Sitting of 22 March 1962

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

    Shilling Coins (Supplies)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the periodical shortages of single shillings as a result of the increasing general employment of shilling coin-meters; and what action he is taking to remedy this shortage.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): All demands from the banks for shillings have been fully met by the Royal Mint. Employers, by using more shillings in pay packets, and shopkeepers, by drawing more shillings to give change, could help to increase the number available to the public.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, despite that explanation, that this shortage has an adverse effect on the country as a whole? Does he realise that there are even known cases of unscrupulous traders charging 1s. 3d. for a shilling piece because of the very grave shortage? Will he do something more about this problem?
    Mr. Barber: I know from my own experience that the hon. Member is quite right in saying that there is a shortage of shillings, but it is very difficult to know just how we can help further. The Royal Mint has £1 million worth of shillings in hand already, and it is estimated that about 900 million shillings are in circulation.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Has my hon. Friend seen the account in the newspapers this morning of an individual who, in a
    534
    praiseworthy attempt to help the situation, made the same shilling go through the gas meter 288 times running? Will he try to urge upon his right hon. and learned Friend how grateful we would all be if he would make the nation's money do as much work as that?
    Mr. Barber: I only hope that he did not take the shilling out himself before putting it back again.
    Mrs. Cullen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider introducing some special coin for gas and electricity meters to be used instead of shillings? As this has been done in other trades, why cannot it be done for these meters?
    Mr. Barber: I imagine that that is a matter for the gas and electricity industries, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Lady has said.

    House Mortgages (Stamp Duty)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate cost of abolishing the Stamp Duty on house mortgages up to £2,500.
    Mr. Barber: The estimated cost for a full year is nearly £1½ million.
    Mr. Fisher: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Stamp Duty on house purchase up to £3,500 has been abolished, but those who buy their houses on mortgage are possibly more in need of relief from Stamp Duty than those who can afford to purchase their houses outright? Will he therefore consider the desirability of extending this relief to those most in need of it?
    Mr. Barber: Different considerations apply to Stamp Duty in respect of house purchasers and mortgagees, but at this time of the year my hon. Friend will not expect me to say anything more than that we shall take note of what he says.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Would it not be much more useful to reduce the rate of interest on mortgages?
    Mr. Barber: That is not a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend.

    H.M. Stationery Office (Contracts)
    Mr. Greyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the output of Her Majesty's Stationery Office; how

    535
    much of this is contracted out to printing firms; and how much of this latter amount is placed in the northern region.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. Henry Brooke): The value of the printing requirements of H.M. Stationery Office in 1961–62 is about £73½ million, of which about £5½ million represents work put out to contract with printing firms. Of this, some £125,000 has been placed with contractors in the northern region.
    Mr. Grey: As there are good air and rail services between London and Newcastle, could not more of these printing contracts go to the North-East in view of the present congestion in London?
    Mr. Brooke: Any firm which is not already on the lists of those which are invited to tender for Stationery Office contracts may apply for inclusion in the lists and for consideration on any contract which is within its capacity.

