has been drawn to what the Lord Chief Justice said, but there are many opinions on preventive detention, and it is all those opinions that this Sub-Committee must study before any change can be made. In any case, we have no right to make a change for the time being.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, whilst agreeing with the noble Earl that there are many opinions on preventive detention, may I ask whether he is aware that all opinions coincide in condemning this system as extremely costly and serving no useful purpose? All penologists agree on this. Is it not possible to give us some firm idea when this Council will report?
EARL BATHURST: I cannot give any idea of that, because we cannot tie a Council of very busy people to an exact date. But I assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is extremely interested in this subject and considers it of great importance. That is why the top opinions must be collected before he can make a pronouncement on the subject.

RELATIVE SAFETY OF AVIATION FUELS
2.39 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now able to say what conclusions were reached as a result of the study which they have had made into the relative safety of aviation kerosene (paraffin) and wide-cut gasoline (J.P.4) for air transport services, and what action they intend to take on it.]
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords. The Report of the Working Party that was set up to make these studies is being

169
published to-day, and copies are available in the Printed Paper Office. The Working Party concluded that statistical evidence based on accident analysis does not show conclusively that either fuel was significantly safer than the other, partly because the number of relevant accidents is small and partly because, among this number, circumstances varied so much that accurate comparisons were seldom practicable. However, when it examined the physical properties of the two fuels, the Working Party concluded that aviation kerosene is, on balance, safer than J.P.4, mainly because the likelihood of ignition and the rate of flame spread are less. The use of kereosene should, therefore, give occupants of a crashed aircraft, who have survived an impact, a better chance of escaping before any subsequent fire makes escape or rescue impossible. A high proportion of accidents occur in the landing and take-off phases when the degree of fire risk may largely determine the chance of survival.
It is, of course, necessary to preserve a sense of proportion in this matter. In the past about 90 per cent. of air transport fatalities have been caused by impact injuries so that any margin for improvement would have been within only the remaining 10 per cent. or so. The risk inherent in using J.P.4. is comparable with that of using petrol, which has always been used in piston-engined aircraft, and will continue to be so. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation accepts the conclusion of the Report that the use of kerosene should afford a better chance of survival than J.P.4. He is bringing the conclusions of the Report to the notice of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his promise of the Report, which I shall read with interest. May I ask him whether it is not a satisfactory thing that the aircraft on the British Register operated by British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation all use kerosene?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, very satisfactory. Only on a few occasions would they use J.P.4, and that is when they operate through aerodromes overseas where only J.P.4 is available.

LONDON GOVERNMENT
2.42 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH rose to move to resolve, That the proposals in Cmnd. 1562 will not meet the needs of democratic local government of Greater London, and will create administrative difficulties for the counties of Essex, Kent and Surrey. The noble Lord said: My Lords, let it be understood straight away that, as one who has spent his life in effecting changes of one sort or another in local government administration and in national government as well, I am not opposed to change merely in order to take up a negative position. In fact there are some changes which the Government could have made which are modest and moderate and which I think would be justified. But while it is not for us to resist change merely for the sake of resisting it, it is equally sound to say that there is no point in making changes unless there is advantage in making those changes. That is a view which I have also held among my political friends, whether in government or outside it. The case for the change has to be proved, and my submission to the House will be that the case for this body of changes is not proved by any means.
It is curious that, when those same people who condemn the London County Council and other county councils for wishing largely, though not entirely, to preserve the status quo approach the borders of the square mile of the City of London, they suddenly decide that they do not want any change at all, except to increase the powers of the City of London Corporation and to make it a Greater London borough; and, as I will indicate, with a population of well under 5,000. I think that in this crisis the City of London ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder with the London County Council. We have not been bad friends to the City, since the Labour Party has been in power at County Hall, and they have been appreciative of that fact. I think it is time for the City, as one of the pioneers of local self-government and, indeed, of Parliamentary democracy, to lend a hand to the London County Council in this wicked attempt to destroy it for Party political reasons.
My Lords, it is said that London local government is in a bad way; that it is a confusing muddle; that it is in a state of mouldering decay. As Goebbels said when he was Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany, if you say something often enough, even though it be a lie, people will come to believe it. That is what is happening about these allegations that London government is in a bad way. My Lords, I have visited most, or at any rate a large proportion, of the cities of the world and, with every respect to the other cities, many of which have first-class local government, I do not know another capital city which is better governed than is this London of ours. So I think this allegation is a palpable untruth.
Consider the operation of civil defence in the war, which was a new service. I know it very well, because I was Chairman of the Civil Defence Committee of the London County Council before the war broke out and for some months after it broke out, until Mr. Churchill, as he then was, invited me to join his Government. Civil defence operated in the main in relation to the existing powers of the county councils, the county boroughs, the county districts of Greater London and the metropolitan boroughs in the County of London, and they took on functions which were related to their normal peacetime functions. My Lords, it worked very well. Would anybody say that civil defence in London under this structure of local government, under the stress of war, was a failure? They would not. I say that the metropolitan boroughs, the county districts, the county councils and the county borough councils, taking them by and large, did a first-class job in the interests of the citizens of Great London under the stress of war, under heavy enemy bombing, and they did much to maintain the morale of the citizens of this great City.
This is a Government-cum-Royal Commission scheme, and nobody would charge the Government with being impartial about it. If the Conservatives had won the last London County Council election, we should not have heard about this. This is a plot, a rather contemptible plot—I almost said a corrupt plot—inspired by the London Municipal Society and the Conservative
172
Central Office, not to destroy the London county Council because it is the London County Council, but because they challenge the right of the people of London to have anything but a Conservative majority at County Hall. That is the motive and it is a very pitiful motive indeed.
It is assumed in the argument that there is no problem in London government other than traffic and planning, and nearly the whole of the argument of the supporters of the scheme begins with and centres upon the problems of traffic and planning. They say that London has become too big. It is not our fault that it is so big; it is the result of past neglect of Governments and municipalities before ever we were in power. But, my Lords, local government does not live by traffic and planning alone. The people who use this traffic and planning argument are forgetting that local government is concerned with people, with human beings, with men, women and little children. They do not talk about the men, the women and the children; they talk about crowded thoroughfares and planning. That is an indication of the wrong premises, from which they begin to assume that the only problems are traffic and planning. Therefore, that argument is not reasonable as history proves.
There are three possibilities. There is the Government scheme, which does not solve the problem. If it be true that the planning problem is concerned with built-up London and beyond—and it must be concerned with beyond as well, because we need to preserve some green round London; and, indeed, that was the purpose of the Green Belt which we got through in co-operation with the Conservative county councils. Labour county boroughs and a Conservative county borough—there is an argument for the area to be bigger. The county councils therefore put before the Government a method of dealing with the traffic and planning problem. That was to permit the counties to appoint representatives to a Greater London Board; that there should be others representing the Ministry of Transport, the railways and so on; and that this Board should be executive up to the point that it makes the Greater London Plan, but

173
that the day-to-day administration of the plan, within its limits, should be carried out by the present planning authorities—namely, the county councils and the county borough councils. That was a constructive alternative, but the Government would not have it.
There is an alternative. And here I raise the point: what are Government Departments for? What is this curious Ministry of Housing and Local Government for? It is a curious Department in every way. Surely, when the planning schemes come up from the planning authorities, or, if this Greater London Board were accepted, from that Board, then one of the duties of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, as the State Department concerned with planning, is to compare them with its own wishes and to compare them with proposals from surrounding planning authorities beyond the area, and for it, as a Department, to come to a conclusion on whether or not these plans require modifying or altering. What is the Ministry paid for? What is the Minister paid for? They say they do not want to interfere with the local authorities. My Lords, I have yet to meet a Government Department which does not in any way want to interfere with local authorities, including that one—and especially the Ministry of Transport. The poor Minister of Transport would have a rough time if he could not go round interfering with, or patronising, local authorities.
In the case of transport, the Minister of Transport is interfering; he is doing too much interfering, I think. But he has extensive powers over a wide London traffic area, and he can require the highway authorities to do certain things by way of straightening out, extension or maintenance. He pays them grants (except that he does not pay maintenance in London and the county boroughs) and that gives the Minister very great power. If a local authority, a highway authority, is not doing the right thing, he can require it to do something else. Therefore, these functions of co-ordination are in the ordinary way functions of the State Department concerned; but if they want an overall plan-making authority, then the local authorities have suggested this executive Board. In any case, in the light of the Govern-
174
ment's argument about the Greater London area, the area that they have chosen is not big enough, because it ought to include a green area around in order that that green area may be protected.
The record of the London County Council is, I think, a very good one. The first majority was the old Progressive Liberal majority from 1889 to 1907, at which date they were made the victims of a very unscrupulous campaign: but the old Progressive Liberals did a great job at County Hall, and they laid down fine traditions of clean government and incorruptibility. The Conservatives came in and they did their job; we came in and we have done ours. Who is going, to get up and prove that the London County Council is an incompetent local authority?
When Commonwealth or foreign visitors interested in local government come to this country they may go to the ancient City, as a matter of courtesy, and visit this ancient authority—and that is very natural. But when they want to know about London local government, they come to this great authority, the London County Council. It has a great name in the world, as, indeed, is admitted in the Royal Commission's Report, and in some of the ministerial expressions.
I myself have had a varied local government experience, so I am not London County Council alone; indeed, I am off it now, and have been for some time. But I was a member of the Metropolitan Borough of Hackney, having been its Mayor. I have sat on most of the ad hoc bodies for special purposes in London; and I have sat on the London County Council. I say that the record of the London County Council is a very good one, and ought to command a feeling of pride on the part of this House, as it undoubtedly has commanded pride on the part of the citizens of London, as manifested at successive elections.
Now, my Lords, let us have a look at some of these personal services, services that affect human beings—men, women and little children; because, as I have said, local government does not live by traffic and planning alone. Let us take the Education Service. Here, the evidence of the Ministry of Education, presumably authorised by the Minister, to the Royal

175
Commission extended not only warm praise to the London County Council Education Service, which is the pride of the teachers and the parents, but also very considerable praise to the county council education services outside London, as well as to the other authorities participating in education outside London. The Royal Commission itself paid a tribute to the Education Service of the London County Council. But along come the Government. They do not want to transfer the Education Service to the Greater London Authority, though they were intending to do so earlier on. They do not even want to transfer higher education to the Greater London Authority and the primary schools to the boroughs—on the merits of which proposals I make no observations, because I think the service is good as it is.
My Lords, consider the wide variety of things that the education authority does. It provides education of all sorts, of great variety, calculated to meet the varying requirements of people of all ages, people of all professions and people with all kinds of future. It organises the school meals service, which is more economically run by a large authority than by a small one. The L.C.C. conducts the school medical service, and it runs the special schools—and here there is a very real difficulty. Often these schools are for handicapped children of one sort and another. They must necessarily serve a wider area than any individual borough, even the larger boroughs proposed by the Government. What is going to happen to these schools? And this is a very valuable and human service for unlucky youngsters.
Then there are higher education and technical education. Who is going to run the Woolwich Polytechnic, which is presumably outside the proposed central education authority? It is in the Borough of Woolwich, but it serves a population much wider than the Borough of Woolwich. Then there is the vast service of further education, which used to be known as continued education, or evening classes, and so on, but which is now much wider. What is going to happen to the School for Printing and the Graphic Arts now being built at the Elephant and Castle, which serves the whole of London, and probably some in
176
Greater London as well? We are not told. There are so many things we are not told.
It must also be remembered that the Education Department depends for its success not only upon itself but upon other departments in the Council's service—for example, the Supplies Department. Through that, the Council buys in bulk, often direct from manufacturers, and at economic prices, which save the ratepayers large sums. The Government propose to break that up, presumably. And yet I pay this tribute to a former Conservative majority on the London County Council. I believe it is to their credit that they started the Supplies Department of the London County Council, which has served the ratepayers well and saved them a lot of money. But along come this Government, who want to break it up. The Education Department needs the help of the Supplies Department.
Moreover, in the building and maintenance of the schools, and in a number of other ways, there are a team of chief officers and their staffs who are of the utmost value to the Education Department. These teams—and they are considerable teams—could not be available in effective numbers to the boroughs if they became education authorities. I refer to architects, engineers, valuers, doctors, and the medical services. In the County Council Education Service, borough boundaries are not important; there is no reason why they should be. The schools are placed where they will render the maximum probable service, particularly in the case of secondary, higher educational, or technical schools. All this gives to the parents a much wider free choice as to which school their children shall attend, and the London County Council have been extraordinarily successful in meeting the problem of parents' choice.
Then there is another aspect. The relations between London and the surrounding county education authorities and the denominational authorities—the church schools of various denominations—have been good. One hardly hears of trouble concerning this matter. It is not an easy task to administer, because denominational schools are drawing upon large amounts of public money. But things have worked smoothly, and

177
I believe that one of the reasons why they have worked smoothly is because those bodies were dealing with large authorities. Now they will, over the County of London, be dealing with fourteen authorities instead of one, and so far as Greater London is concerned. 34 education authorities (I think it is) instead of the quite limited number that now exist.
The Catholic Education Council recently issued a statement in restrained terms in which it was clear that they had very serious doubts about having to deal with this large number of education authorities. They tried to keep out of the battle about the fundamental issues involved, but they expressed apprehension about how this scheme is going to work as regards the denominational schools. The statement says, among other things:
"The Catholic Education Council, in conjunction with the Archdiocese of Westminster and the Dioceses of Southwark and Brentwood, had previously written to the Ministry of Education drawing attention to the need to ensure that the establishment of many additional educational authorities in the London area (in the Government's scheme there would be some thirty instead of the present nine) should not act as a restriction on parental freedom of choice. The Council's letter pointed out that it would not be possible to provide a complete system of Catholic schools in each individual borough, particularly in the case of secondary schools, and that the freedom of parents to send their children to schools in other boroughs should be safeguarded. The letter asked for an assurance that the Government would consult the voluntary bodies over their proposed legislation, and that they did not wish to allow local government reorganisation to imperil parental freedom of choice. The Minister said during the debate that he was ready to give this assurance."
That is, the assurance of consultation.
"The Government's proposals raise a number of other important issues affecting organisation and administration of Catholic schools, and these will require further consideration."
It is quite clear from that statement that there is serious apprehension in the minds of the Catholic hierarchy. I gather—no doubt the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London will express the views of the Church of England during the course of the debate—that there are rather similar apprehensions, very naturally, in the minds of the Church of England authorities, and probably in the minds of other denominations as well. It is much easier for people to do business with a big authority—and a big authority with
178
a very large rateable value—than it is to do business with smaller authorities of varying rateable values.
It may be said that all these problems of borough boundaries, and distribution of this, that and the other being unequal, can be met by co-operation and collaboration between the boroughs. But what does this mean? Not only in this service but in other services which I am going to mention it will mean a mass of joint committees or joint authorities. I have never been enthusiastic over joint authorities. I used to say that there are too many "joints" and not enough authority over them. Moreover, they are undemocratic. Direct municipal legislation and direct municipal election is better, though so far as the counties are concerned you may have to resort to this with regard to planning and traffic if this scheme is to be avoided. But if we do not look out, we shall have a mass of joint committees, with more officials, with more meetings for the members of councils to attend, at grave inconvenience to themselves. Moreover, so far as I know, the metropolitan boroughs have not sought educational powers. These powers are being thrust upon them, and as to the majority, at any rate, of the metropolitan boroughs, and possibly others as well, they do not want educational powers.
Just as traffic and planning has been featured in the discussion, so has education very naturally been featured, because it is such a vital service. Parents and teachers in the County of London are proud of London's education. Believe me or not, my Lords, I have known a number of Conservatives who have moved into the County of London in order that their children may get the advantages of London County Council education. I met a Conservative a week or so ago who said that he had been trying to move into London for that very reason; and I know some other Conservatives who will not go out of the County of London because they do not wish to imperil the education of their children. These feelings are there, quite apart from Party-political affiliations.
I have dealt with education. There are similar considerations as regards housing and slum clearance. No one knows that better than my noble friend Lord Silkin, who was for some years the Chairman of the Housing Commit-

179
tee. The metropolitan boroughs have done a very good job of housing, and they deserve praise. But they could not have done the lot, because it would have been beyond their financial means. One of the good things about this county government is that you get an equalised county rate; and the rich City of Westminster, the rich City of London, the Royal Borough of Kensington and the Borough of St. Marylebone, all have to make their contributions to the county rate; and that benefits the poorer boroughs. This may be why Westminster is welcoming the Government scheme; it will save them money. There are large numbers of County Council housing estates as well as borough council housing estates in the county and out of the county, and the County Council can deal with housing the population on a wider basis than can the borough authority, though the borough authority is doing, and will continue to do, a useful job. Transfers at the request of occupiers from one estate to another is much easier, because they can go over the borough boundaries; the borough boundary does not affect the question.
Slum clearance on a big scale is infinitely easier for a big authority, and will be infinitely more difficult for a relatively small authority. Industry has to be taken into account. If slums are being cleared and factories have also to be moved, or if a great highway or public improvement is being made and industries have to be shifted, then the bigger central authority can handle the transfer of industries with far greater ability, elasticity and common sense, and good relationships with industry, than will be possible with the smaller authorities Therefore, whilst the borough can do, and is doing, a useful job, it cannot solve the housing problem on its own.
Your Lordships may have noticed that the Camberwell rate has gone up by about 4s. The Conservative Opposition on the Council wanted to know why. If I remember rightly, the leader of the Conservative opposition on the Camberwell Borough Council said, among other things, that the Borough Council had been doing too much housing at its own cost, instead of leaving a material proportion of housing to the L.C.C. They were landed with this big rate partly as
180
a consequence of that, and partly by the higher interest charges brought about by Her Majesty's Government. That statement came from the Conservative leader, yet his Party are advocating that nearly all housing should be done by the new Greater London boroughs. They cannot have the argument both ways. A feature in the field of housing are the teams of technical officers—professional men of great ability, who have won great praise from the architectural profession—which have been brought together by the County Council.
There is the Children's Service, which arose out of the Curtis Committee's Report. I think it was I, as Home Secretary who appointed that Committee. This is a service dealing with children who, for one reason or another—it may be because of bad homes, or because they are orphans—are difficult and who may be under court orders as being out of control. The County Council look after these children, but there are not enough of them—and I am glad that there are not enough of them—to make the basis of a successful service by relatively small authorities. These youngsters do not know borough boundaries, and it is sheer madness to try to make the children's service a borough service. The homes to which the children go—those who are not boarded out with foster parents; and the Council do everything they can in that direction—are not all in the county. Some of them are a long distance out of the county.
At one time I was a member of the Committee of Mile Oak Approved School. That is near Brighton. To which borough will that school be given? And what about the others outside the county? It has been suggested that there should be joint committees. For Heaven's sake!do not afflict London with a crowd of joint committees, instead of a democratic administration. The Royal Commission were wrong in their facts about the Children's Service. This is a personal service, I admit. Nevertheless, it ought, by its nature, to be a county service. If it is said that there are county boroughs in the provinces, with less population than the proposed Greater London boroughs, who can manage these things, I would say that it is no good comparing a county borough in the provinces, with its own

181
history and its own town identity, with the continuous built-up area of Greater London, which has another sort of history behind it. Problems and their solution have grown up with the county boroughs. In London's case, they have grown up to become an L.C.C. service.
I go from the young to the old, to the Welfare Service for old people who are accommodated in homes. These homes are not on a borough basis. They are where they are needed, and we ought not to try to put them on a borough basis, especially when there are various kinds of homes. The old people are worth your Lordships' sympathetic consideration, because the same problems arise with them. Again, the L.C.C. have a staff that can be moved from one old persons' home to another in any emergency that may arise, but this will not be easy under the new proposals.
Another welfare service is that for the handicapped, including handicapped children. There is also the problem of the homeless, which, goodness knows!, is not a local problem or one that can be solved on a local basis. This has given "headaches" to all sorts of people, and the L.C.C. have dealt with it as best they could. They have not had all the help they might have had from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who refused to give them requisitioning power in this direction and left the baby on the County Hall doorstep. The fourteen boroughs to be created cannot individually solve the problem of the homeless.
I have already mentioned the teams of very capable officers, with long experience, who deal with planning. These teams also include lawyers who, in the case of planning and compulsory purchase, are important people. Planning and the administration of building regulations need these teams. Parks and open spaces are not distributed on a borough basis. Their distribution has been largely gratuitious. In their redevelopment plan the L.C.C. are providing for increased open spaces, but these cannot easily be distributed equally among the proposed fourteen boroughs.
My Lords, there are many matters which are left uncertain in the Government's White Paper. The Government in no way face up to the problem of staffs and their future—and this is an
182
enormous problem. Your Lordships must remember that this is not like the Local Government Act, 1929, under which central and local services were transferred to the L.C.C. This is the problem of transferring services from a central authority and from county authorities to fourteen other authorities. Heaven knows what is going to happen to these chaps! It is all very well to give compensation, but the L.C.C. staff is a pretty high-powered organisation, as it ought to be, in view of the Council's responsibilities. But not a word is said about this matter by this wonderful Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Nothing is said about finance. It is said that it is a problem, but that they cannot deal with it at the moment. They cannot. However, my noble friend Lord Latham, who has had great experience on the L.C.C. Finance Committee for a number of years, will no doubt be referring at greater length to this aspect.
There is public control and motor licensing. I understand that this is to be broken up. Yet the county licensing authority for motor cars is not only useful to the motorist and to visitors from abroad, because they know where to go, but it is on many occasions useful to the police. If they want to trace a motor car and have to find their way around fourteen authorities there will be complications and the criminal in the meantime will get away. Then, weights and measures: it is doubtful if there is much point in breaking that up.
I suppose I had better declare my interest in the British Board of Film Censors. There is film censoring, which is not mentioned, and presumably not thought of by this extraordinary Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Is that to be done by fourteen separate authorities instead of the one London authority? But quite apart from the British Board of Film Censors, the film people have every right to go to the local authority, and the local authority has the right to come to its own decision. We have one authority in the administrative county of London. Are we now to have fourteen? Are we to have a film forbidden on one side of the street and allowed on the other side of the street; a "U" film on one side and an "X" film on the other; cuts on one

183
side of the street and no cuts on the other? Have the Government thought of this? Are they really using their heads about this problem? Or are they so animated by Party political spite, because London has dared to elect a Labour Council, that they are not thinking at all except about the politics of the matter? Or have they left their thinking to the Conservative Central Office and the Leader of the House of Commons, sailing around under that polite title, but merely functioning as the Chairman of the Conservative Party organisation? Have they thought about the arts? Who will run the Old Vic, Sadler's Wells, the Royal Festival Hall and other places? They say nothing about that. Who will run the parks concerts and plays, in which has been embodied a great deal of experience, and the museums?
We lose the automatic equalisation of the county rate. And if the Government go in for a big scheme of rates equalisation or Government subsidy (on which I am not sure they will want to spend the money, even though the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not seem to be very successful at limiting public expenditure) then it will follow that, instead of there being less Whitehall interference with local authorities, there will be more. I do not know about your Lordships' rates, but the rates of many people will cost them more under this Government scheme; and that is quite apart from the new assessment which is coming.
No doubt the Government feel that they are being politically clever; but I do not think they are. They have that assessment to come, although they may postpone it for political reasons. They have this scheme proposed, and the rates will go up and the citizens are to be stung. I do not know whether they think that will do them any good. I should have thought that they had enough to think about with the result at Blackpool, without walking into this further political trouble. And this in the last Session of a dying Parliament is shockingly bad Parliamentary management. I have had great experience of Parliamentary management, of legislative programmes for the whole of the Labour Government; and we did it well. Why do the Government not come to
184
me for a little advice about it? I would not even charge them a fee. But I give them some advice about it this afternoon.
The Greater London Council area is too big. It is not local government at all. It is rather on the principle of an Australian State, although not quite so big. It has a population of 8,400,000, and an area of 850 square miles. This is the proposal of a Government who talk about the desirability of making local government more local! It is a vast sprawl as an area. How are the councillors (I gather there will be one for each Parliamentary constituency, much less touched by the electorate than the existing councillors) to represent 50,000-odd people? How are they going to know all about Greater London, from Epsom and Ewell right up to the north, to the far east and the far west? It really is absurd. Yet, even so, it is not big enough for the purpose for which the Government claim it is big enough. Allowing for the passage of time, it is a sort of Metropolitan Board of Works over again; and that was created in 1855.
If established, as I have shown, the powers of the Authority are not big enough. Why did this wonderful Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in the terms of reference to the Royal Commission, exclude consideration of merging the Water Board into the Greater London Authority? This is another joint authority. I have sat on it, and it does a good job. But it is over-machined for the job it has to do. Why was it excluded from consideration for such an Authority? And, for that matter, the police were excluded, as well. I frankly confess that I have resisted ideas within the London Labour movement for the municipalisation of the Metropolitan Police. One of the arguments was that the areas would not be suitable, and you would have to break up the Metropolitan Police, which would not be good. We were not fragmentisers as this Government are. But the Government are proposing to make the Greater London Authority substantially similar in area to that of combined Metropolitan and City Police districts. In those circumstances there would not be such a good argument left to resist the Metropolitan Police and the City Police being put under the Greater London Authority. That is a point