    Universities
    Mr. Hannanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the continuing increase in the number of senior secondary school students with certificates of fitness for entry to university; and if he will now reconsider his decision regarding the provision of another university for Scotland.
    Mr. Cordleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to receive the report of the Robbins Committee on Higher Education; and. in view of the continuing increase in the number of students seeking admission to universities and the insufficient vacancies now available for such students, if he will consult the University Grants Committee with a view to authorising the establishment of a further university, if possible in the south-west in advance of receiving the Robbins Committee's report.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his new financial provisions for university expansion during the next five years allow for another university in Scotland: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: The question of establishing new university institutions in addition to the seven founded in the last
    536
    five years cannot, in the Government's view, be properly considered until the report of Lord Robbins Committee is available next year.
    Mr. Hannan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision to approve new universities in England and Wales was taken while the Robbins Committee was sitting? Why should there be this distinction between the treatment of North and South? Is he not aware of the increasing number of young people who could make a significant contribution towards overcoming the shortage of teachers and of the growing anger among parents and lecturers? In view of that, will he reconsider the decision in advance of the Robbins Committee's report.
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I feel sure that now that the Robbins Committee is sitting it would be desirable not to reach any decision about founding new universities until we have its report.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that he is bound by the decision of the Robbins Committee? Does he realise that, in the educational sense, 1961 was the greatest year ever known south of the Border while north of the Border Scotland entered the winter of its educational discontent? Does he realise that the situation is widely deplored by a great body of organised and non-organised opinion in Scotland, and that among these is the editor of a great Conservative newspaper, the Glasgow Herald? In view of all this protest against the Government's decision, will not he give some thought to the provision of another university for Scotland before the Robbins Committee reports?
    Mr. Brooke: I have tried to give thought to all these things, but it appeared that Scotland was proportionately better supplied with university places than was England. However, I say quite frankly that all this will be considered afresh when we have the advantage of the guidance of the Robbins Committee.
    Mr. Speaker: At the cost of being tedious, I must renew my request to hon. Members in the general interest to make supplementary questions short.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the congestion caused by the rejection of the U.T.C. recommendations and the fact that we cannot get the Robbins Committee's report for eighteen months, will the right hon. Gentleman immediately set up a working party to report on the likely effects of the action of the Government on the present universities, let alone the new universities?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. As the Government have just announced, there is a very striking increase in the recurrent grants for the next five years.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the problem being met by the establishment of the new universities was a problem which was apparent ten years ago and more? Is it not unfortunate that the Minister should seek to delay decisions for the Robbins Committee's report, or for any other reason?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. We have already provided 20,000 additional university places in the last five years and are planning to provide another 40,000 in the next five years.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that all the information has been available for a number of years as to the shortage of places in Scottish universities? Is he aware that when there is such a great need for educated manpower, many who could help to swell the pool, are being denied this chance in Scotland? With all the information that he already has, surely he need not wait until the Robbins Committee reports.
    Mr. Brooke: With respect, I cannot add to my previous answer.
    Mr. Hannan: In view of the inadequate reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Nash Terraces, Regent's Park
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the London County Council has refused permission to demolish York Terrace West, York Gate West, Clarence Terrace and Sussex Place, the Crown Estate Commissioners will now develop these Nash Terraces on the lines they have adopted for Cumberland Terrace.
    Mr. Brooke: I understand that appeals may be lodged against these decisions of the London County Council. In these circumstances, I cannot say at present on what lines the future development of these Terraces may take place.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for these appeals being lodged, and was not the proposal to demolish these terraces for private development something contrary both to the Gorell Report and to the Commissioner's own view in 1957 and 1958? I do not know why it was ever put forward. Will the right hon. Gentleman see, in the view of the success of what was done at Cumberland Terrace, that the elevation of these Terraces is now preserved on the same lines?
    Mr. Brooke: There are later Questions on the Order Paper about the general policy of the Commissioners in this matter. As to the appeals, I am in no way responsible for the Commissioners having decided to appeal.
    Mr. Mitchison: Surely the right hon. Gentleman could and should intervene to see that the elevation of these terraces is preserved and that the Commissioners adhere to their own policy in 1958 and do not get led away from it by private development proposals which are in the worst possible interests of the aesthetic appearance of this part of London?
    Mr. Brooke: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will await the reply to the further Question which his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has put down.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Crown Commissioners will arrange for the preservation of the façades and redevelopment of the interior of the Nash Terraces around Regent's Park.
    Dr. Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the restoration of the Nash Terraces in Regent's Park since the statement of policy made by the Crown Estate Commissioners in 1957, giving as much detail as possible; and whether the Commissioners propose to continue with this work as formulated in 1957,

    539
    or whether restoration and reconstruction is to be handed over to private developers.
    Mr. Brooke: I am informed that the Crown Estate Commissioners have in mind to make a further statement shortly, after they have had time to review this problem in the light of an appreciation of the technical and financial considerations which is now being prepared for them.
    Mr. Parker: Will the Minister and the Commissioners bear in mind the desirability of treating these terraces as a whole?
    Mr. Brooke: They do, of course, vary. They are different terraces and originally the Crown Estate Commissioners wished to rule out the idea of constructing replicas, but I understand that the technical advice obtained since then suggests that some of the terraces may need to be rebuilt behind replica façades. This has been accepted in principle by the Royal Fine Art Commission, but not by the London County Council, which has refused planning permission, and that is now a possible subject of appeal.
    Dr. Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind and ask the Commissioners to bear in mind that they made a very good job of the redevelopment of Cumberland Terrace and apparently received 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. return on their money? We are afraid that redevelopment in private hands will means extortionate rents which only a few people will ever be able to afford. This is an important principle.
    Mr. Brooke: The Crown Estate Commissioners made no secret of the fact that they might need to turn to private developers in certain cases, but I suggest to the House that the best thing to do is to await the statement which the Commissioners have promised to make and then examine the matter afresh in the light of that.
    Sir T. Moore: Surely neither the Government nor the House would permit the shocking vandalism which would be involved in destroying the lovely façades of these old houses at any time?
    Mr. Brooke: The question is what can best be done with these terraces,
    540
    which are not all identical in structure. I think we would wish that, if they are being restored, they will be restored with the prospect of a good long life. This is one of the matters on which the Crown Estate Commissioners are now obtaining technical advice.
    Mr. Deedes: As a matter of interest, has my right hon. Friend seen any financial details of these proposals? Has he any reason to doubt that what is proposed in the way of construction would make a perfectly viable financial proposition?
    Mr. Brooke: In my experience, the Crown Estate Commissioners pay proper regard to the financial out-turn of what they have in mind.
    Mr. Mitchison: As the preservation of the beauty of Cumberland Terrace has paid, could not the Treasury and the Crown Estate Commissioners between them find a little money in order to preserve it in these other terraces?
    Mr. Brooke: This is a technical matter. It is not just a financial matter. Some of these terraces are better built than others. If money is to be spent on them, it should be so spent that the new buildings will have a long lease of life.