185
which has possibly occurred to Ministers and the Home Office.
But when we come to the Greater London boroughs, they are not local government either. Take some of these new borough districts, some in London and some outside. In Middlesex, we have, from Brentford and Chiswick right down to Staines, an area of thirteen miles. Who is going to say that this is more local government, when you live six to eight miles away from your town hall, to which people often turn in case of difficulty? In Essex, there is part of Chigwell, Chingford, Leyton, Waltham-stow, Wanstead and Woodford, with a population of 355,000. This is what they call local government. We want government to be more local.
In Surrey (and, by the way somebody might inquire haw many subscribers to the Conservative Central Office funds live in the County of Surrey; I do not suppose the Chairman of the Party organisation knows, but I gather it is a considerable proportion, and it might be worth his while to find out) there is to be a merger of Caterham and Wanlingham, Coulsdon and Purley and the demoted County Borough of Croydon, with a population of 362,000. In Kent, there is to be a merger of Bexley, Chislehurst and Sidcup, Crayford and Erith, with a population of 253,000. In London, we have a merger of Bethnal Green, Poplar, Shoreditch and Stepney, with a population of 246,000. Some of these boroughs could have been merged with the City of London, if they had wanted the City of London to be a larger area. They want everybody else to have a larger borough boundary. Why not the dear old City? I could make some suggestions, but they would be too startling to be accepted by this Government.
Then there is Hampstead, St. Pancras and Holborn. This is a shot-gun marriage. The late Minister of Housing and Local Government sits for Hampstead. He is a former Leader of the Conservative Opposition on the London County Council. He appointed the Royal Commission, through the Prime Minister, and my recollection is that there was not a single member or supporter of the Labour Party on that Royal Commission. I believe the Chairman, Sir Edwin
186
Herbert, has distinct political views although not of my sort. So Mr. Brooke, the former Conservative leader on the County Council, knew what he was doing. As I have said, this is a shot-gun marriage between Hampstead and St. Pancras. How will Hampstead like being married to the former Red Flag borough of St. Pancras? I wonder they do not feel a little apprehensive about it. Of course, the idea is that there will not be much risk of another Labour majority because Holborn and Hampstead will outweigh St. Pancras. That no doubt is the idea. The City of London has a population of 4,771, and an area of one square mile. And, believe it or not, it is to be called, or it is to be deemed to be, a Greater London borough—one square mile with 4,771 population a Greater London borough! Let the "Greater" be printed in italics so that we do not forget.
Why have the Government enlarged the boroughs? I know. Their major purpose is to abolish the London County Council and Middlesex, too, which has had two Labour majorities, although it is rather a feckless place. I do not object to that, because ours is a free country. The Government probably think, "That is a dangerous place as well. Abolish it." Having established the Greater London Authority, or provided for it, and having determined upon transferring to the boroughs enormous powers, including education, the Government have said we must have bigger borough areas otherwise they cannot discharge these functions at all; and they will not discharge many of them very well in any event. Yet the London County Council and the boroughs agreed in 1955—seven years ago, my Lords—on the transfer from County Hall to the borough councils of maternity and child welfare, day nurseries, and a number of other important health services.
It would have been operative, but who stopped it? Who stopped these increased powers for the metropolitan boroughs? The Government. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government is quite capable of it, and I imagine it was the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The county council and the boroughs agreed about it, and the Government said, No. They may have had the excuse that they were waiting for the Report of the Royal

187
Commission. Moreover, there are some delegated powers enjoyed by the metropolitan boroughs under town planning, and the same is true of the counties around London. So the idea was to cut up London, to abolish London. We used to sing in the war "There'll always be an England", and I want to go on singing "There'll always be a London". I may be a Cockney and a Londoner, but I am entitled to be proud of the place. I have met some Conservative Members of Parliament who have said, "I agree with you, but this is Party politics. Central Office is keen about it, and I cannot very well get in the way". That is a nice state of affairs.
Think of the effects on these out-counties. Surrey will lose 62·6 per cent. of its population, 66·1 per cent. of its rateable value, and 22·4 per cent. of its area. Essex will lose 54·5 per cent. of its population, 58·6 per cent. of its rateable value and 7·4 per cent. of its area. Under this scheme, Kent will lose 30·4 per cent. of its population, 33 per cent. of its rateable value, and 5.6 per cent. of its area. It is going to be very hard for these counties to get on with these severances, these murderous attacks upon their population and rateable value. It may be thought that this is an entirely new idea. It will surprise your Lordships, as it surprised me, to find that evidently this idea of destroying the London County Council and substituting a borough government was in the Conservative Party's mind as long ago as 1894, six years after the Local Government Act, 1888, because London then committed the crime, in their eyes, of returning a Progressive Liberal County Council.
I should like to read an extract from Mrs. Sidney Webb's book Our Partnership. She says of the late Lord Haldane, who had an extraordinary capacity of knowing what all Governments were going to do, whether he was in or out of them, his Party or anyone else's: and I know, because he collaborated with me once to stimulate some opposition to a Bill to save the Tories themselves going in opposition, which was a wise move:
"Grosvenor Road, June 20. 1894—Haldane just been here: says the Unionist Party will make a determined attack on the L.C.C. and
188
an attempt to break London up into separate municipalities."
That was in 1894—and, as we say, there is nothing new under the sun. She goes on:
"That this has been in the mind of Chamberlain, Balfour and Salisbury is clear from their recent utterances. But Sidney"—
that is, Sidney Webb—
"says that it is an impossibility; you could not divest the L.C.C. of the great bulk of its powers though, of course, it would be possible to change its constitution and reinstate the Metropolitan Board of Works. But that would be too much to propose."
This was the beginning of the metropolitan boroughs and this was the idea. But the Progressives had had a tight go at the previous London County election. By the time the Government were getting on the move there had been another County Council election, and the Progressives won a big victory. I am looking to see whether my Liberal friends are here to hear the nice things I am saying about them. Maybe the reason for their absence is the Orpington by-election. That will be another interesting result.
The idea then was to establish the metropolitan boroughs and destroy completely the central authority. So this has been in the mind of the Conservative Party for a long time. They deny the right of the people of London to elect what kind of central authority they like to elect. It is undemocratic. There it is. It has been about for a long time. There was the previous effort of 1894.
I said earlier on that the Government are mad about these schemes. I say now, in the light of the White Paper, that the Government are madder than ever. It really is insane. They have the Blackpool result, and they are in a shaky position. Why do they want to land themselves into all this trouble? At the next General Election, if this thing comes off, I will stump London and we will fight in London to denounce the Government for this piece of political jobbery; and I assure the Party opposite that they will lose votes as a result. It will not matter to your Lordships because we do not stand for election, but it will matter for somebody else. That is what they have to face. The public do not like it.
This is not a popular scheme. After all, it was a big issue at the London

189
County Council elections of 1961, when we won and the Conservatives lost. We have a mandate to oppose the proposals, and therefore I invite Her Majesty's Government to take the scheme away, forget it, or, at any rate, start thinking about it. In 1940 Adolf Hitler sent bombers to destroy London. Owing to the Royal Air Force, the anti-aircraft men and the morale of the people of London, he failed. Hitler tried to destroy London and failed. Now the Conservative Party, for Party political reasons, are trying to destroy the municipality of the Capital City. It is my belief and hope that they will no more succeed than did Hitler.
Moved to resolve, That the proposals in Cmnd. 1562 will not meet the needs of democratic local government of Greater London, and will create administrative difficulties for the counties of Essex, Kent and Surrey.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, it was, of course, clear from the moment the White Paper proposals were put forward that this House would require a full debate on the subject of London Government; and it was inevitable, in view of his long experience, close interest and strong views—which we have just heard—and it was also appropriate, that the burden of introducing the Motion should fall upon the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth.
My Lords, I have risen thus early in the debate for two main reasons. The first is out of courtesy to the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. The noble Lord has held some of the senior offices under the Crown with great distinction, and I think that when a person of his position delivers himself of a speech of the character which he has given us this afternoon he should be answered as soon as is convenient by a member of the Government, although in my case I cannot claim either his long experience of local government or the positions of high authority which he has occupied in the London County Council. The second reason is that I would wish to give to the House before we immerse ourselves, as we must do, in a forest of detail—to some of which the noble Lord
190
has introduced us—some sight of the wood itself; some picture, that is, of the general line of argument which we shall be called upon to pursue and the general area of territory which we shall be called upon to cover.
It is fair to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, to say that he has made it clear from the start that both the Royal Commission Report and the Government proposals are anathema to him. Indeed, I am bound to say that as he spoke I could not help feeling that he would have made a more convincing case to-day had he been able to appear as one who was at least taken to have an open and unbiased mind; but the noble Lord has not, and, indeed, did not pretend to have, an open mind. From the first he has attacked these proposals with a fury which has at times been almost inarticulate. I cannot help feeling that he would have been more effective as a critic if he had managed to appear slightly more relaxed. There are some of us in this House—and I sincerely believe that I am among them—who would wish to arrive at conclusions on this matter based on reason and not on vituperation.
Since the noble Lord has accused us and, as I understood him to do, Members of the Royal Commission of the basest Party motives; of a wicked attempt to destroy London for Party political reasons; of imitating Goebbels and Hitler; of palpable untruths and of a contemptible—he almost said corrupt—plot, I think it is as well to examine this indictment a little more carefully and, so far as I can, a little more coolly, if I may say so.
I could not help regretting the attack upon the Chairman of the Commission. He is a man of very great distinction. He has risen to the head of his profession, having been President of the Law Society. I inquired, since I did not know, from the Conservative Central Office, whether he was known to have any political activities on its behalf, and the answer was that, so far as that Office knew, he had none. It would be fair to say that he is known to me personally, but I do not think this is very much against him. I knew him best as President of the Alpine Club at the time I was serving on its Committee. But perhaps that, too, is evidence of a contemptible, almost of a corrupt, conspiracy

191
between us to destroy the city of London—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Not the "City"—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: —since the offices of the Alpine Club are in the Central London Area within the Administrative County.
The other members of the Royal Commission are equally persons of distinction, who no doubt are entitled to resent charges against their honour. They have performed a public function and have spent a very great deal of time examining the issue. They have declared their own attitude to what I might call the Party political aspect of this matter, and in view of the very serious things that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, with all the authority of a Privy Counsellor and one who has held the highest offices under the Crown, saw fit to make, I feel that I owe it to the Commission, and to your Lordships' House, to indicate, in a sentence or two, what they said about the political aspect of the matter.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The noble Lord has implied that I accused the Chairman of the Commission and the Commission of political jobbery, corruption and has referred to some other adjectives that I used. They were directed to the Conservative Central Office; I did not make the charge against the Commission. All I said was that there was nobody on the Commission with the Labour Party point of view.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: What the noble Lord said is within the recollection of the House. What he was attacking was the findings of the Commission, which in these respects are identical with the Government's proposals, except for two major matters to which I shall refer in due course.
And it was quite plain, both from the noble Lord's utterances to-day and from what he saw fit to say about the Commission's Report before the White Paper, when he called it in this House—and I apologise to your Lordships for the expression—an "abortion". It was quite clear that the charge was that the Conservative Central Office had gerrymandered this Report. This is a charge
192
against the honour of the members of the Commission, and it is fair, therefore, that I should remind your Lordships—I am duty bound to the Commission—exactly what they said about it. Because I think they are entitled to resent the implications and innuendoes of which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has been guilty.
My Lords, the Commission said two things which I think are worth quoting. In paragraph 243 they said:
"We do not conceive it to be any part of our duty to have regard to considerations of party politics."
And they quoted that aspect of the matter in paragraph 250:
"… we have rejected all suggestions made to us that we should consider the political consequences of one form of organisation or another"
A clearer declaration of political integrity it would be hard to imagine. And, my Lords, I say, with respect, that this charge against members of a Royal Commission is unusual and improper. I am bound to say that the noble Lord has not supported it with a tittle of evidence and, when challenged about it, has sought to deny he was making a charge at all.
I now come to the charge against the Government—or the "whipping boy" called the Conservative Central Office. I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, here was guilty of a somewhat peculiar ambivalence. He really ought to make up his mind before he comes down and levels a charge of this nature, whether in fact he is dealing with a devilishly clever Government trying to destroy the London County Council for political advantage and cut up the city of London, or whether he is dealing with a particularly short-sighted and idiotic set of nincompoops who are offending their own supporters in the last Session of Parliament, destroying the financial basis of their subscriptions in the County of Surrey, destroying their support in the outlying counties and rendering themselves liable to lose the next General Election. Either of those charges can be made plausibly against any Government that proposes changes in the local government structure. What is really apparent, however, or would have been apparent had not the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, choked himself into a state of mental incoherence, is that

193
the two sets of charges cannot live together.
I would seek to justify these proposals on grounds other than partisan. It is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, that there are many members of my Party who do not agree with them, and I daresay that on this as on so many other subjects there are many members of the Labour Party who, if the truth were known, do not think they are as bad as the noble Lord would have us believe. The noble Lord's imputation of Party motives to us and to those of us who support this matter must, I must tell him, only give rise to some misgivings as to his own in opposing the White Paper. He is—and, believe me, I intend not the smallest offence to him—because he has held high office so often and so long, himself, the great Panjandrum of the London Labour Party. Is he on this occasion entirely free from the influence of Party? If we are governed, as he says, entirely by the belief that the new proposals will give London a permanent Conservative majority, can it be that his passionate, almost religious, attachment to the status quo of 1888 is partly influenced by the fact that he believes that if London were to be given more or less contemporary boundaries his built-in Labour majority which he has enjoyed for so long as a result of the 1888 status quo would disappear overnight? In charging us with Party motives, as he has done, I could not help remembering when I listened to him the rather absurd story of the man who said to his friend late at night, "You must be drunk; you have two noses".
There are some of us who think with the Royal Commission that the status quo of 1888 can no longer be justified. This is really the answer to all the invective of the noble Lord. No doubt if you once make the assumption, as the noble Lord appears to do, that there is something so holy about the boundaries achieved by the Local Government Act, 1888, that they must be deemed to have descended from Sinai on two tablets of stone, engraved, no doubt, with the words "Administrative County of London" and "The Local Government Act, 1888", respectively, the noble Lord's attitude and his various arguments are perhaps the best he can muster. But there are some of us upon
194
whom it has begun to dawn that London has grown since 1888. With the Royal Commission, we recognise in Greater London a discernible civic unity and shape. We see neither necessity nor sense in preserving a local government structure inherited from much earlier days under which the major services of that unity are administered by six county councils, three county borough councils and three separate systems of local government existing side by side. If this view is taken, and I shall ask the House to say it is the right view, something like the Government scheme is bound to follow.
Of course, much remains to be decided: the size and functions of the boroughs, the exact powers of the central body, the organisation of education. But, basically speaking, a Greater London area with a Greater London Council emerges, and if it be true, as the noble Lord appears to think—I do not know if it is true; Conservative voters are apt to be more volatile than Labour voters in their loyalties, whether that is a criticism of them or not—that the area which corresponds with the contemporary size of London will result politically in a permanent Conservative majority, this is a misfortune to which the noble Lord must in the end learn to accommodate himself with patience, since it can only be because the people of that area are in truth Conservatives.
The truth is that this matter should, I think, be approached from a single point of view, and a rather different one from that which the noble Lord stated. The first question I would ask is whether London is a city or a mere conurbation. And on this issue of whether London is a city or mere conurbation, if he will forgive my saying so, as he has reproached the Government and criticised the motives of the Government, the noble Lord has been at times somewhat strangely ambivalent. In his first review of the Royal Commission's proposals on December 21, 1960, the noble Lord said, with his usual temperateness of language:
"What has my city done to deserve this abortion?"
And to-day he has used not altogether dissimilar, although possibly more moderate, language. But in the same

195
speech the noble Lord said—and this was then the burden of his song:
"This Report really arises out of the existence of what are known as conurbations. Greater London is one of those conurbations but not the only one …"
and he then went on to cite Birmingham, South-East Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire and the West of Scotland, and to argue, with his usual force and enthusiasm, that if you did this to London you would have to produce a series of similar schemes for those other conurbations.
This is the first and perhaps the most fundamental issue between the noble Lord, on the one hand, and the Royal Commission and the Government on the other. To the Commission (and I must emphasise this because it is fundamental to their reasoning) London is not a great conurbation but a city, and being a city it deserves a city government which, under the present arrangements, it does not possess. For all his rhetorical claim that we are cutting up London or that we are denying London the ineffable benefits of the London County Council, for all his rhetoric about local government and democracy, the fact of the matter is that if London is a city the noble Lord would continue to deny to the citizens of London a city government, and the Commission and the Government intend to grant it one. And this point is so fundamental an issue between the noble Lord and the Government that I feel entitled here to quote again three short extracts from the Report itself which emphasise the point. I pause for a moment to remind your Lordships that the Commission's Report was absolutely unanimous.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Naturally.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Naturally, of course, if you make the charge that they were dishonest, as the noble Lord has done, but not if the noble Lord now seeks to say that the charge was never made. The Report says:
"On the whole. London has grown as a single great city, rather than as a 'conurbation', a growing together of important urban centres once separate. There is nothing in the Review Area remotely like, for example, the constellation of county boroughs and boroughs to he found in the West Midlands. The maps which we annex show a growth outward from
196
the centre, at a pace accelerated as transport facilities improved."
"We feel therefore that the boundaries given us do in general define an area recognisable as a city, even though it is a very large one, and we expect the urban character of the whole area to be emphasised rather than diminished in the next fifty years. We have therefore with some substantial modifications (particularly in Hertfordshire) adopted it for the purpose of this Report."
"Greater London within these boundaries, very large though it is, possesses nevertheless a recognisable civic unity and shape, largely because it has grown outwards from a single centre."
It is this point which emerges as the cardinal issue between this side of the House and noble Lords opposite.
It has also emerged with equally stark character, not only from the underlying attitude of the noble Lord but from the evidence given by the London County Council before the Commission. This is how the evidence given by the London County Council was criticised by the Commission in paragraph 178 of their Report, where the Commissioners said:
"The witnesses,"—
that is, the witnesses from the London County Council—
"however, resolutely refused to discuss with us any of the wider issues of the Government of London as a whole, and stuck firmly to the proposition that London and the administrative county of London are synonymous terms and that the London County Council is the Government of London."
If you believe, as we do, that London as a whole remains a civic unity, having grown outwards from the centre, you do not have to label, as the noble Lord appeared to think we were driven to do, the London County Council as incompetent. I make no such charge. What I do say, however, is that it is based on a constituency—namely, the Administrative County of London—which has existed on the Statute Book only from an Act of 1888; and that this is the status quo fundamental which the noble Lord is at such pains to preserve with an almost—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That applies to every other county council in the country.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, I think in a sense it does. I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for making the point. He said, quite rightly, that the charge that I was

197
making against the London County Council was one which could rightly be made against every other county council in the country. But what the noble Lord has really forgotten, and what I must beg the House to remember, because it is vital to an understanding of these proposals, is that the present proposals affecting London are part of a more general review which covers the whole country. When this was decided upon, the whole country apart from Scotland, was divided, for purposes of convenience, between the Royal Commission on Greater London, whose work we are now reviewing, and the Local Government Commissions of the rest of England and Wales, whose labours are still continuing, and the results of which are beginning to emerge. I believe that was a convenient arrangement, and I do not think it was criticised much at the time.
I think we must bear this in mind. The present structure of local government in London and elsewhere dates, as the noble Viscount quite rightly reminded us, from 1888. The last new county borough to be created was, I think, Doncaster, in 1926. The boundaries of the smaller authorities were looked at in the 'thirties. If we are dealing with London in separation from the rest of the country, it is only because the whole problem is too big to be taken at one bite, and what we are doing is part of a greater review which is just beginning to emerge.
But, when they had come to the conclusion, as I must say I invite your Lordships to do, that the Greater London area is a city, albeit one of 840 square miles and having over 8 million inhabitants, it then became necessary for the Royal Commission, and it becomes necessary for Parliament, to consider what sort of government it should have. Here both the Royal Commission and the Government considered that, as a unit for all purposes, the Greater London area was too large. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, made this point himself, and I am happy to say that we are in agreement with him. Greater London would be too remote for an all-purpose local authority, and we, and the Royal Commission before us, therefore opted for, as the primary unit of local government, a collection of urban boroughs—the Royal Commis-
198
sion based them on a population of 100,000 to 250,000, and the White Paper on a population with a minimum of about 200,000.
It is said that these areas are too small, and that the authorities created are too numerous. They are not so small and not so numerous as the 90 subordinate areas which now exist, ranging, from Holborn, which the noble Lord was so anxious to preserve, with a population I think of 20,000, to Wandsworth, which the noble Lord did not mention, with a population of 350,000. They are not significantly smaller than the cities of Coventry and Leicester; and as I heard the noble Lord ranging from one function of local government to another, from the care of old people to child care, to education, he seemed to me to be overlooking the fact that from the point of view of local government, county boroughs all over the country, of approximately this size and under, are carrying out the same services with commendable efficiency. The noble Lord said that one cannot compare the Cities of Leicester or Coventry with a London borough—and the differences are indeed obvious. But from the point of the argument which he was making—that, for instance, in the field of child care there would be an insufficient number of children in care, and that the unit was therefore too small; or, from the point of view of welfare, that the range of services would not be available—that is precisely where one can compare them. I would say that I can conceive of no greater fillip to local democracy than to move them from the London County Council building across the river, many miles sometimes from the area concerned, to 30 or more town halls locally placed and exercising real authority.
The truth, of course, is that, apart from these local services, over a number of vital services nothing will substitute for an authority, in our proposals the Greater London Council, which will represent our city as a whole, think of it as a whole, plan for it as a whole and govern it as a whole. This is precisely what the noble Lord would deny us. It will deal with, above all, land use planning, with the growing congestion and pressure on land—the major schemes of redevelopment, traffic questions (described by the Commission, incidentally, as insoluble under the present machinery), or the

199
planning and construction of the main road system, refuse disposal, overspill housing, fire and ambulance services.
The noble Lord, with a great show of feeling, went on to say that local government was about people. Does he really think that traffic and town planning are not about people? Does he not think that the lives of the young and the old, and even, as he movingly said, the little children, are not affected by town planning and traffic and overspill? These are functions which he would deny us in the city of London.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: What are you talking about? This is "elementary, my dear Watson". The noble Viscount keeps talking about the "City of London". There is a City of London which is a square mile in area. Will he, for heaven's sake!, use his terms with more precision? Do not let him be so shocked by the word "abortion". After all, he is Minister for Science—he ought to know about it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There are a lot of things I know about in science that, quite frankly, I would not express in your Lordships' House. But the noble Lord is only underlining what I was saying. The noble Lord opposite is actually denying to the greater London area the title of "city".
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble Viscount has just made an important pronouncement. I gather that he is telling us that the new Greater London Authority is to be called the "City of London Council", or the "City of London Corporation". Is that right?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was not talking about words; I was talking about facts. I was saying that London is a great city and that I am a citizen of it, and I was pointing out that the whole of the noble Lord's case depends upon a denial of the civic unity. Nine separate authorities govern Greater London, with representatives from Folkestone, Godalming, Harwich and Baldock. And the noble Lord has the nerve to talk about local democracy in this connection, when he would put the fringe areas under such diverse and heterogeneous representatives!
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Who is choking now?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I thought I was not incapable of coherent thought on this matter.
My Lords, the relatively tidy plan of London boroughs under a Greater London Council which has emerged from this discussion came under criticism from the noble Lord last time. Precisely because it was so much tidier than the status quo, the noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 227, cols. 1028–9]:
"I think that behind the Royal Commission's Report there is a passion for superficial tidiness. … In government",
he told us with his usual practical wisdom,
"tidiness is not the only consideration. We ought not to be the slaves of tidiness".
But, my Lords, this criticism gives too little credit to the deep reasoning of the Royal Commission, for the truth is—and here I shall quote them again—that they started from exactly the opposite point of view. And since the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, specifically said they had started from the assumption that the two most important local government functions were traffic and town planning, I think I should quote from their Report, because the truth is that the Commission started from the desirability of a local community's being represented by representatives of that community, and not by people far off.
This is what they said:
"We have, therefore, not approached our task in any spirit of tidy-mindedness. Where a system is working or being made to work our predilection has been in favour of leaving it alone. As we have explained in an earlier chapter, we have approached our task from the point of view of examining each function of local government separately, deciding whether it is being adequately performed, considering whether any inadequacies are due to the machinery of government, and then concluding whether for the proper performance of functions the machinery should be altered. We have only made recommendations for change where we have felt driven to do so in order to provide the machinery necessary, in our judgment, for the solution of London's problems as they are to-day and as far as we can foresee them in the future."
My Lords, it was, in short, an impartial consideration of the evidence, not a contemptible—not to say corrupt—plot, which drove the Commission to the conclusion that the tidier of the solutions

201
which they examined (which appears very largely to coincide with Scheme "A" provided for them by the London School of Economics) should be adopted as the better solution.
Now, my Lords, I want to say only a word or two, since the noble Lord has mentioned it, about education. I mention it specifically, partly out of deference to the noble Lord's speech and partly because it is the second of the two points on which the Government differ from the findings of the Royal Commission. I have no criticism myself of the London County Council apparatus for education. For over 30 years, at any rate during the greater part of my adult life, I have had experience of it as the governor of a technical institute, and for a shorter period—but still a recognisable one—as the governor of a controlled school.
My Lords, the machinery works. I think the officials are enlightened. It seems from the outside—and here I speak from the governors', and therefore, no doubt, also from the parents', point of view (one which perhaps is not quite so obvious to anyone who is actually at the top of administration at County Hall, but, none the less, an important point of view) almost inconceivably impersonal and remote. It is, as the Commission point out, much too much hag-ridden by Party politics. I was a foundation governor of both the institutions I have mentioned. The governorships of schools are souped out by rote to members of Parties as such, rather than to people. There is too much doctrine and too much propaganda. I am bound to say that when the schools came to be evacuated in 1939, some of the country schools seemed to have produced pupils at least as good.
Still, for a thing that size, and by Ministry of Education standards—which are sound administation and educations! standards—the London County Council is a good local education authority, and the Ministry said so to the Royal Commission in the course of their evidence. I should not like to give the contrary impression now, though I am not quite able to swoon with pleasure at the London County Council system to the same extent as the noble Lord.
I must say, frankly, too, that I was not unattracted to the Royal Commis-
202
sion's solution which the Government have in fact rejected. It would have had the advantage of retaining the central planning—and, since my own interest in London education has a technical school bias, it would have had great advantages from the point of view of the technical colleges and polytechnics founded by my grandfather.
The opposite solution, that of the complete devolution to the boroughs, I have never personally regarded as a "runner" within the Central Area. It is not that boroughs of that size cannot run viable education services. Of course they can. From one point of view I believe their administration to be better, because more intimate, than anything so large as the L.C.C. But the fact is that the system which has grown up in the centre around one administration will not fit readily into another pattern—even with "free trade" in pupils and teachers, which, as the noble Lord reminded us, is not always easy, though usually desirable, to attain. The physical locations of the central institutions, the catchments from which pupils are drawn, the patterns in which they are arranged, are, to some extent, functions of London government, and to some of London transport.
The real argument which destroyed the Royal Commission proposal was the failure in the fringe areas of divisional executives and excepted districts—the failure, that is, of the two-tier system in the places where it has been tried. This failure was, in fact, clearly described in the Royal Commission Report; the Government find themselves here in disagreement with the Commission, because they were unable to distinguish between the system thus shown to have failed, and that which the Royal Commission proposed. I have confessed to some personal regrets on this—even to some personal reservations. But among the solutions put forward by the noble Lord the two-tier system was not, of course, to be found. His talisman is the status quo of 1888, and this, I should have thought, was the one cock that will not fight. The end of this chain of reasoning is evidently the Central Authority, and I must say to the noble Lord, if he is still persisting in his charge of Party motives, that if we had in fact been dominated by such motives the

203
Central Area Authority we have proposed is hardly a suggestion we should have made.
My Lords, I turn from education to make one more criticism of the noble Lord's speech, before I go back to more general matters. I do not myself share the noble Lord's dislike of the City of London in its narrower sense of the Corporation of the City of London. Here, again, I could not help wondering whether the aversion of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would have been quite so marked if the members of the Court of Common Council had been notable for their more Socialist convictions. But the truth is, that there is nothing quite like the City of London, in its narrower sense, anywhere else in the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, pointed out that it is quite unthinkable that this particular area could be properly represented, in any circumstances, by the 5,000 people who happen to sleep there. It is, in fact, like other things a community, but one which has grown up with the years into something quite unlike anything else in the world. It has distinct and traditional ceremonial functions which it is well adapted to perform, and practical responsibilities which it happens to discharge very well. I cannot think why the noble Lord would interfere with it, unless he wanted to give the Clerk to the London County Council a fur hat and its Chairman a Sword of State, both of which would be quite inappropriate in a body with the austere traditions of the London County Council. On the lowest level, my Lords, someone in Whitehall impiously remarked that, if we had such a thing still alive as a dodo we would take steps to protect it. More respectful beings like myself say, more politely, that it is a little bit of old England that I should be very sorry to lose.
In view of the noble Lord's attack upon the Commission itself, I will simply content myself with saying this. The Royal Commission spent nearly three years in an examination of local government in Greater London. They held 114 meetings; they took oral evidence at 70 of them; they spent another 88 days visiting the area. They had evidence—written, oral or both—from local
204
authorities throughout the area, from their associations, from Government Departments and from many professional, academic, political and other bodies. I think their Report, for those of us who have read it, shows how exhaustive and how impartial their examination was. They explored every side of their subject, the history of London's growth, the development of its local institutions, its economic, social and physical pattern.
They carried out a thorough examination of each of the main functions of London government, they made a penetrating analysis of the working of the whole local government structure, and of the relations between local government bodies, which play a part in the government of London. I should have thought that no one could have read the Report, whether they agreed with it or not, without being impressed by the profundity of the analysis of the problems which the Commission were charged to examine, and by the clear and logical way in which their recommendations followed from that analysis.
My Lords, the Commission's diagnosis of our problem was as follows:
"The general conclusions which we have stated at the end of each of the previous chapters devoted to some particular function of government will have already made it clear that we have been driven to hold that administratively the present structure of government in the Review Area is inadequate to deal with many of the major problems of the Review Area as they exist to-day and as they are evidently going to develop. The considerations we have set out in the foregoing sections of this chapter have driven us also to the conclusion that the present structure of government in the Review Area is not conducive to the health of representative government. … Where things are working well our inclination is to leave them alone. We do not believe that London's problems can be solved merely by improving the machinery of government. Our inclination is to recommend changes only where they appear to be essential.
"In spite of these predilections the facts we have found to exist and the inferences we feel bound to draw from them drive us to the conclusion that, judged by the twin tests of administrative efficiency and the health of representative government, the present structure of local government in the Review Area is inadequate and needs overhaul."
The advocates of the status quo, those who complain, as the noble Lord has done, that comparatively minor adjustments are all that is needed to fit the structure of local government for the tasks of to-day and the future, must

205
refute those carefully considered conclusions, and the detailed and carefully argued analysis on which they are based. In spite of that, the noble Lord has treated us to a number of intemperate charges against the Government and the Commission, which I am happy to deny, and which he has not attempted to support with a tittle of evidence.
4.26 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, we cannot be unmindful of the complexity of the problems we are discussing this afternoon, with which we are all concerned. I believe that I am, by virtue of my office, a corporation sole, and therefore can claim to be the oldest living Londoner, of some 1,600 years of age. As such we all have our concern for the 8½ million men, women and children who inhabit this great metropolis, who are all affected in different ways by the organisation on which their social associations depend.
What is under discussion, I believe, is what form of local government will help them to the fullest development of their own personalities, so that they may make the most effective contribution to social well-being. It is in this context that I venture to express to your Lordships some of the anxieties which are felt within the voluntary bodies, in the sphere of education. The Royal Commission rightly said that education is among the most important functions of local government. The proposals in the White Paper for education do arouse anxieties, which have been already expressed to the Minister of Education, and in his speech recently in another place he gave assurances, for which the Churches, in particular, are grateful. But the proposals for education are so vague that it is very difficult to form a reasoned judgment upon them, and I believe it is not unreasonable to ask that the points on which we in the voluntary bodies feel concerned should be made explicit as soon as possible, in order that we may have a considered judgment.
My Lords, there are, it is generally accepted, four partners in the ever-increasing task of education: the State, in its central and local expression; the Churches; the parents, and the teachers. And possibly there is also a fifth partner—so often overlooked—the children and the students who are the object of the
206
exercise. From the educational point of view, we have to ask ourselves how far the proposals in the White Paper, so far as they can be understood, help each of these partners to be more effective in his partnership.
First of all, what of the Churches? The Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Jewish Board of Education have since 1944 embarked upon large and expanding schemes for their share in education, and in spite of the generous grants from the Ministry of Education, particularly since 1959—for which we are most grateful—the voluntary bodies are committed to large capital expenditure. They have built and are building new schools, and enlarging and modernising old schools in accordance with development plans worked out in close co-operation with the existing educational authorities. But these development plans have not taken into account the possibility of the existence of the new county boroughs as local education authorities, as is envisaged in the White Paper. We are therefore bound to have a concern whether the development plans will continue to be operative when some thirty authorities, instead of three, are involved. Will a new development plan be required to be drawn up with each new local education authority; and can the voluntary bodies proceed with their school-building programmes, which have been drawn up both on a short-term and a long-term basis?
The new voluntary schools, and especially the matching secondary schools established under the 1959 Act, with the help of the existing local education authorities, whose very close co-operation and assistance we are only too ready to acknowledge, have been sited to fit in with the transport facilities so as to allow the maximum freedom of parental choice, and there is no doubt that they could be seriously affected by the new educational boundaries. In terms of the new boroughs alone, some would have no Church of England grammar schools; some would have no Roman Catholic grammar schools; some would have denominational schools for boys but not for girls, and some would have denominational schools for girls but not for boys. In other words, a plan which has been devised by the Churches, in association

207
with the local education authorities, to be, so far as possible, a balanced, comprehensive plan, might be in danger. From some figures I have seen produced by the London County Council, it would appear that, of over 34,000 pupils who entered secondary schools in the London County Council area in September, 1961, 25 per cent. were admitted to secondary schools outside the proposed new London boroughs in which they live; and it is not unreasonable to assume that a very considerable proportion of that 25 per cent. were admitted to denominational schools, which recruit from very wide areas.
It is unthinkable that the new voluntary schools, erected at vast cost to the State and the Churches, should in some cases become redundant and have to be replaced on new sites. Equally, it is unthinkable that the freedom of parental choice should be reduced by the new arrangements. The Minister of Education has repeatedly emphasised his determination to preserve and improve the variety of choice for children and parents; and, in a sense, the White Paper recognised this in its provisions for a central London education authority.
But we are concerned about the ways in which this freedom of choice could be preserved. It could be done only by complex arrangements between the boroughs about extra-district charges, which themselves are difficult and complicated, as the Minister of Education's Manual of Guidance in the Choice of Schools has shown. As I read that not altogether lucid document, I could find many reasons why a new borough, as a local education authority, could claim that an unreasonable expenditure of money was being involved in travelling expenses for children who, on denominational grounds, wished to go to secondary schools outside their own area. I appreciate that the Minister himself has recognised this difficulty and has given assurances which we in the voluntary bodies respect and welcome. But we would urge that the complicated arrangements that will be necessary should be worked out fully in advance and not left until after the proposals have been brought into force, if they are brought into force.
My Lords, there is more involved here than just the question of denominational
208
schools. We should all agree that what is necessary is that parents should take more interest, and not less, in the details of their children's education; and this must involve for them a full freedom of choice between schools and courses. We shall all agree that nothing is more necessary than that students themselves should have available to them the widest possible variety of courses and schools. Inter-borough arrangements of a very far-reaching and flexible nature will be essential if the existing freedoms of choice and variety are not to be diminished from the position which they occupy in the London of to-day. In fact, after a fairly long experience in educational administration, I myself question whether an education authority serving a total population of only 200,000 can provide the variety of schools, courses and institutions of further education which modern circumstances demand.
But there is another point to which I must refer. It is at least possible that the new proposals might produce single-school areas where they do not now exist. In the negotiations which led up to the 1959 Education Act, much reference was made to single-school areas as a real cause of grievance and hurt of conscience on the part of the Free Churches. Since 1959, the Church of England and the Free Church Federal Council, associated in their Joint Educational Policy Committee, have worked together with a quite splendid identity of purpose to remove any causes of grievance. The Joint Educational Policy Committee, of which I have the honour to be the chairman, has shown a capacity to understand these difficulties and to deal with them; but it would be tragic if, at a time when we have got rid of most of the problems, further problems of this nature should be created for us. I would therefore again express the hope which has been expressed in another place: that the Churches will be consulted in advance about the details of arrangements for inter-borough planning on education if the proposals in the White Paper are implemented.
The proposals will involve many consequential changes, which perhaps are not the concern of your Lordships' House. They may involve alteration in diocesan boundaries—and I can assure your Lordships that the heat engendered

209
by a proposal to change diocesan boundaries is not much less than that engendered by a proposal to change local government boundaries. In the Diocese of London we shall certainly find that we shall have to re-draw the boundaries of our archdeaconries and rural deaneries. This is not, of course, an argument against changes in local government areas, but it is a factor of which we should not lose sight. Moreover, in the sphere of religious education we have other minor problems which have to be faced and which must be considered in advance. For instance, shall we have to draw up 30 new agreed syllabuses of religious instruction? As the Act stands, it might be necessary. Will the articles and instruments of government of every aided secondary school and primary school have to be re-drawn? I am advised that, legally, it is possible that this may be necessary. These, again, though they are not essentially difficult questions, raise complicated administrative problems, and our submission on the side of the voluntary bodies is that thought must be given to them in advance. We are, indeed, most concerned about the vagueness of the White Paper on these details of educational administration.
It may be, my Lords, that the time has come for some radical change in the local government of Greater London. But I do urge that, so far as education is concerned, as one of the major functions of local government, the whole question of inter-borough planning of education, not least as it will affect denominational schools and parental choice, should be worked out in advance if difficulties are not to be created, and if the happy partnership between the Church, the State and the local authorities in education is not to be in any way affected.
4.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say at once to the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London how much I have enjoyed listening to his, I think, very fair comments on and criticism of this matter; and, with him, I hope very much that his complaints about at least the present vagueness of the references in the White Paper to those matters of great importance to which he has
210
referred will be met by the Government. I hope that they will take very great notice of what he has said. I am happy to know that the problem of the single-school area is receiving such joint attention from the Church of England and the members of other denominations, including my own; but I must say that I wish we had not been left quite so high and dry in the choice of religious educations for our own children as the movements in regard to denominational schools have left us. However, I am very glad to know good fellowship is prevailing in tackling the problem.
My intention to-day is to deal almost exclusively with something in which I have a particular interest. I am a resident in, and a ratepayer of, Essex; and I spend a great deal of time with my daughter in another borough affected by this scheme, the Borough of Enfield, which apparently is being calmly sacrificed by one of its sitting members, who is the Leader of the House of Commons and the Chairman of the Conservative Party. They are the two things that interest me most.
Before I get down to those particular problems, may I say that I support my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth in every word that he has uttered this afternoon, and I congratulate London upon having such a capable and adequate representative to put the case for the existing administration of London to this House of Peers. I have never heard a case better proved. I have never heard a case more reasonably stated, and I do not think he has uttered any more hard words than the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House would generally approve of in these political warfares. At any rate, when I think of the noble and learned Viscount's comments upon some of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I am quite prepared to go back a few years in my political memories to see how debates of this sort were engaged in, not only on the House of Commons but also on the public platform.
We are all very great admirers of, indeed we have an affectionate regard and love for, Winston Churchill. But I do not think that he ever pulled any punches when he was dealing with a Party which he thought was interfering

211
with principles which he was especially wanting to promote. If we compare the language of my noble friend this afternoon with regard to this matter and the comments of Mr. Winston Churchill (as he was then) upon the Tory Party, we find it was comparatively mild. I can remember, word for word, what Mr. Winston Churchill said:
"The Tory Party is a Party of vested interests, with corruption at home and aggression abroad to cover them up; with dear food for the millions and cheap labour for the millionaires; with sentiment by the bucketful, and patriotism by the Imperial pint".
Is there anything more likely to be criticised than that kind of political language, compared with what my noble friend has uttered this afternoon? I wonder why it was, after charging my noble friend with having engaged in a sort of choking exercise, he should himself have become so excitable and choked about the matter before he got very far in his speech. At any rate, this is a great and serious matter, and I do not think that in dealing with such a serious subject we need to bother too much about language. If we feel very deeply about how the proposed changes have been brought to the stage of being a White Paper recommendation, then I think we must be allowed to speak as if we do feel deeply.
If you are going to think about implying motives, then let me say that I have never been free in all my political life from being charged with having political motives, and I do not see why the members of the present Government should be so upset because we are apt to prove now and again that they have very strong political motives. If we think of the plight of the London County Council in trying to deal with the housing situation of London, and of the 3,000-odd homeless in London alone, as the result of the rent policy of the man who used to lead the Conservative Opposition in the London County Council, I do not think we can be very far out in thinking about political motives being behind proposed legislation of this kind.
I was a servant of a county council in the country for nearly twenty years. I have seen county council administration, and I recognise the values which came to the local populations from such Acts as, say, the 1888 Act, and also
212
from the Technical Education Act, which came within a few months after the other, a very important Act. Or there was the Act of 1902, to which Nonconformists like myself raised very strong objections with regard to the amount which had to fall on the State for the maintenance of buildings at that time, and after that for the erection of buildings, for particular sects and churches.
I must say that since 1888 county councils have performed a unifying service, and a more efficient service because of the area to be covered, than was expected at the time, and I believe that their work will stand up. However, during my time with the county council staff I must say that one of the principal problems was how to defend the administrative county concerned against the depredations of people who wanted greatly to expand the boundaries of cities or boroughs within their geographical county, and to make the additional area part of those particular boroughs or cities. These proposals are the reverse of that, so far as I can see. They make me think of some of my religious thoughts and opinions which I express sometimes about the Reformation. I think some of the actions of our people to-day are like the Reformation in reverse. This, in my view, is what we are doing in the case of London: we are putting great and productive reformations in local government and education, which have now been on the Statute Book for years, very largely into reverse, and seeking to make it more difficult for true social democracy to function in local political democracies in municipalities and counties.
I should like to turn from that matter to say a word or two about Essex and about Enfield. I was reminded by my noble friend just now that Essex is not at all unconnected with how he described Middlesex. Essex has on more than one occasion had a Labour majority on its county council. It does not matter how we look at it; the result of the change which the Government propose to make for Essex will mean that Essex will hardly ever have an opportunity to gain a Labour majority again—and the Government know that. If we take the case of Middlesex, the same thing applies. The harm that is being done

213
to Essex in other ways is quite extraordinary.
I do not know what political pressures could have been brought by the Conservative Central Office on these counties since the Government's report in the White Paper came out. But I look at my County of Essex, and at the long and very detailed statement which was issued to all Members of the House of Commons on February 15. Something has happened since then, for the complete, or near complete, unity on the Essex County Council between the parties in relation to the submissions made to Members of the House of Commons on the White Paper on March 6 turned tail; and although they have not withdrawn all their criticisms, they are not opposing this Scheme on the basis before us. I should think the same sort of operation has gone on in connection with Kent; but I believe there has been some pretty quick and heavy pressure brought to bear from the Tory Party Headquarters to see that what looked like an almost solid phalanx of five counties against the scheme would he broken up.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: They may control the Government, too.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Having said that, let me make the main point that I want to put on behalf of Essex. The Essex County Council say that what is proposed is a new form of regional government. My noble friend has already said that this proposal is going to destroy the best elements of local government. It will no longer be local, but regional government. That is the case put by Essex County Council. The new regional authority is to cover nearly 9 million people—8½ million, certainly—one-sixth of the population of England and Wales in one organisation, and the rateable value of the area will be one-third of the rateable value of the whole of England. This "local" government, this "municipal" government, is surely an amazing piece of organisation. In the course of his speech my noble friend gave figures which show that the new authorities covering Essex and Surrey are robbing these counties, in the one case, of about 60 per cent. and, in the other case, of well over 50 per cent. of their populations. In the case of my
214
own county, we shall be losing 55 per cent. of our rateable value, with all the administrative tasks to remain in the county.
The noble and learned Viscount does not seem to appreciate the point that I am putting, but he must remember that I understand every stage of local government work. I used to be secretary of a county branch of the National Association of Local Government Officers. These counties, with diminished resources, will have the same tasks to carry out and the same staffs to maintain, and at the same time will have increased responsibilities, because they will remain the dormitory counties for London. Not only that; they will be setting up new estates and new towns in order to relieve the population problems of London, so they will continually be increasing their responsibilities and liabilities, but with greatly diminished resources. I do not believe that the Government have yet given anything like full consideration to that aspect.
The alternative plan which was originally put forward by the five counties was dismissed by the Government unfairly. It was not given adequate consideration or fair statement. When the Government scheme in its present form is brought into operation, it will dislocate the county services. I do not know what measures will be taken for the introduction of the new scheme. We know so little about what the Government have in mind. So we are bound to fall back on our administrative and local government experience. Will it take twelve months, two years or three years? The Government have first to face the problem of finding the staffs for the completely new regional authorities, and many of the people who would naturally be chosen to go there are wanted on the staffs of the authorities which are to be robbed of their present status and reduced in their resources. The dislocation may be met in one way or another, of course, but it is giving all the counties concerned grave anxiety.
I had intended to say a good deal about the effect of the scheme on education, but the case has been put so well by my noble friend and by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London that there is no need for further comment by me. But I am quite persuaded of this: that if we are going

215
to divide the area which has been organised so excellently by the L.C.C. Education Committee into a large number of split-up units, we shall not get the same education for the same cost. It will add to the burden to be met by the ratepayers, and, as my noble friend said—and he was supported in this by the right reverend Prelate—it will limit the choice of parents of schools for their children. We oppose the scheme very strongly on that basis also.
Does not the noble and learned Viscount feel that it is very strange that on such an important matter as this the White Paper contains nothing about finance? What is there for the ratepayers who vote regularly in their local elections to go upon to judge the action of the Government? What is there by way of firm forecast of how this is likely to affect them financially? Nothing at all. The electorate has never been consulted. The matter was put before them only when it was made an issue at the recent election in London, in which the Government side was hopelessly defeated. That is an extraordinary thing. The people who are now asking questions about finance in other areas must feel very hot under the collar. A lot of extra charges are going to be made. In Essex, it is estimated that the rates would go up almost immediately. They would go up 3s. in the pound because of the expenses arising from the take-over alone, and there would be further increases because of the additional services which will have to be met and which will be thrown entirely on a reduced area with a reduced rateable value. I think that when this position is made widely known throughout the country, it certainly will not redound to the credit of the Government.
It is argued that people will be closer to the town halls, which will be promoted by the break-up of the present local government administration. The town halls will be easier to get at. The Essex County Council are strongly of opinion that there can be no great advantage to be got from this. There are town halls in the boroughs now, where there are a great many local services. If the advantages obtained in education and from other London administrative programmes and work are taken into
216
consideration, there is no great comfort in saying that people will be able to deal with all that by travelling to a town hall, which is not their local town hall but a new one to be set up in a much enlarged borough. They will have to travel miles to do it at far greater expense, whereas we had a system running under which there was collaboration between the London County Council and the local borough authorities so that they shared services between them.
I want to say now that the position arises, since this changed decision of the Tory-majority County Council in Essex, that they do not now attack the scheme as a whole; but I also want to point out that they are still very much against some parts of it. I want to plead for a better share of the resources which will enable the administrative County of Essex to perform its duties by retaining within the county certain boroughs all of which wish to remain in the administrative county.
I dare say the boroughs which are concerned in these schemes will not always take exactly the same view, depending on their geographical position and the like, but I say, from information I have had in answer to questions I have put, that there are at least five boroughs which are at present to be hoisted out of Essex but which individually want to remain in the administrative County of Essex. Speaking from memory, I would say that those five are Barking, Dagenham, Chigwell, Romford and Chingford; and they have a population between them of nearly 400,000. With the rating resources they have, they want to stay in Essex, because they do not accept what is stated in quite a general phrase in the White Paper of the Government that all the people in such places regard themselves as Londoners. They do not. Great masses of them are locally employed. You can go to Dagenham or to Romford and see their local industries, and the number of the people who are completely at home in their citizenship of the administrative County of Essex: their housing, their employment, everything is there. It is no good blandly to state in a phrase of the White Paper that they are all Londoners; it simply is not true All these five boroughs, in the case of Essex, want to

217
remain in the administrative county. I suggest to the Government that they ought to take this point into consideration and, so far as possible, grant the wishes of the local ratepayers and citizens.
If the Government are going on with the scheme as a whole, county councils would very much like to know in advance what they pledge in regard to financial support. Is there any prospect of that? The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is going to reply to the debate. What is he going to pledge? I look at my County of Essex (I live near Colchester) and we have some excellent educational institutions. But we are now going to have a university, for which a site has been secured between Colchester and Wivenhoe, with all the expenses involved. This will mean very heavy charges, and the expected influx of population in quite a number of places in order to relieve the population of London, about which either agreements have been made or negotiations are proceeding, will add further cost for general social services, from education to old age. I fear very much for the future of the rating of Essex unless we can get some pledges. At present we have absolutely nothing to go on. One matter which has been pointed out to me by local councillors is that there is no real scheme of what I might call long-term compensation for the damage done to the whole machine and the future prospects of the particular administrative county. I should be glad if a word could be said about that in the reply.
There is one other thing they say about the Green Belt. I did not gather the noble and learned Viscount to say much about this but my noble friend certainly mentioned it. What we have had in Essex and in certain other of the counties contiguous to the administrative County of London are gradual steps forward in maintaining the Green Belt, because there has been an agreement as to actual siting in different places. What we want to see established for Essex is that there will be no interference whatsoever, by the passing of the Green Belt under other administration than it is under now. Can that be secured? They want the Green Belt as it exists in Essex to remain a part of Essex. That part which exists at present in the administrative County of London
218
—if they have any part of the Green Belt in that administration—let it stay there; we do not want that interfered with. There is not a word in the White Paper to give me any hope about this, but I would ask that it should be particularly considered.
I come now to Enfield. Here the Government are paying not only great respect but prostrating themselves almost flat out in obeisance to the City of London and its traditions. I do not know that I should criticise this, because I am a Liveryman and Freeman of the City of London, and I am as proud of its traditions and history as anybody else. But does that apply only to the City of London? I wonder what the Member for Enfield, West, who is the Leader of the House of Commons, thinks about this plan. Does he think there is no tradition in Enfield? Enfield has great traditions. Edward VI was in the Tudor Palace at Enfield when he was notified of his accession to the Throne. There is a great deal of other tradition about Enfield, not only in the matter of royalty and law, but also in education. I should think that the name of Dr. Uvedale, the great Cambridge scholar, who was a product of the Enfield Grammar School and went back there to be the headmaster and was also a very noted figure in botanical science, adds a great deal to the educational lustre of Enfield. Well, it has borough status; it is just beginning to reach the point when it would normally, under ordinary local government law, be ready for county borough status. But the Member for Enfield, West is doing his best to destroy that hope. I say that the manner in which this matter is being dealt with, dividing up Enfield to push all West Enfield, a Tory constituency, into one direction, and the Labour one into the other, is just splendidly providing opportunities—along the two lines of demarcation—for certain territories to be made permanently Conservative, so far as that can be done. It is therefore no use for the noble and learned Viscount to complain about the language my noble friend used.
There is a great objection from the Urban District of Cheshunt, which is in Hertfordshire, to the manner in which this is being pushed into the same sort of relation. I may point out to my noble friend that the council in Enfield is a