    Industrial Profits
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much industrial profits have fallen in the first two months of 1962 as compared with 1961; for how long he anticipates this trend of falling profits will continue; what proposals he has for maintaining Government expenditure in view of the lower tax payments from these reduced profits without causing further inflation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: I regret that information about the level of profits in January and February, 1962, is not yet available. As to the remainder of my hon. Friend's Question, I cannot anticipate anything my right hon. Friend may say in his Budget speech.
    Sir C. Osborne: Are not these figures returned by industry month by month to the Exchequer?
    Mr. Brooke: The Central Statistical Office publishes a quarterly series of figures for company profits based on returns to the Inland Revenue by a sample of companies. The latest figures at present available are for the third quarter of 1961.

    Hydrocarbon Oils
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has obtained, in the course of the negotiations with the European Economic Community, as to how the rate of fuel oil tax in this country compares with that of France, Italy and the German Federal Republic.
    Mr. Barber: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) on 30th January.
    Mr. Digby: If we are to compete with these countries, either inside or outside the Common Market, is it not important that these figures should be more comparable?
    Mr. Barber: There are considerable difficulties in making accurate comparisons, I would point out to my hon Friend that all the countries of the Common Market tax heavy oil and, in some cases, at a higher rate than the United Kingdom. For example, the figures for heavy fuel oil show that the duty burden in the United Kingdom is lower than in Germany. As to light fuel oils, the duty on a number of specifications of light fuel oil is higher in Germany, Italy and Belgium than in the United Kingdom.

    Post-War Credits
    Mrs. Castleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will extend the provisions for repayment of postwar credits to cover all cases of certified sickness for a continuous period of 26 weeks, whether or not sickness benefit has been payable in these cases.
    Mr. Barber: I am afraid the answer is, No, Sir. We have given this matter very careful consideration, but there are serious practical difficulties in the way of such an extension.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Economic Secretary aware that I am pleading for those
    542
    working married women who are not insured in their own right and therefore are not entitled to sickness benefit during a long period of sickness, but whose illness can cause grave hardship in families where their money is necessary to sustain the standard of living? Is not this an easily definable group, and will he therefore not reconsider this matter, as it is perfectly easy to do?
    Mr. Barber: I wish that we could help in these cases. The hon. Lady hit upon the main difficulty when she referred to the possibility of the group being definable. The main difficulty is the test that would have to be applied by doctors would be concerned with the degree of sickness which would have entitled the patient to sickness benefit if he had been qualified to receive it, which ex hypothesi he is not. This is a very real practical difficulty. I do not wish to deny the fact that hardship may result in these cases. I do not know whether it is a result of what the hon. Lady said, but the Financial Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health did consider this together as a result of the protests which were made, and I have looked into it again myself, but there are very great difficulties.

    Public Service Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special consultations he has had with spending departments with a view to reducing uneconomic capital expenditure in the public sector.
    Mr. Brooke: There has been a thorough overhaul of the programmes for public service capital expenditure, with the result, as my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 27th February, that the aggregate increase in 1963–64 over the previous year will be held to 6 per cent., the same increase as is expected in 1962–63.
    Mr. Digby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is not a great deal of this expenditure going towards electrical generation, some of it by nuclear means, which we have been told recently cannot be economic before 1970? Is he satisfied that that is thoroughly justified in our present economic position?
    Mr. Brooke: I certainly can assure my hon. Friend that the capital investment of the nationalised industries will continue to be governed by the criteria set out in the public investment White Paper published last October.

    Arts Council Decisions (Appeals)
    Mr. Jegerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will review the method of State patronage of the arts so as to provide an opportunity for appeals to be heard from those who are dissatisfied with decisions of the Arts Council.
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I do not think that it would be right to provide machinery for appeals against decisions of the Arts Council on the allocation of grants.
    Mr. Jeger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that at the invitation of the Arts Council schemes of artistic merit are sometimes submitted and often turned down by the Council and that there is no appeal against the Council's decision? Is there any other authority dispensing public funds against whose decision there is no appeal? I refer the right hon. Gentleman to town planning and pensions, where in both cases there is an independent court of appeal. In this case there is not. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this question in view of the large sums of public money which are being paid out without any responsibility to Parliament or any other authority?
    Mr. Brooke: What the hon. Gentleman is asking is whether there should be an Arts Council.
    Mr. Jeger: No.
    Mr. Brooke: We have an Arts Council because it has been considered by successive Governments that aesthetic judgments should be made by a body of people who are the best qualified we can find to make them and that Ministers are less well placed to decide "Yes" or "No." on purely aesthetic questions. I should be very reluctant indeed to take over that responsibility as an appellate authority from the Arts Council.