219
Labour council, and the general situation there does not leave me any less disturbed about the matter. I would put it this way. We all have our secret sins, I expect, but in the Conservative Tory Headquarters I should think that a little gerrymandering leads to a little thought as to how they should go about their business. We suspect this. From things that have happened in the past we might also say that we expect it.
I beg the Prime Minister, who set up this Royal Commission, not to be too proud to think again. I do not think it would lose him great public regard. I ask him to think about it again. Out of all the attacks that my noble friend was making—and I think rightly making—the noble and learned Viscount concentrated, apparently, on an inference that he had lodged a special attack on the political side upon the members of the Royal Commission. That is not so. I sat right alongside listening to my noble friend, and he certainly had not that intention. But he was perfectly right to challenge the manner in which the Royal Commission was set up, how it was chosen, how it called its witnesses, and who they were. Who were the great people of experience of local government on the Commission? Would the noble and learned Viscount tell me? There was a learned professor from Manchester who was a Professor of Government. Who was the experienced person of local government otherwise on the whole Commission? Whom did the Royal Commission choose to consult?
Does the noble and learned Viscount think that if one or two people experienced in local government, both on the Conservative and Labour side, had been appointed they would have been anything but reasonably impartial in that Royal Commission? If they did not wholly agree—well, a Minority Report has never hurt anybody yet, has it? We regard this Royal Commission as having been, maybe not in intent but in its operations, insufficient to avoid a charge that it was not properly set up and reporting, because you did not go to the best sources for your information or your judgment—neither one nor the other. If you had wanted somebody to go along and give them some advice on the actual machinery of local government in London—and my noble friend will not mind my
220
saying this—would not Lord Morrison of Lambeth have been able to do it? Do you think he would not have been reasonably impartial in any evidence he was asked to give? No, you do not think of things like that.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked me a question. I attribute many virtues to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but impartiality on this subject is not one of them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have known my noble friend a great number of years, and on a question of principle in the matter of government I have always found him to act impartially, in the interests of the country. I do not think you can find any outstanding example of an act of his that differs from that—not one. If you can, get up and mention it and I shall be glad to deal with it. But certainly the Royal Commission was insufficient in its capacity upon all these matters to enable it to give a sound and a wise judgment. And even the Government themselves have had to find that it did not go far enough to please their aspirations and desires, and so they have gone further. I leave it at that. As I said at the beginning, I support my noble friend up to the hilt.
5.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition has drawn to the forefront of your Lordships' minds again the actual Report of the Royal Commission. Since Her Majesty's Government have, I am glad to say, accepted all but two of its recommendations, it is inevitable that this debate should centre very largely upon what that Report has said. It is also fortunate that your Lordships need not rely solely upon the aspersions of partiality which I quite clearly remember having been cast by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and the other criticisms just made by the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition. Your Lordships need not rely solely on those views in order to evaluate what attention should be paid to the conclusions of the Report and the reasons which led up to them.
Your Lordships will have read the Report, and I feel sure that many of you,

221
at any rate on this side of the House, will feel, like me, that it is inspired and inspiring; and being, as the Report itself says, the first full view of the subject which has been taken since 1832, it fully and absolutely fulfils the duty for which the Commission felt themselves responsible, that is, to make a complete and thorough survey of the whole plan.
In their conclusions the Royal Commission pointed to several major problems, all of which, so far as I can make out this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, burked completely. He did so, as far as I can see, for one reason, and one reason only; and that is, that he followed the line taken by the County Council for which he is the protagonist, when they gave evidence before the Royal Commission, He considered London as consisting of nothing but the administrative county, and disregarded altogether the fact that there are other things outside the administrative county which also deserve sympathy and require to be dealt with.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: If that is the line being taken, I think I might say this. The actual Report is not very far apart from the evidence given by the Conservative Municipal Society to the Commission.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No doubt that is a great source of pain to the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: No, a source of amusement, as proving my case.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Your Lordships can judge for yourselves. For myself, I accept the good faith of the Commission, and I also accept their fundamental point which has already been put to your Lordships by my noble and learned friend who leads the House. They saw Greater London as a single unity, and they saw it as possessing problems which disregard the totally artificial boundaries which now dissect it, and which require a larger solution than that apparently ever produced by any of the present authorities within it.
Your Lordships will also be able to take refuge in the thought that that Commission was wide enough and wise enough to be able to take cognisance
222
of the fact that certain evidence, such as that given by the London County Council, was slanted, either for tactical or for political reasons. Where they found that to be the case, they did not disregard the evidence as valueless: they managed to transcend the political or tactical view point, and to put it in its proper perspective and find out how it could contribute to a solution of the problem as a whole.
Nevertheless, the Commission found that the parochial attitude which has for a long time bedevilled this subject was still very much alive, and I am delighted to find that Her Majesty's Government have managed to reject the purely parochial attitude and are looking at this matter as a whole. And if the parochial attitude is being mentioned, are not those who insist now in dealing with this problem on a purely local wavelength following very closely in the footsteps of the vested interests who in, I believe, the 1830s so persistently refused to contemplate the municipal borough reorganisation? And are they not following in the footsteps of those who about a century ago refused to contemplate a wider designation of the City of London and all that that would at that stage have meant for advantage?
The White Paper and Royal Commission put forward a solution to these basic problems in the form of a dual combination of authorities. For the essential overall matters they said that there should be a Greater London Council and that for the more local, personal services there should be Greater London boroughs with sufficient powers. The criticism that has been made against the Greater London Council is that it is not local, that it is not local government in any sense or form. Of course it is not local government, if by that is meant parochial government, because it is covering an area which does not deal with parochial problems. It is bound to deal with wide and important problems affecting, perhaps, a very much larger area than many other local authorities. That is one of the problems with which it has, in fact, to deal. I entirely agree with my noble friend who leads this House that they do not suffer from the defect that they do not deal with people. Planning and transport are matters which directly concern the people of the Greater London area.

223
In the sphere of building, the Report says that between 1948 and 1958, 44·4 million square feet of office space was permitted in Central London. No doubt some of that was rebuilding, but your Lordships will be able to conceive of something of the problem that that presents in terms of commuting. So far as traffic is concerned, if your Lordships have read items 14 and 15 at the back of the Royal Commission's Blue Book the sad history of the Narrow Street Bridge in Stepney and Hammersmith Flyover, your Lordships can have no doubt whatever that the machinery which allows that state of affairs to carry on is utterly and totally inadequate.
So far as overspill is concerned, is it a very cheerful prospect that in Middlesex the County Council and the county district councils quarrel so passionately that they have been quite unable to agree on any site for the construction of a new town outside Middlesex? Nor is it very elevating in the London County Council area to find the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs squabbling over rare sites for housing which the London County Council want but Which are the only ones available to the metropolitan boroughs concerned because they have no powers to build outside their own boundaries. Is that a very elevating prospect?
The present system of refuse disposal is quite inadequate, and I think that, fortunately, this is one thing that few people have denied. Again, few people have denied the immense worth that would come with the intelligence department which is to be set up and which must help in the solution of a great number of problems. Perhaps those are not parochial problems, but if they are not dealt with by the Greater London Council, who is to deal with them? They can be dealt with only by a central government in one form or another, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, admitted; and if anybody thinks that that is local government that seems to me a strange concept.
On the other hand, where services can be administered locally, in the Greater London boroughs, everything possible is done by this scheme to ensure that that will be done; and such, indeed, is now
224
the case with education, at least for some of the boroughs. Is all that to be overlooked when the Greater London Council Is examined? Here is the concomitant of the Greater London Council with direct local government in that borough, local government, moreover, of a type which as nearly as possible will be the equivalent of county borough status, which is exactly the sort of thing that boroughs like Enfield, mentioned by the noble Viscount, have been hankering after for years. What more direct or local form of government can be provided than that? What is more likely to stir interest in local government, in the minds both of the public and of the councillors who administer it, than that sort of greater responsibility which will be given them under this scheme? I must say that it astonished me to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, say that he does not think that these boroughs will fulfil these duties very well. It does not seem to me that he has much trust in some of the people who will have to be dealing with the situation.
No doubt there are difficulties. The noble Viscount who leads the Opposition has mentioned the financial side. It is true that Surrey is in a slightly worse position even than Essex, for which he spoke. They will lose, so far as I can make out, 61 per cent. of their population and 66 per cent. of their rateable value. It has, however, apparently escaped everybody's notice that if they lose that, presumably they will lose, too, a very great deal of the expenditure on which the rates now go.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will forgive my interrupting him. Would he recognise that, with this loss, Surrey will be losing urban industrial areas, leaving an imbalance of the rural, which cost the most to develop?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: Not entirely. They will still have a considerable number of urban areas, such as Woking and Guildford. But, in any case, Paragraph 52, I think, of the White Paper provides some solution upon which I hope the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will, if he can, expand later. There should be some form of mitigation of any serious situation which arises as a result of this plan.

225
Other financial quibbles have been raised, and one of them is over the matter of the general grant. It is said that, as a result of this reorganisation, the London Area will lose £5 million in general grant in the course of the year. I should again be grateful if my noble friend Lord Jellicoe could say whether this is not simply a matter of a formula for the application of the general grant which can, if necessary, be put right, as also can the matter of rate equalisation, if that is found to cause a problem.
Then there is the problem of the administrative staff of the various authorities concerned. From a personal point of view, I have great sympathy with those who feel that there are going to be difficulties. There are, no doubt, two categories. People like town clerks, of whom there will be too many, and also no doubt people like children's officers, of whom, in the first instance, there are bound to be too few. In the first category, what is going to happen to them? Will they receive compensation? In the second category, are the recruitment prospects good enough to make sure that no serious dislocation will take place in the new government authorities that are to be set up? I must say that, if I have spympathy with the staffs of some of these authorities, I have very little sympathy with the approach that has been made by the staff of at least one of the local authorities concerned, not on transfer matters, which would be quite understandable, but on a matter of policy and on a matter of broader issues. If the staff do not trust their own authority to protect them on this matter it is a sorry state of affairs.
None the less, there are, of course, wonderful services being administered within these areas, and it will be tragic if fine teams are broken up to such an extent that the services may deteriorate. I hope that Her Majesty's Government have this point very closely in mind when they envisage what I suppose is bound to happen—that is, the farming out of some of the staffs among the new authorities.
To be fair to the London County Council, since they gave evidence to the Royal Commission they have expanded their field of vision slightly, and they have joined in what is now known as the Surrey Plan, which is the wider Board
226
to consider the broader aspect of this problem. It seems to me that this is the only serious alternative that is in the running, and I should like for a moment to look at that alternative plan, because so much faith has been placed upon it by the antagonists to the Government scheme. What immediately strikes me is that it suffers from that chronic fault which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, criticised so much, in that it would be a Joint Board; and it is remarkable that he places so much faith in so despised an organisation. Nevertheless, if it is purely consultative—which I believe it is not—it is unlikely, I believe, to be very effective. On the other hand, if it has executive powers it is going to add a third tier to the existing structure of local government which cannot but result in even worse confusion.
Secondly, I very much doubt whether the Board would be adequate. I think that it would be too big; and there is grave danger—as indeed the Herbert Commission themselves pointed out—that each of the constituent authorities on it will tend to look at the problems through their own county blinkers and will be unable to see the broader point of view. Nor does it seem to me to eradicate the grave disadvantages inherent in the present system. It does nothing to stop the state of what appears to be near-civil war in Middlesex between the district councils and the County Council. It does nothing to increase the status and responsibility of the metropolitan boroughs, and the only thing the London County Council are able to offer is some tinkering with powers, which must be agreed exclusively between the metropolitan boroughs and the County Council themselves without any outside interference. I feel it is a totally inadequate alternative for the grave situation which I believe exists to-day.
On the other hand, my Lords, I believe that this alternative may have a germ of good in it. For there is no doubt that some sort of broader regional planning of things like the Green Belt, traffic, commuting and overspill is overdue in the South-East of England, and it might be that some such organisation, could be set up, in an advisory capacity, to review of the whole of the South-

227
Eastern area. That would, I believe, be of great advantage to planning authorities in the area. But if that were to happen, one important voice on it, in fact the most important voice, would be that of London; and it should be that of London speaking through the Greater London Council, and not through a collection of separate county boroughs, county councils and so on.
Finally, the question which everybody desires answered is the question: is this volcanic upheaval really necessary? This has been put in two ways. One of them was put, if I may paraphrase him, by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in December, 1960, when he asked: Is it worth while walking into this highly contentious and difficult proposition? Is it worth while to involve ourselves in all the fighting in Parliament and the fighting with the existing local authorities? The other way it is put is by the Surrey County Council, in their scheme about which I have just spoken. They say: These drastic steps are justified only if such an overwhelmingly strong case for change is established that the results, from the public's point of view, would produce with reasonable certainty more effective local government than that given to-day, and only, moreover, if no other proposals of a more limited character would enable the necessary improvement to be made.
Noble Lords have already quoted the parts of the Royal Commission's Report which deal with their answer to these questions, or at any rate the second question. I should like to quote only one more. They say, in paragraph 672:
"We have in preceding chapters reached the conclusion that with the exception of some of the environmental health services none of these major functions can be discharged best by the local authorities which exist under the present structure of local government, and that some of them cannot be adequately discharged at all under the present structure."
I accept that position and I accept that, although the existing local authorities have on the whole been doing their best, although there have been criticisms of them, they are no longer adequate. And I am therefore convinced that if, in Lord Morrison of Lambeth's terms, fighting there must be, let there be battle. And I applaud Her Majesty's Government on the way they have accepted this Report.
5.35 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Viscount who has just sat down for what I think the House would recognise was an admirable speech, at any rate from the point of view of Her Majesty's Government? This has been rather an exhilarating debate. My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth did not hide his hatred, his bitterness of the Government measures. Taking out the political charges that he made, I thought he made a devastating case against the general proposals of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Viscount who leads the House, I thought, in face of great provocation kept his head very cool, at least as cool as we have seen it.
The noble Viscount certainly came to the aid and assistance of the City of London. He spoke of its great virtues. My noble Leader also spoke, I think it was, of Enfield. I would remind the House of Kingston, a city of ancient kings, the capital of Surrey. Is it to be protected in the same way as the City of London? No. It is to be dragged out of its county and it is to be brought into what the Government regard as a crowd of Londoners. I find it hard to see how the Government make the case for the City of London but forget Kingston.
These proposals of the Government based on the White Paper have met with very considerable objection. There is an objection from the London County Council which the Government could write off as being of a political implication. But the objections come from other fields. To-day, I understand that the local medical committee of the County of London, who represent nearly 3,000 practitioners, have placed on record their very serious objections to the Government's proposals. They make one point which I think is worth considering. It is that infection and disease do not recognise any boundaries; and they fear that the boroughs that are being set up will be so watertight that there may be a failure of co-ordination. Under the Government proposals, as I see them, there is now no organisation for co-ordination for health. Presumably this will be necessary eventually. I wish to ask the Government whether that coordination is going to be there for the

229
Greater London Council or whether it will come under the Ministry of Health.
The noble Viscount who leads the House told us, I think quite rightly, of the status of the Royal Commission. I personally do not attack them; I think they did the best with the job that was put before them. But I think regard must also be had to the fact that in the County of Surrey there are men and women who have dedicated long periods of their lives in selfless duty to the people of Surrey. These people are knowledgeable; they are possessed of vast experience. They have placed on record their view which I will read to your Lordships. They consider:
"That the Government's proposed solutions are unsound, as are those of the Royal Commission, and are open to grave objections."
They observe that
"far from producing such advantages the Government proposals would, in many important respects, provide less effective and convenient local government than exists at present; would result in more rather than less Government intervention in local government, and in the case of education would be seriously retrograde."
Those are the declared views of the men and women, the councillors, of Surrey. Their views should be taken equally into account with those of the Royal Commission.
What are the Government proposals? They are that there should be set up in London the Greater London Council of 110 members who are to represent 81 million people. Each member would represent 70,000 to 80,000 persons. I would not want to be considered parochial, but I ask: is that local government as we have understood it in this country? I would suggest that it is completely alien to every conception we have had. As I see it, one of the necessities of local government, which is the essential instrument for democratic government, is that the person elected to a local authority should have intimate contact with the people who have elected him and should administer local affairs. I do not think that is doubted or would be contradicted anywhere.
I ask your Lordships: can a member representing 70,000 to 80,000 persons on the electoral roll, let alone their children, provide the type of service that our present county councillors are providing? May I further illustrate the point by taking the case of Surrey? There
230
are 900,000 Surrey people who are affected by the Government proposals. At present, these people are represented by 52 members on the county council. If this proposal goes through, 11 members will represent nearly one million people. To suggest that that is local government is farcical.
To turn to the borough councils, which are to be about the lowest strata of local government in the centre of London, the Metropolis, we are going to have groups of from 250,000 to 350,000 persons. What is going to be the membership strength of those borough councils? Is it going to be 100, or 200? I would strongly suspect that it will be in the region of 50. Can we honestly say that 50 members on a local borough council can satisfactorily represent 250,000 to 350,000 people? We cannot. I have had no experience of local government, but I know many who have. I know the type of problems that are daily and nightly brought before them, and in regard to which the individual says, "I must go to see my councillor." How can those councillors, representing large numbers of people, provide that essential service? We are not marching to a healthy local government; we are going backwards, and the service that will be provided will be far less than it is to-day.
I wish to make one point in regard to these councillors. The Government have said that they wish to see healthy local government. That does not depend entirely upon the responsibilities that are placed upon the local authority; it depends upon the type of man and woman who is attracted to the council. It may be that a different type of person will be attracted to-day—though God forbid that that should be necessary! We might attract more people to local government if we gave them more powers to administer it. But you may well do something to the contrary. I know many areas where my political Party, in endeavouring to find candidates to fight a county council or a local government election, have great difficulty in finding persons of the right calibre who can give the time for this duty.
If a man of 35 to 40 has the desire to go into local government and he sees that, if elected, he may be called upon to do two or three days' work a week,

231
he then has a great decision to make. Do you, in the service of your community, sacrifice your own children? Do you sacrifice your own promotion? I think we have to look at the real fundamentals. It is not only a question of finding the type of work to make it interesting to the people; you have to find ways of making the work possible for those individuals who are interested in it.
I have one other objection. This may seem strange coming from a Labour Party Bench. I have always thought that one of the attractions in local government is that local communities have an opportunity, through the ballot box, of expressing their particular grudge or point of view. Throughout the country there are still independents, or people representing a particular minor issue. Who would be able to fight the constituencies for the Greater London Council? The only people who will be able to take on the expense and provide the machinery to fight will be the three major political Parties. I do not think that is right. I think it is against the whole concept of local government. I believe that the political Parties should be involved in local government; but I do not think that the machinery should be so rigged that a person of independent mind and thought is not permitted to sit on the council.
It is said in regard to housing that the new proposals would provide for a quicker growth in housing. I do not accept this. I think there is every indication that, with the break up of the London County Council into borough authorities, the resources that will be available to the boroughs are bound to react against the speed of building; and I strongly suspect that in time not only will it be more expensive to build but, because the borough will be able to work only within its own area, the price of land will be put up. This would be a bad thing. At least the London County Council and the Surrey County Council have flexibility to-day. If they cannot buy land at a reasonable price in one place they can go elsewhere. But that will be prevented in the case of a borough council. I therefore think that we should look again at the whole question of whether responsibility for housing is placed directly in the borough.
232
My noble friends have already spoken about education. I live on the outskirts of Surrey—at least it will be on the outskirts of Surrey if these proposals go through—and I see all the youngsters coming off the trains in the morning from what will be the Greater London area on their way to the Oxted Grammar School, a very great school. My Lords, if these proposals go through, will these children be allowed to go to the Oxted Grammar School? I doubt it, because Surrey—as I shall try to show later—will themselves be desperately short of grammar school places. Undoubtedly, if the Government's proposals are accepted there will be less flexibility, not only in regard to the teaching of the children and the type of school to which the child may be sent, but also in regard to the teachers, in that their opportunities for promotion will be reduced. This applies to the Surrey County Council as well as to the London County Council. I believe that with this fragmentation of the London County Council and Surrey County Council educational services the children will be far worse off than they are to-day.
I should like to say something about what will happen to Surrey, but, before I do so, I think I should again echo the words of my noble Leader on the question of finance. The rates in this country are already high; and in many respects they are completely and utterly unfair. A person is called upon to pay his rates not according to his ability to pay them, but according to the house in which he lives. The rates bear unfairly upon the old, and particularly heavily upon the very young who are starting out on married life. I am quite convinced that, if these proposals go through, the cost will be out of all proportion to any good that can come from the Government proposals. I would not hazard a guess as to the effect on the London rates, but this will put a tremendous burden on the people who can least afford to pay.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, mentioned some figures showing what will happen in Surrey. He rather brushed to one side the point I made, that Surrey will be losing its more valuable rateable areas. In fact, the county to-day represents 449,000 acres. If the proposals go through, it will be left with 98,000 acres of urban district

233
—the district which has the higher rateable value—and 250,000 acres of rural district. I would ask the noble Viscount if he would look at those figures tomorrow to see whether he can stand by the point he made. The rateable value for the whole of Surrey is £27,539,000. My Lords, if this deal goes through, the rateable value that remains will be £9,340,000.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That will still leave Surrey, in regard to rateable value, among the top fifteen counties in England and Wales.
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords. Permit me to finish my point. Surrey will sustain a loss of rateable value of some £18 million—and that is not "chicken-feed". If we are to develop—as we must develop—our rural districts, we must have what Surrey has created in the past 20 or 30 years; that is, a balanced economy (which is something the Conservative Government have never recognised) in which the rural districts can be supported by the urban districts. Surrey has developed its industrial area. If you go down to Croydon, Caterham, or Whyteleafe you will see factories springing up everywhere. All that will go; whatever the Surrey County Council has done will disappear.
My noble Leader asked about financial recompense. I doubt whether they could be recompensed for what has been done. The county councils have not been difficult. They objected to the Government proposals, but they did not take a negative attitude. They got together and produced what I consider to be a same, sensible, workable solution. It is easy for the noble Viscount and the Government to write them off. I do not believe that the Government have ever seriously considered the proposals of the county councils. In fact, I believe that the councils themselves take that view. They believe, as does my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that the Government were so obsessed with the destruction of the London County Council that they intended to proceed irrespective of the consequences in the outlying districts. It will be said that the Conservatives may lose some financial support in Surrey, because Surrey is a Conservative county. I know why the Government do not worry about upsetting their
234
supporters: it is because they know that, when the issue comes, the Tories, irrespective of what has been done to them, will close their ranks. So they have gone ahead.
What is going to happen? Many people in Surrey will be taken out of a county to which they have given their loyalty, a county which they have built up. They are to be extracted, and (I hate to say this to my friend who is a very great Londoner), they are going to be made Londoners. The people of Warlingham and Caterham are not Londoners. They may come to London to work, but they live in Surrey; and their community life is where they live. The Government have decided, with this obsession that they have, to destroy the London County Council, irrespective of the consequences. These people will be dragged in, because that is the price that must be paid in order to make a sorry picture look a little better.
5.58 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, this is a very important matter, and I must apologise to your Lordships for not having been present when the debate opened. There are certain occasions in life when one is unavoidably prevented from being in one's place at the appropriate time, and so far as I am concerned to-day was such an occasion. I also regret not having heard the opening statement of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. At all events, I shall have the great pleasure of reading it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. Whether or not one agrees with Lord Morrison of Lambeth is a matter of opinion, but he is an established genius and a veritable encyclopedia of knowledge on the County of London.
I do not want to indulge in the privilege of wandering aimlessly over the whole ground, but let me come to the position as I understand it. I think every one of your Lordships realises that the real problem arises in relation to Greater London. As I said on a previous occasion, if by the grace of Providence we are alive in 1970 we shall see one street from London to Reading, and a similar state of affairs will exist North, South and East of the metropolis. There is a growth of population, with the increasing influx of immigrants and the marked drift of population from the

235
North and the Midlands towards the South of England from a line drawn from London to Bristol. London cannot be regarded as a series of big off-shoots and growths in various directions. There should be one overall authority for this area.
That brings me to the point that some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, as modified by Her Majesty's Government, certainly deserve the most serious consideration. In the first place, there can be no reform unless there is a different structure. As we all know, the idea is that there will be a two-tier system. All I can say is: thank goodness there will not be a three-tier system, which is an abomination of desolation. The upper tier will be the greater London Council and, as your Lordships know, the lower tier will consist of 34 boroughs with a population of 200,000 to 250,000 in each borough. The City of London will be a single borough on its own, and I prefer not to say very much about that now. The old pals' club of millionaires and big bankers will have to be very softly and gently approached.
The area of the Greater London Council will comprise the area of the London County Council, the whole of Middlesex, and adjoining parts of Surrey, Essex, Kent and Hertfordshire. I can well imagine the un-Parliamentary language of those counties, when they are deprived of some of the most valuable parts of their respective areas, which assist them in financing the needs of other and less well-to-do parts of their counties. However, it is impossible to make any change in this world without causing disadvantage somewhere.
The vital question, of course, is what happens to education? On the subject of education we could speak for a year and write a library of books, and we should have not the slightest measure of agreement. What is the objection to technical and special education being the responsibility of the Greater London Council, while primary and secondary education are a borough responsibility? In the case of other functions, the Government's division of services outlined in the White Paper is certainly worthy of very serious consideration. Local health and welfare services will be the respon-
236
sibility of the boroughs. There does not appear to be any firm policy about drainage, but it is suggested that this should be entrusted to the Greater London Council. I have not had the opportunity, the advantage or the pleasure of listening to all the speeches, but I have heard practically nothing about the subject of finance. Being Scottish, it is the one thing which really interests the Lord Chancellor and myself—we both agree on that point. Has anybody said anything about the debts of the London County Council and the various adjacent counties? This is a serious matter and it should be clarified before there is any alteration of structure and allotment of functions.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is not present in his seat to hear my last observation, because he talked about the system of rates. He said that people should be made to pay rates according to their capacity to pay, and not according to the property in which they live. How on earth can you charge rates on a house, in respect of the income of the persons occupying that house? That income may vary from day to day. The number of people bringing money into the house may vary from day to day. How on earth can any local authority responsible for raising rates assess a house in that way, when, possibly, the occupiers of the house have a different income every month? My Lords, that suggestion is one of the greatest canards that has ever been ventilated, and I hope that it will die a quick, sudden and horrible death.
6.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, there is no difficulty in finding complications and problems in the White Paper, but I think it would be more helpful to both sides of the House if we tried to be a little more constructive in seeing what the Government are trying to do and what they should do, instead of concentrating entirely on the difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who initiated the debate made a speech that was almost entirely destructive, but he did put out one or two—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: What is that, my Lords? Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him?

237
I was not destructive; it is the Government who are destructive. I was trying to preserve good things, even with modifications. How dare the noble Lord call me destructive!
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord had allowed me to finish my sentence, he might have heard something kinder. I said that he was almost entirely destructive, but I was about to add that he made one constructive suggestion with which, strangely enough, I agreed.
He suggested that, if the Government were going to undertake a reorganisation of this size, they might at least take in the Metropolitan Water Board. That suggestion seems to me to have a good deal to commend it. That Board represents a vast undertaking, whose functions must be closely allied with such matters as drainage, the fire service, sewerage and so on. The constitution of the Board is at present drawn from the metropolitan boroughs with, I think I am right in saying, six members from the London County Council and one or two members from other bodies such as the Conservancy Boards. Whatever happens as a result of this change, there will have to be a reorganisation of the membership of the Metropolitan Water Board; and if the Government are carrying out a vast tidying-up process of this sort they might as well include in it this Board. The idea should appeal to the financial experts, because surely there would be big administrative savings in that, instead of having this double system, of water rates and general rates sent out separately to every householder in London, they could both be combined. That would surely mean a saving of money.
I have made the one point with which I agreed with the noble Lord. May I now make one or two further suggestions, on which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who is to reply to the debate, may be able to help us, even if he cannot give us a completely direct answer this evening. A great deal has been said this afternoon about the City of London, and, of course, from a purely debating point of view, the proposals are an anomaly. On the other hand, we can be too tidy. I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, himself made that point. I very much regretted it when in another place we lost the
238
University seats. For, with them, one had a chance of occasionally having a really independent Member.
If we are going to continue with the City of London—and I am very glad that we are—I think that there is an opportunity for marrying that up with this body called the Greater London Council. I will give only one instance of this, and it may not be one of great importance; but it is the sort of thing which might be considered. The City of London is (what shall I say?) the main entertaining and civic body in this great city. The London County Council does a good deal of entertaining on its own, quite well but on a lower plane, because it has not the same traditions behind it. If we are to have a Greater London Council, it would seem to me quite unnecessary for that body also to try to carry out functions of this sort. We already have the Government reception centre at Lancaster House, which works very well; and there is the City of London, which we shall leave much as it is. I think that there might be a case, when it comes down to considering details, for having the Lord May or as an ex officio member of the Greater London Council. The City of London certainly should be represented.
My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, in his excellent speech, made some reference to the problems of staff. I think it would be of immense help if the Government could give the staff a more definite undertaking than they have given so far. I am talking, of course, about the administrative staff, which numbers over 10,000 in the case of the London County Council. Then, of course, there are all the other councils.
It would be of immense help if the Government could make a more definite statement than they have yet done: that possibly a Commission, or something similar, should be set up which would concentrate entirely on placing the members of that staff, many of whom will have to move from one authority to another. All the Government have said on this subject so far is that they are well aware of the problem and are anxious to take as little time as possible in bringing forward their legislation. But such is the complication of what they have undertaken that I think it is practically impossible for them to do that for another year or two; and in the meantime

239
we shall be losing staff, and many people who would be joining will not be joining. I therefore think that something much more definite than has been said so far would be to everybody's interest.
My Lords, the point has been made time and time again this afternoon that what is proposed by Her Majesty's Government is not local government—and, of course, the Greater London Council is quoted as an example. Surely, that is a complete red herring as regards what the Government are trying to do. The whole point of the Government's proposals, as I see it, is to give greater local powers to the boroughs, who have been pressing for them for years. Surely, that is exactly what we should describe as local government.
I have only one other thing to say, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, really said it himself in his speech. Surely, if any Government wanted to create trouble with their own supporters, this would be a very good Bill to introduce. There is bound to be opposition from every sort of quarter. Some of it would come from vested interests; some of it would be perfectly genuine. I think we must give credit to the Government for the fact that, although they already have plenty of little local difficulties before them, they have had the courage to introduce proposals of this sort, and my only hope is that they will bring in legislation at the earliest possible moment.
6.15 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount who leads this House stated when he started his speech that he was going to be cool, calm and collected. If that was so, I should really like to see him when he is excited, because—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: What I said was that I was going to be somewhat cooler than the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Viscount was following a very good example. But I want to say again that, in my belief, this is a political move, of course. As the noble Lord, Lard Morrison of Lambeth, said, had the Tories won the last London County Council election we should have heard no more about the reorganisation of local government, at
240
least in the form of destroying the London County Council. May I remind the noble Viscount of the statement of his own Prime Minister at the time of the L.C.C. elections, when he said that if the Tories could win the L.C.C. it would be the brightest jewel in their crown? They do not like a bright jewel in any other hands than their own, and they have spent many millions of pounds in trying to get control of the L.C.C.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Before the election.
LORD LINDGREN: Before the election and during it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Very corrupt practice!
LORD LINDGREN: I am not going to go as far as that, but may I say that I do not know why the noble Viscount is so touchy about the political motive, because the Tory Party has been engaged in furthering it in local government all the time.
If one had to declare an interest, it is nearly 40 years since I entered local government, associated with minor authorities and county councils, and anywhere and everywhere that I have been associated with local government very effective, very efficient, Tory agents and their office staffs have been providing their representatives on local government bodies with suggestions for the reorganisation of wards, the redistribution of wards, in order that they might maintain or gain control of local government bodies. The Tory Party believes in democracy so long as it can make sure that the democracy is of the sort that it wants.
Only recently, within the last six weeks, I sat on a commission set up by the Hertfordshire County Council to inquire into a request from a Tory organisation at Boreham Wood for a redistribution of wards. On that occasion, the Tory agent, when pressed, admitted that the real reason why they were making their application was that under the present distribution of population there was not a chance of the Tories ever getting control of the local authority. Now we have seen this happening all over the place. I am not going to say that even a Labour-controlled council has not resisted ward

241
redistribution because it might be to their disadvantage. So why the noble Viscount should want to deny it in the way that he has, I am not sure.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will tell the noble Lord, since he has asked me. The Commission said—and I agree—that political motives openly avowed are perfectly lawful and legitimate things on either side, but when people level accusations against both the Government and a Commission of a contemptible, not to say a corrupt, plot—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is not true.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: "Contemptible plot" was the term used by the noble Lord; I took it down at the time. And he added, "I almost said a corrupt plot". When that sort of language is used, one is entitled to ask that it should either be substantiated or withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, this is really silly, and the noble Viscount knows that it is silly. I accused the Government of those things. I still accuse the Government of those things. I will go on accusing the Government of those things to my dying day. I did not accuse the Commission of those things. I said that the Commission were improperly constituted; and as to the quotation about the London County Council evidence, I think thereby the Commission manifested a very undesirable bias. But I never accused them of corruption, because I did not have the chance to do so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, all I was saying was this: that his noble friend, from whom he has now taken over, was asking me why I was touchy about the imputation of motives, and my answer is that honourable people do not like being accused of "a contemptible, I almost said a corrupt, plot". That is why I am touchy. The noble Lord now has the answer to his questions, despite his noble friend's intervention.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Well, you are not honourable people.
LORD LINDGREN: In spite of this little exchange, may I go on? The fact is that I was one of those who gave evidence before the Commission. May I say that we were received very kindlily?
242
And what we said, I believe, was taken notice of. But I must emphasise a point that has been made by one noble Lord—I have forgotten which: in my appearances before the Commission, I found no one, with the exception of a civil servant who was very experienced in Civil Service administration in the local government field, on that Commission who, from a local government point of view, one would have accepted as experienced in local government. That, from my point of view, was rather important.
My Lords, I must again declare an interest. I am a member of the Hertfordshire County Council and lead the Labour group on that council. Reference has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, to the extension of London. So far as Hertfordshire is concerned, Barnet is to be brought into this area; so is Cheshunt. The people of Barnet and Cheshunt do not like to be referred to as Londoners. They do not mind being called "hedgehogs". They are as proud of being called "hedgehogs" as I am of being described as a Londoner. The whole of their affiliation and community of interest is much more with Hertfordshire than it is with London. It is not like the case of some of the Surrey boroughs, where people commute to London to work. In Cheshunt they live and work in the same area. It is true that in Barnet there are some commuters, but the vast majority live and work in the area, and they do not want to be brought into the London area. Both of those councils, I might say in passing, are Tory-controlled councils.
I am not one of those—one who has been associated with local government for a long time cannot be—who will not admit that there are things wrong with local government. As the noble Viscount who leads the House has said, it is true that county councils were established in 1888, and the urban and rural districts in 1894. It was a time when the speed of man was almost dependent upon the speed of a horse. Communications have developed since then, and it is foolishness to say that what happened then should necessarily happen now. But this does not really deal with what, to my mind, are the fundamental problems of local government. Finance is perhaps the greatest problem in local

243
government at the present time; that is to say, the division of finance as between Treasury and ratepayer, and the ability of the local authority to acquire its finance. The noble Lord who sits on the Liberal Benches, Lord Meston, referred to the difficulty of charging rates according to ability to pay. At one time it was true that persons tended to live in a house, the rateable value of which had been determined by its rentable value, a value which they could afford; but that time has long since gone, particularly so far as London is concerned, and the incidence of rates to-day falls unfairly on some people.
What is equally worrying is that, in my 40 years in local government, the standard of local government representative has been falling and the standard of local government officer has been rising. It would not be unfair to say that, in many parts of our local government administration, the good name of efficiency of local government has been maintained by the local government officer rather than by the elected councillor. That is not applicable to us. Forty years ago in the Labour movement it was an honour to be selected as a candidate. Now, quite often, I willingly admit we have to go round and ask people whether they will accept the "honour" of nomination. That that should be so is not a good thing for local government. I gather, from talking to Tory representatives whom I meet at various local Government bodies, that their problem is much the same as ours. Therefore, on the fundamental problems of finance and of representation by the people who determine the policy of local government, as things stand these problems are not being dealt with. In fact, it is worse because, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, service on the Greater London Council is bound to be such that the type of person who can accept membership of it will be in extremely short supply.
I want to refer for a moment to what has been said earlier on—the general question of staffing local authorities. If I may say so, the two basic points in the Government's White Paper are that they want to devolve greater power upon the boroughs, and to have a Greater London Area to cover certain functions
244
which the boroughs will not be able to deal with. I have admitted that, so far as local government is concerned, the more we can do to make the work interesting and effective for those who go on to local authorities, the better. Perhaps it will give an opportunity to secure better standards of representative, and equally give the authorities a greater rateable value with which to deal.
Even under the Government's White Paper, however, the new boroughs are not small authorities, in which the association between the elected representative and the citizen of the area is close. If, in fact, we have a county borough, or what is almost a county borough, of 250,000 or 300,000 people, naturally the association between the elected representative, the person serving on the local authority, and the citizen is not close, and never can be. And I do not see that it need be. After all, if a mother is worried about the fact that her baby is off its food, she does not want to go and see the borough council; she wants to see the doctor at the clinic. If an old lady cannot cope with her housework, again she does not want to go and talk to the borough council; she wants to see the person in charge of home-helps, so that she can get her floors washed. If a parent is worried about "little Willie" not getting on at school, he does not want to meet the chairman of the education committee; he is much more concerned to meet the headmaster at the school, and the teacher teaching his son m the classroom. They are the persons who interpret the law, and interpret the policy of the council.
After all, the elected representative has the function of determining policy; that is his job. Then, the policy having been determined, the local authority employ administrators who arrange and organise the service, and the employees give effect to it. It is the standard of the administrator, the teacher, and the rest of them, which really determines what standard of service there is going to be; and it is these people the ordinary citizen wants to meet.
Of course the break-up of the L.C.C. does not enhance the association of ratepayer and elected representative. But I admit that the majority of local government electors do not worry about what

245
type of authority they are under. What the elector wants is service—schools, parks and open spaces, houses, a police force and a tire service—efficient services, naturally at the least possible cost. It really does not matter tuppence to him whether his authority is called a borough or an urban district, or whether it has a chairman or a mayor. What he is concerned about is service for himself and his family.
I am not in any way convinced that under this plan there is going to be any better service for the citizens of London and of Greater London. No one has pointed to where an improvement in the standard of service is going to come from. No one has claimed, no one has asserted, that this is going to be any cheaper. There is not a claim of better service, greater efficiency or cheaper cost. Therefore, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I wonder whether there is any other reason for the introduction of this plan. This talk by the Government of closer affiliation between the ratepayer and the local government elected representative, much as it is to be desired, is very much Utopianism.
My experience as a Member of the House of Commons of the service given to constituents, in what was all "the surgery", is that many of the problems brought to us as Members of Parliament were in fact local government problems. I have already said that the function of the councillor is to determine policy, and it is the function of those employed in the council services to carry out that policy and give effect to it faithfully. The standard of the administrative officers, engineers, surveyors, architects and the rest, is very much determined by the rate of pay which the authority can afford to pay them, the scope and interest they give to the work they are called upon to do and the opportunities the officers have for advancement.
It is a very surprising thing to me, recognising the vital part which administrators and local government employees play in the efficient conduct of our local government system, that there is not a single reference whatever in the White Paper to local government servants; nor is there any statement in any form about what is going to happen to local government servants already employed in the boroughs and counties affected. I should have thought that it was vital to say
246
straight away how these employees are going to be dealt with.
They are not extraordinarily well paid. I think that they are reasonably well paid, but not as well paid by any means as men in similar jobs outside in industry and commerce. And they are concerned about their standards, their status, their rates of pay and the prospects of continuity of their employment. This complete reorganisation is going to destroy their continuity of employment in many cases and there is not one single mention of the employees in the White Paper. In a situation such as this, these are the first things they think of. Some noble Lords will not appreciate this, but, having been an employee, I know that that is so. I hope that the noble Earl who is going to reply will make a statement in regard to how the staffs of the new authorities, when they are formed, are going to be appointed.
If I may make a suggestion, I think that a special board should be set up. There should be a guarantee to the existing staffs of local authorities that they are going to be able to maintain their present standard of livelihood, irrespective of whether or not the new authorities want to accept members of existing authorities on their staffs. Such a board would avoid the possibility of accusations of favouritism, if it had power to apportion staffs to the new authorities. Otherwise, there are bound to be many square pegs in round holes. The various trade unions and staff associations involved ought to have representation on the board.
I am against this whole plan. I do not see that the Londoner is going to be any better served in the services that he receives. There is no evidence that he is going to get them in any cheaper form; nor is there any evidence that he is going to be able to take any greater part in them either. Therefore, so far as the general construction is concerned, I would prefer that things remained much as they are. Those who are not Londoners may not have an affection for London, but no one who goes abroad and hears people in Paris or in Rome speaking about their own cities fails to think of London as the capital city of England—of Great Britain. I am corrected by my noble friend. I think that even the Scots would accept that. But

247
I think it will be hard for the Londoner to have an affection for a London which is being taken out to the other side of Croydon, to the other side of Barnet and all the way over to West Ham. London is an entity and ought to be left as such from the point of view of local government service.
The biggest point I make against the scheme is in regard to the staffs, who have served us so well, who are not mentioned in any shape or form in the White Paper, who are given no guarantee of continuity of employment or of maintenance of the standards of their employment, and who ought, through representatives from their trade unions and associations, to have some say in the reallocation of those who are going to take part in the new scheme.
6.40 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I have been looking forward to this debate for a long time, because I took part in a similar debate, also initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, as far back as December, 1960. The tone of the noble Lord's speech to-day was much the same as it was then. I regret to have to say that, in my opinion, it was a completely non-constructive speech. I regret having to say that, because I have always had a great admiration for the noble Lord both as a Minister and as an administrator. But he seemed to condemn this plan from first to last. I shall have some criticisms to make in a moment, but, as I did in 1960, I should like to pay a sincere tribute to Sir Edwin Herbert and his colleagues for a clear and concise Report.
I believe that the Government White Paper is in essence fair and intelligible. I shall have a few words to say about Surrey in a moment, because for the last eight years I have lived in that county, and I will be quite frank in saying that I do not like the proposals for Surrey. But, so far as Essex is concerned, I believe the proposals to be sound. After all, building of high density stretches out as far as Ilford; and most Essex people to whom I have spoken who live in that perimeter between Barking, Romford and Ilford call themselves Londoners and are proud to be known as such. Let me say at once that in many ways
248
the London County Council, even under Socialist control, have rendered some good service. But they are not a paragon of virtue.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why he says, "even under Socialist control"?
LORD AUCKLAND: Because I think they have been under Socialist control for too long and certainly their housing policy, particularly in relation to slum clearance, leaves much to be desired. But, as I say, they are not perfect. I will be fair and say, too, that the Hertfordshire County Council and Surrey County Council, both Conservative controlled, are not perfect.
I turn now to Surrey. I was impressed with much of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. By and large, it was a fair speech because it put into perspective what a great deal of Surrey is thinking about this plan. Let me deal first with the Green Belt. Fifty-seven per cent. of Epsom and Ewell is in the Green Belt area. I happen to reside in the constituency of Epsom and Ewell, and here a curious situation arises. Electorally speaking, Epsom and Ewell takes in Leatherhead, Fetcham, Bookham, Ashtead and a number of surrounding villages. Epsom and Ewell itself will under these plans be absorbed under the Greater London Authority. Leatherhead, Fetcham, Bookham and Ashtead will, as the plans go at present, come under the Surrey County Council. I should like my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who is to reply to the debate, to comment on this situation, if not to-night, perhaps at some time later.
In the local Leatherhead paper of February 22 there is an interesting letter from the chief solicitor to the Surrey County Council, from which I should like to quote an extract. It says:
"There is a possible suggestion that Leather-head could be included if Epsom and Ewell go into a Greater London borough. If Leatherhead remains in Surrey the local government reshuffle can still have serious consequences locally The creation of the Greater London boroughs would mean a loss to Surrey of approximately two-thirds of its population and rateable value."
Under the Rating and Valuation Act of last year rating for industry was raised to 100 per cent. Under these proposals Surrey is going to lose a great deal of

249
its industry to the Greater London Authority. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said that Woking and Guildford would remain. Certainly Woking has a reasonably high proportion of industry. But I would contest what my noble friend says about Guildford, because there is not much industry around there. Admittedly, in the area of Camberley and Yateley a few small factories have been started, but there is really not sufficient to compensate for what will be lost. It is also fair to say that Leatherhead has a certain amount of light industry. But there is genuine anxiety in Surrey as to what is going to happen so far as industry is concerned.
Epsom is an ancient and historic town. It was described by Professor Abercrombie in his 1944 Greater London Plan as a
"thriving market town almost entirely surrounded by natural barriers to further outward expansion, consisting of its famous town. Woodcote Park, Epsom Common and the hospital's."
If this plan goes through, what guarantees are there that these rural areas will be preserved? What is going to be the future of Nonsuch Park, which has historical interests dating back to Henry VIII? Indeed, what is going to happen to the Green Belt? There have been assurances from the Government that the Green Belt will be preserved. But the building operations of the London County Council have already stretched far and wide outside the bounds of London.
I cannot dispute that there is need for the London County Council to look elsewhere for land, but Surrey has a greater proportion of Green Belt than any of the counties concerned in this plan. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned Kingston, which is the county town of Surrey. I should like an assurance from the Government that the needs of Kingston will be seriously considered. It is an important town; it is an historic town. What is going to be the future county town of Surrey—Guildford or where? I think that is a point which we should know more about. In fairness, I should say that the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the House of Commons gave assurances that local residents and other organisations would be fully consulted before this plan goes through—and it is not scheduled, according to the White Paper, to be put into
250
any positive action until something like 1964. But 1964 is not a long way ahead.
What are the other parts of Surrey which are to be included? Esher is 17 miles from the nearest point of London and Epsom and Banstead are both 15 miles from London. The tentacles of this octopus are going to stretch a very long way. My criticism of these proposals is more on geographical lines than administrative lines. It might be argued that I am reacting like a two-headed hydra—that I want my cake and eat it, Of that Surrey wants its cake and eat it—but in Epsom last week there was a protest meeting regarding these plans, attended by 1,400 people. The verdict against the inclusion of Epsom and Ewell was carried with only three teenage dissentients. This meeting was organised by the Epsom Ratepayers Association, although other parts of Surrey were included.
Surrey has an area of 450,000 acres, and I think I am right in saying that something dike 350,000 acres will disappear under this plan. Surrey still retains vast tracts of countryside, and even around Epsom there are many country lanes where you can walk for a long way without seeing a house. I have lived in London for quite a large part of my life. I like London, although I cannot say that I love it. I do not think the people of Esher, Claygate or Walton-on-Thames will like being called Londoners. I can see some sense in including perhaps Mitcham, and even certain parts of Croydon, because many of those people commute into London. Many people commute from Epsom and Walton-on-Thames, but many people also work locally. I notice in my local train in the morning many people disgorge into London, but many disgorge into Epsom, Ewell and Stoneleigh. I hope the Government will look again from a geographical angle into these plans.
Having said that, I should like to reiterate what has been said by some of my noble friends. The Government have not gone into these proposals rashly. They have been given a good deal of thought. The Royal Commission sat for something like three years and produced an admirable Report, most of which the Government have accepted. It is important to remember that we are not discussing to-day the Second Reading of a

251
Bill. I will be quite frank: if we were discussing the Second Reading of the Greater London Bill to-day I would not go into the Government Lobby, because I believe that the inclusion of such places as Epsom and Ewell, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said, Barnet and Cheshunt—both of which towns I know quite well—is wrong. But that does not mean to say that the inclusion of many other places is wrong.
The London County Council needs reorganising. As has been said, it dates back from the end of the nineteenth century, and we are now over half way through the twentieth century. Many people have moved out of London into areas which are not covered by this plan, so I think it is quite wrong to oppose it at this stage. But I hope that the Government will do as the Leader of the House of Commons has said, and that is to look into the individual grievances, of which there are many. Having said that, I commend the plans in general as being a courageous and practical effort to solve a very thorny problem.
6.58 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I much regret that, owing to a public duty elsewhere, I was not able to hear the whole of the speech of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but from what I did hear of its concluding passages I am certain that I should be rash indeed if I were to try to compete either with his eloquence or with his command of the general issues involved. Neither should I attempt to compete with the rhetoric with which the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House replied to my noble friend. In fact, the points I wish to make to your Lordships this evening are not, I think, points of eloquence. They are not what are often called, in a derogatory sense, debating points. They are entirely practical matters that relate to one section of our population, and one with which your Lordships, I know, will have great sympathy.
I want to speak exclusively about the effect of this plan upon the children's services and to press upon Her Majesty's Government that they will have second thoughts about the design of the plan as it affects these services. They have had second thoughts already about the educa-
252
tional field, or, perhaps I should say, they have had one-and-a-half thoughts about their educational projects. I want to express the hope that it is not too late for a revision of the plan to be made as it affects these children. At any one time there are something around 9,000 children who are in the care or guardianship of the London County Council; and if you add to this figure the children who are in the care of the Middlesex, the Surrey, the Essex and the Kent County Councls—the Councils most affected by this plan—you will get a total which approaches 17,000 children actually in the care of the local authority at one time. I imagine that not very many of your Lordships' children are included in this figure, and I would, therefore, ask if you would bear with me for a moment if I remind your Lordships who these children are, and I wish only to refer to those categories of which I have actual personal and individual knowledge.
Among these children you will find those whose parents are ill, either permanently or temporarily, and there is no reason to suppose that these are in any way different from children of other parents who are in good health; they are prefectly normal children. There are others, now fortunately a tiny minority, who are victims of cruelty or indecency in their own homes. There are others, again with whom I have much sympathy, who are persistent truants from school and who cannot be got to school unless school is brought to them. There are others with whom I have had to deal and who are, for example, abandoned foundlings, children whom you will occasionally find in the church porch or in a church pew, babies with a note pinned to them saying: "Please look after my baby". There are difficult and nervous, handicapped children who require specialised treatment. I must remind your Lordships that these children are not only quite young children at school; they are of all ages, up to adolescents in their teens who are already well established at work. They are of all ages from babies a few days or weeks old up to boys and girls of 16, 17 and even 18 years of age. In addition to these children who are in the actual care of a local authority there are many other children who get into trouble with the courts and for whom the

253
local authorities provide important services.
The Royal Commission largely ignored the problem of this body of 17,000 children, and where they did refer to them their references were not always distinguished for their accuracy. The Royal Commission reported that 80 per cent. of these children were in care for only short periods and that the proportion who are put into the care of the local authority by the courts was only a small one. Actually, in London the proportion who are in care for short periods—and I reckon a short period is anything up to as much as six months—is less than 10 per cent. of the total; and the proportion who are in care of the London County Council by direction of the courts is as much as 27 per cent. of the total. The figures for Middlesex are very much the same. The proportion who are in short-term care is under 8 per cent. and the proportion who are put into the care of the local authority by the courts is as much as 21 per cent. The problems of these children, as I have said, received scant attention from the Royal Commission; and they did not receive much attention from the Minister in another place. Indeed, in his opening remarks in the debate in another place no reference was made to these children at all. It is intelligible in a plan so complex as this, where there are so many other problems to be sorted out, that those of some 17,0001or more unfortunate children may easily be overlooked; but I know your Lordships would not wish them to be overlooked in this House.
My Lords, may we consider for a moment some of the effects in practice of this proposed upheaval? First of all, may I direct your Lordships' attention to those children who appear for one reason or another in our juvenile courts? Children are no respecters of geographical or administrative boundaries. From any boroughs, new or old, either in the London County Council area or in the whole of the new area, children occasionally will go on shoplifting or stealing excursions into other administrative areas. When they appear in court for whatever peccadilloes they may have committed or for whatever troubles may have come their way, they have the services of the appropriate children's committee. In every juvenile court in the
254
London area two officials of the London County Council's Children's Committee are permanently attached, and those officials act as the liaison with all the Council's services—the medical services, children's committee services and the education services.
It would seem that under this new arrangement, in every court, instead of two officials, we should need to have, at the very least, fourteen; and your Lordships will understand if I say that it is with some alarm that the magistrates in London contemplate having to deal with fourteen different officials representing fourteen different boroughs. Indeed, the number may he very much larger. Occasionally we have children from outside the County Council area who wander into the Council area and commit their offences. These children come from Essex, Surrey, Kent and Hertfordshire, and we may intermittently have to deal with not only our London County Council officials but also officials from the other counties. The number of those with whom we have to deal is usually not more than the four or five I have mentioned, but it may now be anything up to another twenty. The people who will suffer from this enormous additional complexity in the administration are bound to be the children themselves.
These are some of the practical problems that arise. Some of these children cannot get on at school. For better or worse, it seems prudent to consider whether a change of school would be beneficial. This can now be quickly brought to the notice of the education authority, because the children's committee officer who is present in court is also an officier of the same council as the education authority. The education and children's services are combined under the one authority. Now, if a change of school is to be contemplated, if this plan becomes operative, the representative of the children's committee or children's committees will have to aproach a distinct education authority before any kind of plan for a change of school can be operated.
Again, from time to time we have little arguments as to who is responsible for a particular child, as to whether he is doiciled in one county or another. Those are at present exceptional. They

255
hold up proceedings—they are deplorable because they hold up proceedings—and they delay a decision as to the best disposal of the child. When we have to deal with some thirty-odd authorities these are likely to be very much more frequent, and we are going to get back, as it seems to me, to something like the old law of settlement that we had under the nineteenth century Poor Law.
May we turn from the children who appear in court to the children who are actually in the care of a local authority? For these children London County Council provides an immense range of specialised services. They are not all stuck into one children's home, of every age from a few days old to 17 or 18; they are distributed between reception homes for the first impact; foster homes for those who may be boarded out with appropriate foster parents; remand homes for those who are awaiting disposal by the courts or in respect of whom further advice is necessary; hostels for those who are old enough to go out to work but still need homes of their own; and approved schools.
This is a large and specialised provision such as can be provided only by an authority with very considerable resources. It is sometimes said that the advantage of smaller units would be a more personal contact, but the true paradox of the situation is that it is just because an authority is large that personal contact is possible, because it is only a large authority which can be sufficiently specialised to provide a personal contact of an appropriate character for every child.
To give only one illustration of what that means, every child has his welfare officer to whom he can turn for help and advice. As he moves perhaps from the day nursery where he is first accepted to a children's home, and from there to a hostel, perhaps, when he leaves school and goes out to work, he moves around geographically in what may be a wide area; and with a large authority controlling all these institutions every effort is made to see that the same welfare officer follows him through his career. If this plan goes through the distribution of resources among the boroughs-to-be is going to be quite fantastic.
256
I do not want to detain your Lordships too long, so I shall mention only one or two examples of how the situation is going to work out. Let us take first of all the proposed new borough of Southwark and Lambeth, which last October had a little over 1,300 of its children within the care of the L.C.C. Within the boundaries of that borough there is not accommodation for 1,300 but for only 138 in one single home. Take again the borough-to-be of Bethnal Green, Poplar, Shoreditch and Stepney, with 1,280 children in the care of the L.C.C. Within the boundaries of that new borough there is accommodation not for 1,280 but for 52 children in two homes. So far as I can see, the best provided of all the new boroughs-to-be is the borough of Lewisham. But even this has insufficient accommodation: with 370 children in care it has accommodation for 166.
The White Paper speaks of the positive advantages which will follow from the concentration of responsibility for the children's services and other associated services such as housing and environmental health in the hands of the same authorities. But the White Paper says no more about the positive advantages than that they are likely to follow from this concentration. The Minister in another place said no more about the positive advantages, and we have waited in vain this afternoon to hear about the positive advantages from the concentration of the children's services in the hands of the new county boroughs. The argument that has been used is that if attention is called to the disadvantages of the new scheme, this is belied by the fact that throughout the country and the provinces boroughs of comparable size—and this is true—are running all these services. This is the argument that was used in another place. This is the argument that was repeated this afternoon by the noble and learned Viscount who leads this House.
This argument overlooks some important differences between the proposed new boroughs of the Greater London region and the provincial boroughs with which comparison is made. The provincial boroughs have a much greater organic cohesion. There is not the same mobility from one to another as there is from one part of London to another,

257
where the population is extraordinarily mobile. Moreover, the provincial boroughs are mixed communities; they have slum areas and areas with property of much higher rateable value and people in much better economic circumstances. They are far more economically and socially mixed than some of the proposed new boroughs, some of which are concentrated in areas of comparative poverty and some of which will be very much better off. They are, moreover, geographically larger; they have more room; and this is not unimportant when looking for sites for children's homes and similar institutions. And they have a smaller proportion of their child population in care. The proportion of the London child population in the care of the local authority is nearly double that of the average for the country as a whole.
If we make one or two specific comparisons, if, for instance, we compare the proposed borough of Finsbury and Islington, which has some 1,100 children in care, with the city of Liverpool, which has about the same number, also a little over 1,100, we find that the city of Liverpool has six times the acreage and a far more mixed population and that the County of London has four times as high a proportion of children to cope with. I could make many similar comparisons but I do not want to detain your Lordships for too long.
Even if we were to concede that in the end these new boroughs will be able to run these complex specialised services so that children do not suffer, what is going to happen in the lengthy interim period? We have to remember that a child is a child only once, that the valuable years of its life occur only once, and if damage is done then it is no compensation to say in five or ten years' time that succeeding generations of children will be properly taken care of. The stock answer that we constantly hear to all these problems is that there will be joint arrangements, certainly in the interim period, perhaps permanently, between the various boroughs. The mind reels at the number of joint arrangements which would be necessary before a borough with 1,300 children in care and places for 138 could find accommodation for the whole of the remaining child population for which it is responsible.
258
We are told that this new arrangement will give useful and satisfying work to people concerned with children's problems and perhaps to the councillors in the new boroughs. It looks very much as if the useful and satisfying work will not be work primarily related to children but work concerned with inter-borough negotiations, to which most of us, I think, would hesitate to apply those particular adjectives. In the meantime the boroughs will have, pending these new arrangements, no alternative but to go back to the old conception of the all-purpose institution, the one children's home with the delinquent child, the nervous, neurotic, difficult, unhappy child, the child who has been the victim of an offence and the perfectly normal child whose parents happen to be ill or dead or in prison, all mixed up together in something very like the old workhouse.
A young schoolboy of my acquaintance was asked the other day by his parents what he proposed to give up during the season of Lent. He thought for a moment and then he said, "I think I shall give up Daddy". That is the reaction of a child who in a stable and secure home can afford to give himself the luxury of a little innocent fun at his father's expense. The children about whom I have been speaking have no such stable and secure home; the only stability that they know is the welfare officer and the services that he has behind him at his command. They are defenceless; they have no parents to plead for them; they have no trade union to plead for them. But it looks as if, at the very best, for several years to come the welfare of these children, a whole generation of them, is to be sacrificed to a major administrative upheaval.
7.20 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in one respect, at any rate, I propose to follow the admirable example of the noble Baroness who has just sat down, in that I shall confine myself to a single topic. I only wish I could deal with it as she has dealt with her topic; I can assure the House that I feel quite as passionately about it.
In this interesting debate many with great experience of local government have taken part. I can claim no such

259
experience, and I intervene on only a single topic—an important one, I think: the architecture and town planning of our capital city. I can at least claim a lifelong interest in it. In June of this year twenty years will have passed since I had the honour of addressing the Town Planning Institute on three-dimensional planning. In my opinion, architecture is the greatest of the arts, and I am convinced that on the place we give it and the way in which we practise it depends, more than upon any other art, the happiness of our people. I believe that on the Government's appreciation of the problems involved and on the steps they take in the near future a vital matter depends. That matter is simply this: is the contemplated reform of London Government to lead to a great and hopeful future for our capital city; or is it to lead to the most lamentable failure to construct a London worthy of its history and its fame?
I support most strongly the statement recently issued by the Royal Institute of British Architects. I am delighted to know that that statement is strongly supported and corroborated by the Royal Fine Art Commission. Let me remind the Government that that statement is by no means unfriendly to their main plan. Indeed, it starts off with the statement:
"The Royal Institute of British Architects believes that the reform of local government in Greater London is long overdue, and it is in broad agreement with the main objectives of Government policy as stated in the White Paper, London Government: Government Proposals for Reorganisation."
I must say, though I always have this paint of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that we are bath enthusiastic and loyal Cockneys, that I did rather regret to hear such a good old radical speak so passionately in favour of the status quo of 1888. I thought he might have advanced just a little.
What are the requirements of the planning and architecture of London as a capital city? Let me remind the House of what I think must be obvious to everyone: that London is not merely a colleotion of boroughs, and that it has to deal with a scale and range of physical problems probably unparalleled in the world. What, then, must be some
260
of the minimum requirements? First of all, London must be so organised as to attract architects and planners of the highest calibre into its service. Secondly, quite clearly, there must be no divorce between the planning and the execution of many great building projects. Thirdly, and equally obviously, the central area of London must be considered as a whole. The responsibility for carrying out the development plans in that centre cannot possibly be divided between the City and the five boroughs which thrust wedges into the centre. If I may give a simple example, there are large areas of the City and Holborn and Westminster which call for comprehensive development with separation of traffic and pedestrians at different levels. It is quite inconceivable that such a project should be carried out by the three boroughs, each one working for itself
Here, I am brought to what I think is perhaps the least adequate of the paragraphs of the White Paper. It is the least adequate because it contains such under-statements—I refer to paragraph 34 of the White Paper. In my view, it simply is not true, if we are to have a worthy reconstruction of our capital city, that the Greater London Council should have little more than reserve powers. They must have much more than reserve powers of building and execution of plans. In architecture and planning they must be an executive as well as a planning authority. Curiously enough, this fact is recognised in another connection, as Sir Robert Matthew has recently pointed out, in paragraph 17 of the White Paper. But when we get to paragraph 34 the authors of the White Paper seem largely to have forgotten it.
To deal with Central London, it is, I think, clear to every architect and town planner who has really studied the matter that either a new borough must be created for Central London or the centre must be designated as a special area within which not only would the most important applications be referred to the Greater London Council, but the Greater London Council would have powers of initiation and execution. Indeed, the Greater London Council will need to act as an executive body in carrying out great building projects, not only in that central area but also to aid

261
the boroughs themselves. The size of the problems of urban renewal, the size of the job to be done and the organisation required to do it, will, I am convinced, require the assistance of the Greater London Authority even in the boroughs themselves.
I wish that any words of mine could convince the Government and the House what a splendid and valuable organisation to-day exists, and has been built up in recent years, in the Architect's Department of the London County Council. One of the main failures of planning in this country generally has been the failure to match the achievements of planning on paper with the level of execution in architectural and urban terms. But we have had combined, in recent years, in the Architect's Department of the London County Council a system of planning theory, planning administration, and the idea of the architectural development group for housing and schools. The Department has exercised actual responsibility for designing, building and maintenance. This machine may have been cumbersome, but it has been comprehensive and vital and has drawn imaginative architects into its service. I think that this Architect's Department of the L.C.C. as we now have it not only is famous and unique in this country, but has something of a world reputation—which it deserves.
If I wanted to show an intelligent visitor to this country some of our best recent achievements in architecture, I should not take him to one of our new towns, or even to a reconstructed area in one of our devastated cities, although good work is to be found in both those categories. I should take him to see some of the work of the Architect's Department of the London County Council. It has been responsible for admirable urban estates in various parts, which at this late hour I will not trouble to enumerate. It has constructed some admirable schools, is engaged in most interesting work in constructing the Sports Centre at the Crystal Palace, and is doing some admirable reconstruction at the Elephant and Castle.
My Lords, I cannot exaggerate, from the point of view of the future of our capital city, the importance of preserving the Architect's Department of the
262
London County Council. I should like to see the whole Department taken over by the Greater London Council; or perhaps some of it could be transferred to the enlarged boroughs. One thing we cannot afford is to lose this accumulated skill and tradition. If we were so foolish as to do that, no matter how good the rest of the Government's scheme were to be, the final result on our capital would be disastrous.
I should now like to turn from the centre to the boroughs. My Lords, we are reducing 107 county, non-county and metropolitan boroughs and urban district councils, by amalgamation, to 34 borough councils. Of these only eleven have at this moment independent architects' departments. Clearly, it will have to be a statutory requirement of the Government's Bill, when they introduce it, that every borough must have a borough architect as chief officer in his own department. It will also be necessary, in my opinion, to provide that architecture and town planning must be handled in a single department. But, my Lords, wonder if the House realises quite how short the transition stage will be. According to the Government's White Paper, the election for the new Authority will take place in the autumn of 1964, and the takeover will be in April, 1965. That is a short period in which to organise a number of efficient Architectural Departments.
I have raised these matters, not because I am against the reform of local government in London—like the Royal Institute of British Architects, I believe that it is long overdue—but because I want this country, and this capital, to benefit from these reforms. This will not be the case if we throw away things of great value which we enjoy at present. I do not demand the preservation of the L.C.C.; nor do I demand that the structure of London as it now exists should be permanent. But I do demand a recognition of those things which the L.C.C. are doing supremely well. In the past I have had a number of quarrels with the L.C.C.'s Architect's Department. It may be that some members of the House remember my not unsuccessful intervention in the matter of Piccadilly Circus. But, my Lords, having said all that, I would repeat that

263
the Architect's Department, with the skill and enthusiasm which it has collected, is absolutely vital for the future of London.
My Lords, I would make a final appeal to the Minister who is going to reply. He has already won a fine reputation for himself; he bears a name that is not only famous in the Senior Service but very well thought of in the architectural world—I do not here refer to his own efforts, but to those of a distinguished relative. I find it difficult to exaggerate—and I assure your Lordships that I do not believe I am exaggerating—either the importance or the urgency of the problem, a problem that has already been brought to the Government's notice by the Royal Institute of British Architects and by the Royal Fine Art Commission.
Let me mention, in order to express my agreement with it, a most interesting lecture that was delivered to the Architectural Association by a very distinguished former architect of London, now Professor of Architecture at Edinburgh University, Sir Robert Matthew. I beg the Government to pay attention to his advice and to the advice of the Royal Institute and the Royal Fine Art Commission. If they do, it is not too late for them so to frame their legislation that we get all the benefits they desire to achieve by their reform without sacrificing the good instruments which we already have and which will certainly be threatened unless early steps are taken by the Government for their protection.
7.40 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am sure that we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for opening the debate this afternoon on the reorganisation of London government. It was the speech of a great Londoner, one passionately devoted to the welfare of the citizens of London, and to accuse my noble friend of being wedded to the ideas of 1888 is utter, sheer nonsense. What my noble friend is fighting against, and what he will continue to fight with all the vigour at his command, is what he sees in the Government's proposals: a tearing up, a breaking down, a worsening of the great edifice of social services and other similar types of benefit for
264
our people which has been built up by the London County Council and other councils since 1888. As I said, to say that my noble friend is wedded to the ideas of 1888 is utter, sheer nonsense.
I served my apprenticeship in local government, and naturally, at the outset of my consideration of this plan, I looked at the Government's White Paper to see what was proposed in regard to the County Borough of East Ham, on which served for over twenty years. It is suggested that this should be amalgamated with West Ham. I leave on one side the bringing into the new area of that part of the metropolitan borough of Woolwich which lies North of the Thames. I have known these two boroughs intimately for a very long time, and I can assure the Minister that the proposal to amalgamate these two county boroughs is a profound mistake. Fortunately, the Minister in another place indicated that alternative proposals, if submitted, would be considered, and I am sure that from both county boroughs these proposals will be forthcoming.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, I am going to confine myself to one topic only at this very late hour, I turn to a subject which surprisingly received little attention in the course of the two days' debate in another place—I refer to the position of the many thousands of professional, clerical and technical staffs now employed by the local authorities. To say that these people are anxious about what the future holds for them is an understatement. There is grave anxiety. I am quite aware that the Minister in another place stated that new, improved compensation arrangements would in due course be forthcoming. I hope that the National and Local Government Officers' Association will be consulted in regard to these regulations while they are in draft, to ensure that they apply fully to the officers likely to be affected.
While that statement of the Minister in another place is good so far as it goes, a moment's reflection will show that it has also the effect of increasing anxiety among the staff, as it seems to indicate that the Minister anticipates redundancy on a fairly large scale, if and when the Government's proposals are carried into effect. As my noble

265
friend Lord Lindgren rightly said, we are greatly indebted to the work of local government officers. To mention only a few of the grades—the public health inspectors, the public cleansing department inspectors, the weights and measures inspectors, along with many other grades of officers—it is to their devoted service that we owe the possibility of a civilised existence in our urban communities to-day. If one contemplates for a moment what life would be like with a breakdown of these services in our urban communities, one sees what we owe to them.
I am sure that the Minister desires to do the right thing by these officers, and therefore I suggest for his sympathetic consideration that, on the appointed day, the staff concerned should be deemed to be transferred to the new appropriate local authority. There is ample precedent for this suggestion in the Transport Act, the National Health Act and the Electricity and Gas Boards Acts. Where there is an amalgamation of existing authorities as they stand to-day, the problem is relatively simple compared with other problems, although one realises that a good deal of work would have to be undertaken after the amalgamation took place.
As Sir Isaac Hayward, Leader of the London County Council, pointed out in a letter in The Times last Saturday, the Government's proposals are far more complex than a straightforward merging of smaller authorities. I should like to quote two short extracts from this letter. One is:
"Some county services are to go to the Greater London Council; others are to be split and divided among the new boroughs; the London education service is to be torn asunder and given in part to a new central education authority and in part divided among some of the boroughs."
The second is:
"There are some 10,000 staff not attached to particular establishments, who will have to be used somewhere in the new set-up no one knows where. Who is to decide where each is to go? Who is to be responsible for compensation in appropriate cases? Who is to pay the pensions?"
Yet on this personnel, on these men and women, will devolve the work of carrying out the transfer with all that uncertainty hanging over their heads.
While Sir Isaac Hayward raises these questions so far as the L.C.C. staff is
266
concerned, it must not be forgotten that there are many thousands of clerical, professional and technical staff outside the L.C.C. area who are confronted with the same problems as to their future. I listened with interest and pleasure to the eloquent—it is not going too far to say passionate—defence of the Architect's Department of the L.C.C. by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. It seems to me, after the skilled and professional advice that the noble Lord has submitted to us, that the appropriate place for at least the bulk of the Architect's and Planning Departments of the L.C.C. is with the new Greater London Authority if that authority comes into being. We surely are not going to throw on one side, ignore as of no consequence, the splendid work which the Architect's Department and the Planning Department have done in the rebuilding of London.
So far as the education service is concerned, the great work of the London County Council in developing London's educational service on the foundations laid by Sidney Webb (Lord Passfield) some sixty years ago—a great work which enables one to say without fear of contradiction that to-day London's educational system is one of the finest in the country, if not in the world—is, as I understand the plan, to be shattered into fragments.
My Lords, it may be—so much has not been said; so much has been left to conjecture—that the Government have some answer, some solution, to the points I have raised. But, in any case, I would suggest that if the Government wish to do the right thing by the staff—and I repeat that I do not for one moment suggest otherwise—they should take the officers' trade union so far as the clerical, professional and technical staffs are concerned fully into their confidence. And, bearing in mind the in. terests of thousands of men and women intimately connected with the decision which the Government will make in connection with this matter, I am sure that I am not asking too much in requesting an assurance that the fullest consultation will take place. I do not ask for it to-day or to-morrow, but, before things harden up, even before the Government's proposals are put into legislative form, let us have the fullest consultation.

267
My Lords, it is remarkable that during the debate in another place the Government's proposals found very little support. Even though I have strongly urged that the many staff problems should now be given fullest consideration, I must not be taken as approving the Government's proposals for the so-called reorganisation of London local government. The Minister claims that, if his proposals are carried out, local government will rise to higher levels and greater achievements. I do not believe that to be the case; but, in any case, there is a grave possibility that, without careful handling of these problems, if the Government get their own way so far as putting the proposals into legislative shape is concerned, there will be a breakdown of local government both in and outside London and in the whole of the Greater London area. There is a grave risk of this if the manifold staff difficulties which the Government proposals involve are not resolutely met and adequately solved. In the interests of good administration and of decent treatment of men and women who have served London and the other local government areas brought within this plan, I plead for that fair treatment, which they deserve from us and which I am sure the people in their own areas would desire.
7.56 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, we have had a long and comprehensive discussion upon what some of us feel would be accurately described as the dislocation of London local government. We have heard some penetrating and, at times, lively speeches, and my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth submitted the Motion in what I think must be conceded to have been a most impressive speech based upon unique experience not only in local government but also in central government.
My Lords, during the war, from June, 1940, there went out from London to the world each night a token of hope and assurance for freedom and democracy. None of us is likely to forget those moving words, "Ici Londres!" Today, we are discussing whether democratic local government shall survive in Greater London or whether it shall be suppressed under the euphemism of
268
its reorganisation. Under the proposals of the Government, it will, in fact, be reorganised out of existence. It will cease to be local in any real sense, and its democracy will be vitiated, as has been stated on several occasions this afternoon, by a remoteness and by the dismemberment of the existing structure around which and out of which—and this should be stressed—there have grown up civic entities, the existence of which is none the less real because the Royal Commission questioned it and the White Paper denies it.
These proposals of the Government, as inadequately set out in the White Paper, are, if I may say so, rather like a jigsaw puzzle, with several of the important pieces missing or, indeed, not yet fashioned For instance, the absence of any statement of the financial results of the intended proposals is a significant omission. What kind of reorganisation is it that involves the destruction of the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council, and which claws out of adjacent counties large and important areas? This is not reorganisation, my Lords: it is the wanton shattering of the whole local government edifice, covering 840 square miles and having, as has been said on several occasions this afternoon, a population of about 8½ million souls. As my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth said, the only reason for this exercise in structural vandalism seems to have been the assumed needs of planning and traffic management. The whole conception, the point of initial departure of the Royal Commission, seems to have been this overriding prerequisite. All the other services must be made to fit in, tidily or not, efficiently or not, economically or not: they must be pushed into the framework otherwise determined. That, my Lords, is the fundamental and profound error of the Commission, and the mistake of the Government in adopting the error.
My Lords, the proposals of the Government, as set out in the White Paper, are also based upon the adoption of two false notions conceived from imperfect knowledge and experience by the Royal Commission and then subscribed to by the Government, who really should know better, especially the former Minister of Housing and Local Government. I cannot help feeling a little

269
sorry for the present Minister at finding this squalling infant on the doorstep of his Ministry when he arrived and being bound, in loyalty to his pal, to take it in and adopt it. As such a parent, he showed no great enthusiasm for the infant. The Times said that he was unsure. And no wonder he is unsure at these proposals!
The first of these notions—here I quote from the White Paper, Cmnd. 1562, paragraph 10—is that:
"… the Government entirely agree with the Commission that Greater London has a recognisable civic unity and shape"—
such as, I suppose, my Lords, the rash of ribbon development on the Great West Road and elsewhere in the Review Area. In reading the Commission's Report, I felt that they were so pleased to have discovered this alleged unity that they really could not believe it themselves and spent quite a number of repetitive observations in an effort to convince themselves of its existence. I do not think they succeeded, either in convincing themselves or in convincing the informed public generally.
Nor are the Government convinced to the extent of considering that the alleged unity is sufficient to support the Commission's proposal that education should be a Review Area function. That proposal has been rejected. And, my Lords, neither are the citizens resident within the areas which are to be torn from Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey, likely to discern this illusory, new-found civic unity—nor are they likely, indeed, to wish to create it. It would be an amusing exercise to visualise the commuters from, say, Kingston or Esher, or elsewhere, who are being forcibly abducted from their present counties into Greater London, turn out with flags and banners to proclaim their allegiance to the civic unity of the Review Area. What a preposterous notion this is, and what fustian of reason to state that Greater London is their city, as is done in paragraph 11 of the White Paper.
The second false notion is that, by creating the London boroughs as primary units of local government with somewhat wider powers, it will be possible more easily to attract men and women of quality and ability to serve as councillors. There is no evidence to show that this will be the case. In the large county
270
boroughs, which are all-purpose authorities, there is the same difficulty in getting people to serve as in smaller units. It is a pity that it should be so, but it is so. Moreover, the intended size of some of the proposed London boroughs will not help in this respect. Some suggested boroughs are ten miles in length, as has been mentioned this afternoon, and one is thirteen miles across. There is no evidence that the proposed London boroughs will necessarily attract more suitable persons to their service because of their enlarged functions. Is not this just conjuring up a kind of phantom army of persons rushing to serve the Landon boroughs, which will in fact consist of units forcibly amalgamated, and with their former civic entities suppressed?
To judge from the comments which are being made about the possible groupings as set out in Circular 56/61, it is likely that the new borough councils will be divided by reference to their former entities. This, of course, is not likely to create a sense of civic unity or identity. Identification will be more likely to be based upon disputes between councillors from former autonomous authorities. So far from a civic unity being created, I can envisage a state of unedifying squabbling instead of harmony. It will be the "unity of the disunited".
Then there is another fundamental defect running through the Report, and which seems to have been followed by the Government, and it is that there is more concern by the Commission for the form of local government and the persons in it as members than for the quality of, the extent of, and the availability of, the services provided or to be provided. My Lords, local government does not exist to exalt the status of persons who are pleased to serve it; it exists to minister in gathering measure and quality to the social needs of the people, not to find councillors something to do, or to exalt authorities by giving them functions which can be more satisfactorily performed by other authorities.
In the last generation local government has moved from being a kind of first-aid service for those who fall by the wayside; it is now a comprehensive network of various services and provisions embracing the whole span of life, providing in case of need or otherwise those

271
aids and facilities which are now accepted as being the social attributes of civilised society. These services must be provided in the best and most efficient way from the point of view of the citizen and the authority. I submit that the premises upon which the Report and the White Paper based these proposals are wrong, and accordingly that the proposals are wrong. I cannot accept the dictum of the Commission's Report that the present structure of local government in the Review Area is inadequate and needs overhaul. Since the war, local government has functioned, on the whole, very satisfactorily in a world of changing difficulties, aggravated by the recurrent vacillations, changes and shifts of policy on the part of central Governments, such as changes of grant, of subsidy, of high rates of interest, "Stop and start" with the initiation and carrying out of schemes of development.
The fact that the central Governments have not kept up with the changing conditions of the location and movement of the population, and the resettlement which has taken place, is not due to any defects or failures of local government. Any defects that exist can be remedied without dismantling the whole structure of local government in the Review Area. The real cause of planning and traffic management getting out of hand is, I submit, as regards planning, the evisceration of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, of which my noble friend Lord Silkin is entitled for ever to be proud. This evisceration of the Town and Country Planning Act led, among other things, to rocketing prices of land, and, what is more important, the misuse of land in a social sense. As regards traffic, it is due to the failure of central Governments to formulate and carry through adequate long-term programmes of road construction and road improvements.
These problems of planning and traffic will not be resolved by uprooting our present system of London local government; they are more likely to be exacerbated. No one would wish to deny the importance of planning and traffic management, but there are many other services just as important. We cannot live by location and movement alone, and the motor car is not yet the only staff of life. Traffic engineering must not
272
subordinate social engineering, which is precisely what these proposals are doing.
I will not here deal in detail with the disastrous effects that this upheaval in the mechanism of local government in the Review Areas will have on individual social services. Other noble Lords have done so this afternoon. One hesitates to conjecture the consequences. For years the wide-ranging services of the local authorities will be in a state of turmoil, flux, uncertainty and disarray, at inestimable cost in terms of injury to, and arrested development of, these social services. For many a year, the consequences of this unnecessary and wanton act will be felt both by children and aged and by all that vast crowd of men and women between, to whom the present local authorities minister from day to day.
Why should the people of London be treated in this careless and perverse way, without being asked whether they want their local government service torn asunder and dispersed? Why this passion to break up what the many years have built up? Why, for example, when every consideration dictates that the unitary education system of the L.C.C. should be preserved—and the Government admit that a unitary system is necessary for the central London area—should the Government propose to split up the present system, turning roughly one-third away for distribution between certain unspecified boroughs and transferring the rest to a central undefined authority. Could anything be more irresponsible?
What has the education service of London done that it has to be torn asunder at all costs? Surely it is, by common consent, regarded as one of the finest comprehensive yet unitary systems of public educational service, primary, secondary and further, in the widest sense, to be found anywhere. That being so, the question poses itself: why destroy it? No satisfactory reason has been given in the debate this afternoon; nor does it appear in the White Paper.
What motive lies under this reckless tear-down policy? Why are the Government doing this? There are some who think, as has been indicated this afternoon, that it is Party political spite, more gerrymandering than reorganisation. In this respect, the statement made in

273
another place on February 20 last by Mr. Macleod, who, besides being the occupant of other posts, is Chairman of the Conservative Party, is perhaps not without significance. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 654 (No. 59), col. 333];
"It is local government itself which is on trial and London is the test case."
Why should London be the test case? Why should London be the guinea-pig? Why, indeed? Is it for Party political reasons? Is it to achieve legislatively what the Tory Party has failed for nearly 30 years to secure electorally? Is that one of the reasons or, indeed, is it the principal reason? The people of London are wondering what the reason is.
Furthermore, are the other conurbations in the country to be dealt with in this way because they consist of the principal industrial areas of the country and because they have a certain political orientation? Shall similar gerrymandering take place in the provinces generally? There are those who think so, and I must say that the whole business looks to me more than a little suspicious.
These proposals, if proceeded with, will have a calamitous effect. They are based upon a wrong conception and understanding of local government in Greater London, of what it is and how it provides the services for which it is responsible. The dominant consideration is, has been and ought to be, the wellbeing of the people, not the jumped-up importance of this authority or the other, nor the status and importance of those who serve on its councils, nor finding them something to do. These proposals, I submit, are misconceived and ill-digested. They will deal a mortal blow to the structure and functioning of all London local government. They will destroy and not build up. They will disorganise and not reorganise. In the cause and in the name of democratic government in London, they should be withdrawn.
8.17 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, this debate has embraced, I believe, the whole field of local government. This is as it should be. For of course the sub-
274
ject of local government is wide enough and important enough to demand the broadest view. It is a great and serious matter, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said. If ever there was a subject on which a narrow parochial or partisan attitude was out of place, this, in my submission, is it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The noble Earl says that—partisan?
EARL JELLICOE: I do say that, Before turning to the main burden of my speech, I should like to say a word about the criticisms which have been made of the Royal Commission. It has been criticised because of its composition; or those who chose it have been criticised for the way they composed it. It has been said that it did not contain members with a wide or intimate knowledge of local government problems. Apart from Sir John Wrigley, there were two members of the Royal Commission who had served their stint on local authorities.
LORD LINDGREN: Not a very long stint.
EARL JELLICOE: That is as it may be.
When the local authority associations were consulted earlier this year on my right honourable friend's proposal to hold discussions about future borough groupings in London, the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee said in reply that they did not think that town clerks would be suitable for this job. They added that the Committee felt that persons with knowledge of London, like individual members of the Royal Commission on London Government, would be preferable. But, that said, I would admit that there is obviously a dilemma here, a dilemma which probably arises in the choice of all Commissions. There are two choices. It is possible either to choose people with expertise in the subject under discussion—you choose, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and risk a slight bias being imported into the Commission—or to choose Commissioners with no expertise on the particular problem, like me in twenty years' time, in which case you are accused of having a Commission which has not the necessary expertise.
I admit that this is a dilemma. But I would remind your Lordships that I

275
heard no criticism of the composition of the Commission until this Report was received. I wonder whether it would have come if the Report had, for example, recommended the continuance of the London County Council.
May I now remind your Lordships of the context in which this debate is taking place and the main guiding principles which link the many diverse and, indeed, detailed matters that we have been discussing? In doing so, I shall deal with as many as possible of the points which have been raised in this debate. I may not be able to deal with them all, but I will attempt to communicate with noble Lords who have raised points which I do not cover. What is the context? Basically, of course, it is the Royal Commission's Report and the twin principles on which the Commission founded their proposals. I find those twin principles logical and compelling. May I just repeat them?
The Commission found, first, that the continuously built-up area which constitutes the town which everyone recognises as London is a single entity, and must be treated as such for certain functions and services: for the preparation of a single development plan; for overspill housing; for the planning and construction of main roads and for traffic control. For these purposes the Commission proposed—and the Government agree—that a new directly elected Council should be established with executive powers over the whole of the built-up town. Secondly, the Commission said that local government services which did not require this broad treatment should be administered locally by the borough councils; and that the boroughs should be no larger than was necessary to give the populations and resources needed to support these increased responsibilities. My Lords, nothing has been said during to-day's debate to shake my belief that these twin principles are plumb right.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, the first principle the Government have accepted. Have they accepted the second one?
EARL JELLICOE: Most certainly.
May I now turn to some of the arguments which have been advanced against the proposals in the White Paper? I
276
should like, first, to deal with the arguments advanced against the Greater London Council. Some critics claim—and it has been claimed in your Lordships' House to-day—that the problem of London cannot be separated from the larger problems of the South-East region as a whole. It is argued that London creates problems for the whole area, and that the problems of the area impinge on London. Granted. But it does not follow from this that, because some London problems affect the wider area, it is wrong to set up a body with executive authority over the built-up area.
My Lords, I think we are all becoming increasingly aware of the need for the regional approach in planning. I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said in this respect in his very able and forceful speech. But there is still wide disagreement over how that approach can best be embodied in the machinery of government, whether central or local. But if, for the sake of argument, the need were established at some future date for some form of regional advisory machinery or the like, the steps which the Government are now taking to create a body competent to speak for London will be seen as a great advantage—indeed, almost as a pre-requisite.
We have heard a good deal this evening about the so-called Surrey Plan, and I feel that your Lordships may wish me, in winding up, to examine it. I must make it quite clear, first of all, that the Government are firmly of the opinion that this Plan provides no real solution to the problems we have to face. I must also make it clear that the Government have not come lightly to that conclusion. They have not, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition suggested, summarily dismissed the Surrey Plan. They have carefully examined it, and the result of that examination has been their conclusion that it does not stand up on its own merits. Why is this so? The real snag is that this proposal is not designed to reorganise London government on strong and secure lines. Its real purpose, I would suggest, is the maintenance of the status quo, with a polite obeisance to the inescapable facts which the Royal Commission's Report has disclosed—or

277
so the pedigree of the Plan would suggest.
Before the Royal Commission reported, the county councils were disinclined to admit that anything needed doing at all. Is it unreasonable, therefore, to assume that the impetus which produced this scheme was the desire to find some basis upon which "the mixture as before" could be justified? I do not say this from any desire to run down those who have given years of their lives to local government and who are naturally biased in favour of the institution with which they have identified themselves.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: You are running it down now.
EARL JELLICOE: Not at all. It would be strange if things were otherwise. It is natural that noble Lords opposite should appear before us sporting somewhat old-fashioned dockets labelled "1888".
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Nonsense!
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords. I think it is about time this sort of thing was not said. The London County Council to-day is a totally different thing compared to what it was in 1888. Take the services all the way through the last years; you have had new services steadily. You did not touch education in London until 1902. At every stage since, legislation has been taken on a sound, wise and completely successful basis. Let us stop this nonsense.
LORD LINDGREN: Before the noble Earl rises will he admit that in 1888, when the London County Council and other councils were established, they had two functions—the militia and the lunacy?
EARL JELLICOE: So far as I know, the area over which the County of London extends is the same as in 1888.
However, the Government have responsibilities at this moment which noble Lords opposite have not.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: A pity!
EARL JELLICOE: On the strength of their own assessment of the situation, and of the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission, the Government
278
believe that a reorganisation of the structure of London to-day which does not contain certain basic strands would be worse than useless. One of those basic strands is that London Government must reflect the physical fact that Greater London is a single city with a recognisable existence of its own: it is a living organism with its heart, its limbs and its lungs. The Surrey Plan does not recognise this important basic fact.
Secondly, the Government regard it as vital that the functions that need to be exercised over the whole of Greater London should be in the hands of a body with real positive powers. In no other way can such a Government be effective.
LORD SHEPHERD: Local government.
EARL JELLICOE: This is the vital weakness of the Surrey Plan. The powers of the Board would be purely negative. How can such an approach meet the urgent needs of the city? It is claimed, of course, that the Board would have more than advisory and co-ordinating functions; and this may be so. But that is unimportant beside the crucial fact that the Board would not have had executive functions. We live in an age where positive physical planning within our great conurbations is a necessity. But you cannot get that positive physical planning if you divorce the functions of planning from the functions of execution.
There are other objections to the Surrey Plan. It would involve an overlapping of responsibilities. It would entail the creation of three tiers of authority in the built-up area of London. Surely this would be a move in the wrong direction if one is aiming at a greater degree of interest in local government and if one believes, as I do, in the words of the Royal Commission, that the extraordinary complication of local government in Greater London is confusing to the electors.
Noble Lords have criticised the proposed London Council as something which would be a remote ivory tower, unworthy of the name of a local authority and unable to attract councillors of the requisite stature. I would suggest that these criticisms miss the

279
target, since they mistake the nature of the new Council. It will not be inconsistent with local services, those services which touch citizens individually. These will be in the hands of the new London boroughs. It will be to the town hall that the ordinary man and woman will turn on all those matters, which clearly brings him or her into direct touch with local government. The larger Council will be responsible only for those services which need to be dealt with over the whole of the metropolis. It will need members with a broad view, capable of looking at the needs of London as a whole, rather than the detailed circumstances of one particular district. I would suggest that there is nothing undemocratic about this. It is surely the principle which Edmund Burke enunciated to the electors of Bristol.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has suggested that we shall not find the right people to present themselves for election to this body. The noble Lord strains our credulity. Does he really believe that, in this city, with all those great traditions of local government of which many noble Lords have spoken, we shall not find suitable candidates to fill 110 places—only 110, my Lords—on a Council entrusted with powers of such importance?
LOKD LINDGREN: My Lords, if I may say so, the Tories have to go out to Hertfordshire to get their Leader.
EARL JELLICOE: Other noble Lords have suggested that this Plan will not amount to real local government. To that I would reply, again in the words of the Royal Commission—and I make no apology whatsoever for quoting that Report:
"Now, having completed our task, we are convinced that the choice before local government in Greater London is, in truth, to abdicate in favour of central government, or to reform so as to be equipped to deal with present-day problems."
That, I suggest, its the real choice here. Either you establish a firm central authority over the whole built-up area, equipped to deal with those things which are common to that built-up area, or you abdicate responsibilities to central government.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: But you are not doing that.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the Report is littered with instances where the central Government must be consulted?
EARL JELLICOE: Of course I would agree to that, but there is every difference, I would suggest, between consultation and local government. Of course, local government consults central Government, but that does not mean that local government should not be equipped with full and adequate powers.
A moment ago I stated the Government's belief that a plan on the lines of the Surrey scheme would not begin to meet the needs of the situation. Nothing that has been said in the debate this afternoon causes me to retract one iota or to retreat one inch from that statement. Nothing that has been said persuades me that there is any fundamental defect in the broad scheme for a Greater London Council, as proposed in the White Paper. Yet, when all is said and done, it would be idle to pretend—and the Government do not pretend—that the proposed reorganisation, drastic as it is, will not bear hardly on the counties on which it bites. There is, first, the loss of population—small in Hertfordshire, one-third in the case of Kent, just over a half in the case of Essex, and two-thirds in the case of Surrey. For the counties on which this surgery is imposed, these are indeed grievous amputations. Yet we must preserve a sense of proportion here. Take the hardest case, that of Surrey, and take the case which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, adduced—that is, the financial impact of these amputations. On to-day's figures, a £1 rate will produce £16 6s. 8d. per head in Surrey—that is, in the truncated scheme.
LORD LINDGREN: A £1 rate? There is no such thing. The noble Earl means a penny rate.
EARL JELLICOE: No, a £1 rate. A £1 rate would produce £16 6s. 8d. per head—
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Earl means 20s. in the pound.
EARL JELLICOE: —and that would be higher than in any other county, except West Sussex, East Sussex, and Hertfordshire.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, will the noble Earl help us? There are normal things in local government. There is rateable value, upon which the local authority is based. There is a penny rate, and there is a rate which is so much in the pound. Is the noble Earl talking about these councils raising a rate of 20s. in the pound? There is no council raising such a rate.
EARL JELLICOE: I am merely saying if it were raised.
LORD LINDGREN: Let us deal with things as they are. Let us have something about local government.
EARL JELLICOE: In terms of rateable value per head of population, if you like—and that is a pretty acid test in terms of financial resources—after reorganisation Surrey would still be fourth in the county league table. That, I would submit, is not a very terrible financial predicament for Surrey to find itself in.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, would the noble Earl mind giving us the figures for the administrative County of Surrey as it is, and then the figures for the new administrative County of Surrey as it will be when it has been cut to pieces by the Government?
LORD BURDEN: And would the noble Earl add to that what a penny rate would produce, and what a penny rate in the truncated area would produce?
EARL JELLICOE: I think the figures for the full county and the truncated county have already been given by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross early in this debate.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Why has the noble Earl not got them? What is the good of this Department?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
EARL JELLICOE: If the noble Lord wishes to challenge me on my statement that, after truncation, after the amputation of this part of Surrey, in terms of rateable value per head of population
282
Surrey will still be fourth in the county league table, let him do so.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is nothing to do with it.
EARL JELLICOE: I should have thought that it was a pretty firm and solid test of the financial resources of any local authority. With this in mind, the Government have no reason to dissent from the Royal Commission's view that, even after reorganisation, the four counties affected by the reorganisation will be financially viable. Perhaps they may require some special financial assistance in the transitional period.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Ah!
EARL JELLICOE: Perhaps they may, as suggested by the Royal Commission. Noble Lords who read the Royal Commission's Report were perfectly well aware that this is what the Royal Commission suggested. It raises difficulties which are also made perfectly clear in the White Paper. But, as to this, I will reaffirm that the Government are perfectly prepared to consider carefully any evidence which may be put forward of exceptional difficulties calling for exceptional solutions.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I ask, then, whether the actual known estimate of Essex for the initial costs of the change will be an additional 3s. rate in the pound and that Essex have been given no idea now whether the Government are going to help them eventually on it? What about the long-term compensation that they ought to get?
EARL JELLICOE: If the noble Viscount would like me to deal with the general financial implications of the proposals I will gladly do so I was proposing to confine myself to the effect on the truncated counties, but I will gladly deal with the general financial implications. Criticisms have been made this evening, and repeated constantly from the Benches opposite, of the fact that the White Paper says very little about the financial implications of the proposals. That little is said about the financial effects is not because this is thought to be unimportant—of course, this is a vital aspect of the matter—nor does it indicate that the Government

283
entertain any long-term doubts as to the validity of their proposals. Why cannot the Government at this stage be more specific? The simple answer is that at this stage there are too many unknown factors.
For example, we do not know the final limits of the Greater London Area which is proposed. That is subject to a process of consultation and study which is about to be undertaken. Secondly, we do not know the way in which final borough groupings will be made. That again is going to be subject to a process of consultation. Further, we do not know what will be the effects of the revaluation which has now been going on for the 1963 lists; and the consequential effect on grants. We do not know what that factor is going to turn out to be. Finally we do not yet know what precise form equalisation grant arrangements will take. With so many unknown factors it would have been ludicrous for the Government in their White Paper to come forward with cut-and-dried financial proposals. So much for general finance.
May I turn now to another aspect of the proposals, in so far as they affect the counties, which have been ventilated pretty fully in your Lordships' House this evening? A further difficulty which is keenly felt in Surrey (and we have heard the same fear expressed as regards Essex by the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition) concerns the Green Belt —the effect on the Green Belt of the White Paper proposals. Fears have been expressed that the creation of the Greater London Council may lead to a renewed push by London into the Green Belt, especially any part of it incorporated in the Greater London Area.
I would remind my noble friend Lord Auckland that my right honourable friend has invited all the local authorities concerned to let him have any comments they may wish to make on which areas should finally be included or excluded from the Greater London Area. Through those consultations, the local authorities in Essex, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, referred, will be able to make their case. They will be able to put in their case and to make their representations. Furthermore, my right honourable friend has given a
284
clear undertaking that no areas not at present embraced in his draft proposals will be included unless that turns out to be the clearly expressed wish of the people in the districts concerned.
He also recognises that some areas included in his provisional scheme raise special difficulties. Those are the local authorities' areas the head of which may be in the built-up area of London while the tail lies in the Green Belt. To those areas special consideration will obviously be given. But I would remind noble Lords that even if, for example, any Green Belt land is eventually included within Greater London the Government's proposals in the White Paper relate only to local government. They carry no implication whatsoever of any change in the Government policy towards the Green Belt. I can assure noble Lords who raised this issue that the Green Belt is, and will remain, an essential part of Government policy. These proposals are in no way affecting our policy towards the Green Belt.
I should now like to turn to the proposed London boroughs; the new London boroughs. Here the basic thesis of the Commission, and indeed of the Government, is, I suggest, a perfectly straightforward one. We want to see as many local services as possible administered as locally as possible. We believe that this will not only provide efficient and humane administration, but will also serve and help rehabilitate borough government. We believe that in Greater London it is quite possible to organise the borough governments in effective groups based on existing communities and local government areas. We further believe that with populations of 200,000-plus we shall obtain boroughs large enough to match all the main local government services and to command resources adequate to these responsibilities.
My Lords, human needs are indivisible. They cannot be disentangled from each other and, of course, they involve whole households. Ill-health, mental and physical handicaps, the disintegration of family life, trouble with the neighbours and the landlord, delinquency in the young—only too often do we meet this sort of linked progression. These needs cannot be isolated. The attack on them

285
requires the closest co-operation between trained workers in all fields of the social and welfare services.
What does this mean in terms of local government? I believe it means that if the well-being of mothers and their babies, if midwifery, health visiting, care of the aged and the handicapped, and of deprived children, can be handled by local government, by the local authority closest to the citizen, that is a compelling argument for so handling them. If these personal services can be so organised that the medical officer of health, the children's officers, the health visitors, the public health inspectors, the midwives and the housing managers can work together as a team, that is a compelling reason again for so organising them.
LORD LINDGREN: They do now.
EARL JELLICOE: In my study of the Royal Commission Report I saw many instances alluded to where the teamwork was not as close as I should have thought desirable. Of course I know the tendency is to bring these various groups of workers closer together in a team. I would, of course, grant that that is the tendency. But I would also submit that this is not always achieved.
Again, if one authority can be given full responsibility for a service, cutting out the need for schemes of delegation, arrangements for representation by one group of authorities to another's committees, references from town hall to county hall and back again, cutting out the frustration and friction of divided responsibilities, that I would submit is again a reason for entrusting the service to one authority. As the Royal Commission put it:
"The various services should operate whenever possible from one council building and there should be a conscious effort to achieve good team work between the officers concerned. They should not be mere voices on the telephone or signatories to letters to each other, but men and women who can be seen at any time by walking down a corridor."
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, he seems to be giving admirable arguments for the concentration of these services in the hands of a large county council. Would he explain how this system of walking down the corridors
286
will be achieved in the juvenile courts where, instead of dealing with one authority, we shall have fourteen?
EARL JELLICOE: I should like to come to the children's services in a moment, if the noble Lady will permit me. My Lords, any one of those reasons would suffice to justify the Government's proposal to make the borough the primary unit in London of local government. In the circumstances of London I suggest that all those reasons are valid and, in the Government's view, add up to an unanswerable case for establishing the 30-odd new London boroughs.
Now my Lords, what have our critics said this afternoon? I have listened attentively to most of the speeches which have been made. I would apologise to my noble friend Lord Auckland for having been absent during part of his speech, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, for having been absent during part of hers, but I am aware of their criticisms. I think that they can be summarised much as follows. Some noble Lords have argued that the new boroughs will not be big enough for certain services. The noble Baroness, in particular, has urged that the children's services require a larger population—a larger catchment area, I think the horrible jargon is. I followed her argument very closely, as I know the contribution which the noble Baroness has made in this field, and, indeed, in many others. But I would suggest to her the following considerations.
I should like to point out to her that many county borough councils have found that they can cope perfectly well with numbers of children in care well below the figure of 500 which was proposed or embodied in the Curtis Committee's Report. I know that the noble Lady has said that county borough councils in this respect are in a very different position from London boroughs. I would grant that. They may be more self-contained, more dispersed even; there may be less free trade in children in care across frontiers. That I would grant. But I merely draw her attention to the fact that the average size of county boroughs in this country is some 165,000, and that is a great deal smaller than the average size of the proposed new London boroughs, which on present provisional

287
groupings will amount to some 255,000—nearly 100,000 more, in population.
I do not wish to dwell too heavily on that particular rather bleakly statistical argument, but I would remind the noble Baroness (though she knows these matters far better than I do, and, I suspect, better than most people in your Lordships' House this evening) that many child-care authorities have fewer than the figure of 500 children in care and are coping perfectly satisfactorily.
Again the aim, as the noble Baroness also well knows, is increasingly, and I think rightly, to try to keep children with their families rather than receive them into care.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Earl accept, while we all agree that the object is to try to keep children in their families, that anyone who has contact with the conditions under which children are received into care in the London County Council will be very well aware that, far from the Council snatching the children from their families, they are most reluctant and most strict about the conditions in which they receive them. The fact that the percentage of children in care in the London County Council is approximately double the national average is a great tribute to the fact that they alone provide an adequate service.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should not wish in the least to dispute those facts with the noble Baroness. I do not know whether she will find any reassurance in this, but I should like to state that, in making arrangements for apportioning existing premises, regard will of course be had to the needs of each area; and we certainly intend to see that the facilities now available for children in care will still be available to them. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will, I know, make sure that satisfactory arrangements in this respect are worked out. Secondly, I would suggest to the noble Baroness that there is advantage, indeed great advantage, in having the children's officers working, in the same teams as all those other social workers who concern themselves with the different aspects of family life.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Including education?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, I think there would be great advantage in including education; and that, I think, is one of the advantages in having education, outside the central area, as a responsibility of the individual borough.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Are we to understand that education and the children's services are to be under the same control?
EARL JELLICOE: I certainly would not go as far as that, but I agree that the educational liaison is obviously extremely important here. I think that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross also asked me a question in this context. He asked whether we could guarantee that the recruitment of new children's officers will meet the needs of what may well be an expanded children's service. On that I would say that this is a matter which will certainly most closely engage our attention, and we will see, in so far as we are able to, that in the allocation of the present staff the best possible use is made of existing skill and experience.
My Lords, I have been dealing with the criticism that the boroughs are too small. Other critics in your Lordships' House have suggested the boroughs are too big and that the result will be to de-personalise local government, and that in any event the proposed groupings are for the most part objectionable and distasteful for those who are to be grouped. In answer to the question about size, I would say this. As your Lordships know, the Royal Commission, in their Report, propose that the new London boroughs should each be in the population range of 100,000 to 200,000. The proposed average size is now of the order of a quarter of a million—substantially larger. For certain services—education, mental health and the children's service, which I have just been discussing—we believe this increase to be highly beneficial. The Government also do not accept the contention that with boroughs of about a quarter of a million local government will become de-personalised and remote. There are many county borough councils of this size, and I am sure that they would not

289
accept those strictures. Is local government unhealthy and undemocratic in the metropolitan borough of Lewisham, where the population is 21,000 above the minimum figure of 200,000?
Nor do we accept the contention that groupings of the sort we have proposed will not work. Perhaps in certain cases they can be improved upon: there is nothing sacrosanct about the provisional map, which all noble Lords have doubtless seen. That is why we have not committed ourselves to any cut-and-dried solution of the particular geographical groupings. That is why my right honourable friend proposes to institute a whole process of consultation in the spring. But, in essence, we see no reason why boroughs of this size, possessed of really tangible powers—I would emphasise that it is really important to have tangible powers—should not shake down into effective units of local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, questioned whether we should be able to attract good councillors to these new London boroughs. He referred to the decline in the standard and quality of many people engaged in local government. On that I should like to quote once again from the Report, paragraph 685, which says:
"In the course of our informal visits we could not help feeling that but for their housing activities, none of the metropolitan boroughs or county districts now had enough real work to attract either able or ambitious councillors or able officers. That many of them are able to attract competent officers is due more to the magnetic attraction of London than to the magnetic attraction of their jobs".
I submit that there is a far better chance of getting councillors of the quality which we all want if these London boroughs are to be endowed with real, tangible and important functions.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, you cannot get them for the counties now. How do you expect to get them for the new London boroughs—34 of them? Every county council is short of them.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that possibly the noble Lord is making a general criticism of local government rather than a criticism of the Government's proposals as embodied in the White Paper.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Lord help me by indicating how many councillors these boroughs will warrant? Will it be 50 or 100 to represent, say, 250,000 or 361,000 people? Is it to be based on one member per number of electors? Can the noble Earl give any indication?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think any precise figure or ratio has yet been worked out, but I would assume that there is no reason to depart from the general principles which operate throughout the rest of the country in that regard.
No doubt in this process of reorganisation old loyalties will be tried hard, at least to begin with. I think everybody in this House is conscious of the importance of those old local loyalties, and rightly so. But we have gone over all this before. Let me just quote from a speech by Herbert Gladstone, during the Second Reading of the London Government Bill, in 1889—the Bill which set up the metropolitan boroughs:
"Why should you force St. George's, St. James's, St. Martin's and the Strand into a union with Westminster, which they detest? … I saw a communication from one of these aggrieved vestries bitterly complaining of the proposal to include them in Westminster. Why should these parishes be combined? There is no unity of administration between these different areas which this Bill proposes to merge in Greater Westminster".
My Lords, for Herbert Gladstone, 1899, read Herbert Morrison, 1962. Your Lordships will have noticed—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is completely unjustified.
EARL JELLICOE: —that the critics, as critics often do, contradict themselves. Some claim that the proposed boroughs are too large; others that they are too small. But this contradiction is perfectly natural. If you ask the experts on particular services what population is ideal for their particular service, you will get a different answer for every service and, I suspect, from every expert.
If we are wedded to the notion of multi-purpose authorities in London we have, as my noble friend the Leader of the House, I think, pointed out at the start of this debate, to decide on

291
the sort of range of population which will best fit the requirements of all the services. That inevitably means compromise. It means that for certain services the population will fall somewhat below the ideal, and for certain others rise somewhat above it. That, I think, is inevitable. Of course, if you wish to depart from the principle of multipurpose local authorities, you can take your pick. But if you depart from that principle you go a long way away from the principle of local government. So, as regards size, I am quite content to rest on this assertion that the Government have every right to be satisfied that boroughs with a minimum population of, say, 200,000 should provide the level of work required in all the services to enable the authorities to provide an efficient and fully equipped organisation with proper provision for specialist staff and facilities.
My Lords, before concluding, I think I should just touch on at least two other matters which have been raised in your Lordships' debate to-day. One is the important question of staff, and the other is the linked question of the Architect's Department of the London County Council. I think that staffing problems were referred to, and rightly, by a number of noble Lords to-day. The scope of the public services in London is not going to be reduced by the reorganisation of the London government structure. Indeed, the purpose of the exercise is to make local government more effective so that the services it provides can be developed and extended to meet the needs of the times.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think the only thing the noble Earl has explained all the way through his speech, probably on the brief of his Department, is that you mean to go through with this execution of the London County Council because they have been so successful and they have been so strongly supported for 28 years by the electorate.
EARL JELLICOE: I thought that perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition would wish to hear what I had to say on what I think is an important matter, the question of the staff of the local government services involved in this reorganisation. If he does not
292
wish to hear this, which surprises me, then I shall not refer to it. But for the sake of other noble Lords I will continue.
It will be true to say, therefore, that the new authorities will need all the expert knowledge and experience now available in the permanent staffs of the present councils. In the long run, reorganisation will open up new opportunities for worthwhile service, but in the transitional period there are obviously problems to be faced. I should be the last to pretend that they do not exist. At the same time, I reject the defeatism of those who imply that the difficulties are so great that reorganisation should be abandoned, or that local government officials are so incompetent that they cannot meet and overcome the short-term difficulties.
First, there are the problems connected with services in which a number of highly trained officers play a key part. These officers will in future be working for different authorities. It sometimes seemed to be assumed that the transition to the new system will automatically produce complete chaos and the loss of all experience built up by teams of workers who have been operating together. I shall be coming, in a moment, to the Architect's Department, and giving reasons for thinking that there is no reason why the work of that department should not be conducted under the ægis of the Greater London council. But as for other branches, I think that the new arrangements, with the health, welfare, children's and other personal services all in the hands of the new London boroughs, will also offer new opportunities in team work by trained officers. I believe, too, that the change can be brought about without the dire consequences which have been forecast and sometimes foreseen. But of course there must be most carefully worked out arrangements for what is admittedly a difficult interim period.
I would entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that these arrangements should be made after due and proper consultation with the local authorities and staff organisations. I think I can assure him that my Ministry will be taking the lead, and an early lead, over that particular matter. As for the proposal which he and I think

293
other noble Lords have made, for establishing some form of Board or Commission during this interim period, to act, as it were, as a referee for the interests of the staffs concerned, I think that is a very interesting suggestion, and I shall be very glad to bring it to the early attention of my right honourable friend.
My Lords, I do not think that there will be any vast general posting of staff or any great disruption which is sometimes foreseen, but there will be some particular grades in which reorganisation will inevitably produce a certain amount of redundancy. Let me say that, while I acknowledge that some officers are understandably apprehensive, I do not believe this particular problem is going to be such a big one in practice as it may now in theory appear. But if an officer does lose his job or has to accept a lower salary there will be provision for compensation. I know that compensation is only second best. It is much better for a man to keep his job than for him to be compensated for losing it; but in some cases compensation will be unavoidable.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, will it be paid for by the Government, or by the local government?
EARL JELLICOE: Could I come to that now? As my right honourable friend mentioned in the debate on London government recently in another place, the terms of compensation are being very definitely improved over those current in the post-war years. These improvements include better arrangements for middle-aged and older officers, more favourable arrangements for part-time officers, and the introduction of a form of compensation which amounts to early retirement with the full accrued pension.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, we accept this. But who will pay? This is placing an added burden on the ratepayers. We want to know whether the Government are going to carry the cost?
EARL JELLICOE: It is my understanding that the normal principles will apply.
LORD LINDGREN: The Government create the damage, but the ratepayer bears the cost.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but it is very important that we get this on the right lines from the beginning. Will negotiations take place with the appropriate organisations before these proposals are approved, in order that we may see that they are as watertight as possible?
EARL JELLICOE: I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks on that point.
A number of noble Lords have voiced their fears about the future of the London County Council's Architect's Department. I am glad that my noble friend, in particular, raised this important issue, because it enables me once again to pay tribute to the work of the L.C.C. Architect's Department. I think it is universally accepted that the L.C.C. have produced some remarkable and impressive architecture in recent years. The physical shape of London is changing more rapidly than at any time since the blitz. It would be sad—indeed, mad—if at this crucial moment we were to take, or sanction, action which might lead to lower architectural standards in London. But, my Lords, I have no reason to believe that this will be the case. On the contrary, I believe that the proposed reorganisation could, indeed should, encourage better local authority building throughout Greater London.
In the first place, the Greater London Council will have very large responsibilities for building. It will be the sole authority for overspill building, and that overspill building will cover not only the 3¼ million population of the L.C.C. area, but the 8½ million population of the Greater London Area. But, of course, it is not only outside London that the new Council will have definite building responsibilities; it will also have powers to carry out major housing schemes within Greater London, and, in addition, it will be expected that the Council will have a vital rôle to play in sponsoring and executing large-scale redevelopment schemes—the Elephant and Castles and Brandons of the future. There is every reason to anticipate, therefore, that the Greater London Council should be able to stimulate a quite sufficient flow of new building to

295
give full scope for a really first-class Architect's Department.
But, of course, quantity is not the only criterion. Ultimately it is the quality of the individual architect that counts. How many architects did Christopher Wren have in his Architect's Department? I would suppose that, above all, it is the challenge of responsibility and of interesting and varied schemes that acts as a magnet to first-class architects. With their responsibilities at the centre and for large-scale redevelopment, I should have thought that service with the new Greater London Council would offer just as exciting a challenge for architects as service with the L.C.C.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? Does he appreciate that so far as staff are concerned—whether architects or administrative officers—their future is a most important thing to them? Can he give an assurance comparable to that given to officers in the hospital service: that arrangements will be made, centrally or otherwise, as my noble friend has suggested, so that new appointments will not be made and possible redundancies may thereby be avoided, and that there will not be either loss of salary or loss of employment? Otherwise men now in the service will start looking for jobs almost at once.
EARL JELLICOE: I do not think I could possibly give that assurance. Surely, it is a matter for the London County Council.
LORD STONHAM: They are not going to exist any more.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: They are sentenced to death!
EARL JELLICOE: Perhaps I did not quite hear the noble Lord's precise proposal.
LORD STONHAM: The point is this. If the London County Council is going to cease to exist, then people at present in the employment either of the boroughs or the London County Council, being fearful of their future, are going to look for other jobs, and we shall lose first-class men unless assurances about their future can be given now by the appointment, as my noble friend Lord Burden suggested, of a central body
296
or commission which can ensure their continuity of employment in the Authority or the new boroughs when they are set up.
EARL JELLICOE: I thought I had given very full assurances just now in discussing the whole question of staff.
There is another aspect of this which I think is of great importance. I should like to remind noble Lords that, instead of the 100 or so present housing authorities, there will, under the proposed reorganisation scheme, be only 34, with populations around the quarter-million mark. With resources of this scale, and with clear-cut housing responsibilities, the new London boroughs should, in the Government's view, certainly be able to maintain substantial building programmes backed by effective architectural organisations. Indeed, it would be our hope that in the quality and the variety of architecture there should he a positive gain when not one, but several, high-class architectural organisations share the massive programme of building and redevelopment which lies ahead of them.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for dealing so fully with this matter, but there is one matter of great importance with which I think he has not yet dealt. In the central area there will be schemes, not necessarily enormous schemes, involving several boroughs. What I am anxious to know is that the admirable Architect's Department, when transferred to the new authority, will have power to execute a scheme and not merely a reserve power.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am quite certain that the Architect's Department or the architects in dealing with actual building will obviously have powers to execute schemes. There is also, of course, the question of the central area, to which my noble friend also referred. He mentioned the dangers of divided responsibilities in dealing with important developments at the heart of London, questions like the siting of tall buildings around the parks, which we discussed in a recent debate in this House—and I know the importance which many of your Lordships rightly attach to this matter. The Government for their part fully recognise the need

297
for arrangements which guarantee effective control for the future over building development in the historic heart of London. The Royal Commission recommended that, in certain defined areas of special importance, certain types of development should be referred to the Greater London Council. Those are, in fact, the lines on which we are pursuing our study of this important matter at present.
My Lords, we have had a long, a full, and I hope a rewarding debate. Although I have spoken for long, I am only too well aware that I have not dealt with all the questions which have been put to me.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I would remind the noble Earl of a matter to which he has not replied; that its the very important speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London. I am very anxious not to interrupt the noble Earl's peroration, but I should be most grateful if he could comment on that speech.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was proposing to write to the right reverend Prelate about this important matter which he raised, but I can assure the noble Earl that there will be full facilities for the advance consultation for which the right reverend Prelate was asking. My right honourable friend the Minister of Education is, of course, fully seized of this particular point regarding the voluntary schools, and the other day he gave an assurance in this regard in another place.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does that mean that the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of London, is right in what he says: that the information given so far is so vague that they do not know where they are going? Is that an admission by the noble Earl that that is the position and that the matter has to be gone into anew?
EARL JELLICOE: No, my Lords, I do not think that is at all the implication to be read into what I have just said. I think there are a great many important matters which could not be covered in a relatively short White Paper. That is the explanation.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive me for interrupting? This is a very important point, and, whilst we all know that the noble Earl is most polite and will write to the right reverend Prelate, the Members of this House ought to know. Can this information be made available in the Library or in some other way, so that we may all know the answer?
EARL JELLICOE: Of course. I think that the gravamen of the charges against the proposals in the White Paper is that they do not meet the test of democratic local government and that their execution would be fraught with great administrative difficulties. I would remind your Lordships once again that the proposals stem in line direct from the Royal Commission's unanimous Report. If ever a State paper was impregnated with a feeling for practical democracy it is that document. May I just quote one passage from it, from paragraph 697:
"We have made clear our belief that administration on the one hand and effective public participation on the other are integral parts of one whole … and that anyone who reads what we have written up to this point will see that this is not merely a matter of theory but comes out constantly in practice. As we turn now to examine what changes in the structure of local government we should recommend, we hope that it will be equally clear that we have throughout tried to hold simultaneously in mind these two organically connected elements in the situation."
My Lords, the heart of the Government's proposals is to seek to achieve these twin requirements. What are the democratic needs of London? Surely it is that the affairs of London should he in the hands of people elected by Londoners to serve them. When the Government's plans are brought into effect—I say "when" advisedly, my Lords; there is no "if" about it—we shall indeed have placed the affairs of this metropolis squarely in the hands of London authorities. The needs of London will be all the better met when there is an effective local government body in a position to consider those needs which affect all Londoners alike, and when the administration of the personal services is carried out solely by London councils whose members will be a good deal closer to the citizen than are those of the councils which now carry these responsibilities.

299
The argument that these proposals do not represent local government and are undemocratic is really pretty thin, if only because it ignores our safeguards for democracy. These proposals will have to run many gauntlets before they reach the Statute Book. We have already heard a sharp rattle of musketry from the peripheral counties. The sound of the opening cannonade from County Hall has just floated across the Thames. And we have listened to the preliminary rumblings from the Benches opposite. I personally have sufficient confidence in the workings of Parliamentary democracy in this country, and in our proposals as they stand, to assert that when they reach the Statute Book they will be found to be good for democratic local government in Greater London, and thus good for London.
But the noble Lords—scurrying back to their second line of defence—say: "But what about all those terrible administrative difficulties?" My Lords, I would submit that, in great matters of government, administrative difficulties are placed in the way for two purposes: the first is to help hard-pressed Opposition spokesmen to make bricks without straw; the second, and more important, is for them to be overcome. I do not deny for one moment that the proposed reorganisation, drastic as it is, will present difficulties If we were as tired as Opposition speakers at the week-end like to make out, if we were as irresolute, and if, above all, we were not convinced of the essential rightness of these proposals, it would be only too easy for us to run for cover behind this smoke-screen of administrative inconvenience. But as the Government are neither weary, nor faint-hearted, nor half-hearted in their pursuit of a contemporary structure for 20th century London government, I would reply to the noble Lord, The difficulties will argue for themselves".
My Lords, in his book on the government of London the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, wrote:
"Whether the future will witness a straightening out of the tangle of London government consistent with the principles of democracy, I do not know. I hope so."
So, indeed, do I. It is precisely because I am convinced that the Government's proposals do represent a straightening out of the tangle of London government,
300
consistent with the principles of democracy, that I ask your Lordships this evening emphatically to reject the Motion standing in the name of the author of that book.
9.29 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down is popular in all quarters of the House We like him; he is courteous; and that is why we are sympathetic with him in the job he had to do to-night. I do not blame him. He is largely dependent on a rather second-class Department, and he has done the best he can with the brief which was supplied. So far as I can see, most of the reply must have been supplied before the debate ever began. But, really, it is unsatisfactory. The amount of information he should have had but cannot give us is terrific. Is it not obvious that, if you are going to give the rateable value of the new truncated administrative County of Surrey, you want to have a comparison with the figures as they are in the whole County of Surrey at the present time? He had not got them. And, really, when a Department lands its Parliamentary Secretary with that muddle, he should go in the morning and have the top civil servants before him and "cane" them thoroughly, because it is too bad that this should be so.
The noble Earl says that he is going to make a strong Greater London Authority. Then he says we are going to have strong boroughs; that the primary unit must be the borough; that the borough must have all the powers you can give it. However can you do both? If you have a powerful Greater London Authority, you will have a weaker borough than you are trying to make out. If you have a powerful borough, you will have a weaker Greater London Authority. What is the good of coming with these stories? The noble Earl talks about people speaking with a sense of responsibility. We have all tried to do so. It is the Government who are acting with a sense of irresponsibility. As my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, the only thing that comes out of this debate, the only rational thing—and it is a wicked, abominable and crooked thing—is that, because the people of London have dared to elect a Labour majority in the capital city—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Loud cheers on the Tory Benches! Let it be noted, that there were loud cheers on the Tory Benches when I said that, because the people of London had dared to elect a Labour majority on the London County Council, then this Government, with twisted and, I would say, almost corrupt motives—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: —come along and say, "Because you have dared to do this, we will abolish the London County Council". Then the noble Earl—bless his heart!; as I say, I like him—comes along and says that, in putting forward this policy, he is intending that true democratic processes should he applied. He is not: he is reversing the democratic processes. Last year the people of London elected a London County Council with a full mandate to oppose these proposals. He is ignoring that and going on with this scheme.
There was a misrepresentation made about the proposed planning and traffic board—and here I will not quote from the London County Council; I will be more impartial. I will quote from a document from the County of Essex, which has a Conservative majority. This contradicts flatly what the noble Earl says. It says:
"The White Paper deals with the alternative plan put forward by the County Councils of Essex, Kent, London, Middlesex and Surrey unfairly, dismissing the Counties' proposal for a Joint Executive Planning Board as a largely advisory board. In fact it was proposed that the Board should lay down in its master plan the main road framework, target populations, disposition and levels of employment, the main consideration for dealing with traffic, etc. The effect of its decisions in the master plan would be binding."
That is a complete contradiction of this fairy tale that the Government have been telling us.
Then there is this education business. We do not know how the central education authority is going to be elected. We know it is intended that it should cover only two-thirds of the administrative County of London, which is a funny idea. Thereby, of course, we shall have a three-tier authority: Greater London, Greater London boroughs and the central education authority. We do not know how it
302
is to be elected. The noble Earl has not told us. I do not know whether he would like to get up and tell us now how it will be elected. I do not think he would, and I would not advise him to try, because it is almost certain that he will be wrong because the Government themselves do not know. In fact, the Government know nothing except that they want to abolish the Labour majority on the London County Council. They are a Government of gerrymanderers messing about for the purpose of getting by legislation what the electorate would not give them in a free election in London. It is a monstrous and shameful state of affairs.
Then, when the noble Lord or the Cross Benches very rightly asked for a reply to the points raised by the Lord Bishop of London and the ones that I raised from the Catholic as well as the Church of England point of view, he said that he would write to the Lord Bishop about it. It is not good enough. This House is where this matter has been raised, and it is not good enough to put it in the Library. We ought to have a statement in this House incorporating what is said to the Lord Bishop of London. We ought to have that, and I hope that the noble Earl who has been preaching about democracy will be a sufficiently good democrat to do that.
My Lords, we have had a useful debate in which we on this side have completely had the best of the argument.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I do not know whether I can persuade my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein to come and vote with us, or whether the pattern of uniformity that he has learnt as a result of his visits to certain countries abroad has so eaten into his mind that he thinks, "How nice it is to see a Tory Government following the example of the countries behind the Iron Curtain!"
Now I do not know what is going to happen. I would remind your Lordships that this is a free assembly. The other place cannot be as free as we are, because the House of Commons can bring down the Government, and they have constituencies. But noble Lords are perfectly entitled to vote on the merits of the question, and are not bound to

303
vote merely out of a sense of loyalty to the Government or to the Central Conservative Office. I should hope that your Lordships would put this great capital city before the Party political considerations which obviously affect the Government in this matter. Therefore, we shall go to a Division, and we trust that your Lordships will vote in favour of the Motion which I have had the honour to move. We have had a useful day. As I say, we have had the best of the debate. We clearly did in the other
place as well—and, my goodness!, we certainly did on the London County Council. The truth is that the promoters of this conspiracy against democracy have not got a leg to stand on, and the sooner they fall over themselves and meet themselves coming back, the better it will be.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kenswood, L.

Nathan, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Latham, L.

Peddie, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Citrine, L.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Henderson, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Walston, L.

Hughes, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Milverton, L.

Airlie, E.

Devonshire, D.

Molson, L.

Aldington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V.

Northesk, E.

Bathurst, E.

Gosford, E.

Perth, E.

Bossom, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Rathcavan, L.

Boston, L.

Harcourt, V.

Remnant, L.

Brecon, L.

Hastings, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Carrington, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Chtheroe, L.

Hylton, L.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Swinton, E.

Congleton, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Teynham, L.

Craigton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Crathorne, L.

Mclchett, L.

Waleran, L.

Croft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wolverton, L.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

House adjourned at thirteen minutes before ten o'clock.