    International Monetary Fund
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of interest per annum was being paid on the
    544
    £75 million recently repaid to the International Monetary Fund.
    Mr. Barber: Two per cent.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is it not bad business for us to borrow hot money at 6 per cent. and repay a loan bearing only 2 per cent.? This seems to be crazy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Was today's reduction in the Bank Rate aimed at stopping the flow of unwanted hot money or in order to help the people at home?
    Mr. Barber: The Fund drawings are not intended to be left outstanding beyond a period reasonably related to the payments problem for which they are taken. It would have been quite wrong to delay making the repayment solely on the ground that the I.M.F. drawing carries a comparatively low rate of interest. As to the interest of this country, I remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out to him in a letter a short time ago that if at any particular level of Bank Rate the reserves rise there is obviously advantage in paying off a part of the I.M.F. drawing on which we are paying 2 per cent. interest rather than doing nothing.
    Mr. Mitchison: As the last time the Government wanted to borrow money abroad they borrowed at a much higher rate from the Swiss, why did they not pay back the Swiss instead of paying this money back? What was the real reason for repaying this money?
    Mr. Barber: The real reason is, as I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well, that when a drawing is made from the International Monetary Fund it is part of the general understanding and the general arrangements that it shall be repaid as and when the balance of payments position of the country which has made the drawing sufficiently improves. This is what has happened in this case.
    Sir C. Osborne: Even though we were under a moral obligation to repay this 2 per cent. loan, is it not crazy to be borrowing at 6 per cent. to do so? Since that will be costing the country about £100 million in interest charges, surely it is a wrong policy and we should bring down the Bank Rate to make it less onerous.
    Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend is wrong in assuming that the bulk of the funds which have come into London in recent months is what he calls "hot money". A good deal of it is of a very stable character.
    Mr. Callaghan: Did the International Monetary Fund ask for this loan to be repaid? What rate of interest is now being paid on money coming into London?
    Mr. Barber: I should like notice of the hon. Gentleman's second question. However, in case the hon. Gentleman does not know the answer, I will tell him that it is obviously higher than 2 per cent. Therefore, I appreciate the point made by my right hon. Friend. As to the hon. Gentleman's first question, so far as I know no particular request was made that we should repay the £75 million referred to in the Question, but it was decided that it was the right and proper thing to do and in line with our obligations to the Fund.

    Building Society Investments (Income Tax)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for small investors paying little or no Income Tax to obtain a tax rebate on Income Tax paid by building societies on account of interest on their investments.
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. The tax charged on building societies in respect of the interest they pay reflects the fact that some investors are not liable to tax, or liable only at a reduced rate.
    Mr. Ridley: Does not my hon. Friend agree that by charging this composite rate, which was 5s. 5d. last year, he is asking poorer investors who pay little or no tax to subsidise richer investors who pay at the full rate? Is not this very strange? Could he not sort this out so that in future it is worked on the usual principle on which tax is paid on investments?
    Mr. Barber: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should no longer have the system of a charge of Income Tax at a composite rate in these cases, that is a much wider question. So long as this arrangement remains in being, one of its features is that the tax paid by building societies on the interest paid by them
    546
    takes account of the fact that some investors would be entitled to claim repayment if building society interest were paid under deduction of tax. In these circumstances it is clear that it would not be right to make tax repayments as well.
    Mr. Ridley: In that case, will my hon. Friend publicise the fact that someone who pays little or no Income Tax is very unwise indeed to invest in building societies?
    Mr. Barber: It is hardly for me to do that. I would only observe that of course it is for any investor to decide himself where he wants to place his money.

    Racing Cars (Purchase Tax)
    Mr. Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on how many racing cars Purchase Tax was paid in the current financial year; and what was the average tax per car;
    (2) if he will instruct the Board of Customs and Excise to make a further attempt to define Formula I racing cars as a class of vehicle.
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that many well-known racing drivers have decided to race for foreign countries because they cannot afford to go on driving in Britain if the racing tax concession is withdrawn; and if he will consider alternative steps to assist the racing car industry, and thereby avoid a loss of British prestige and trade.
    Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend has studied in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the report of the debate on the Adjournment on 23rd February and the representations made by the R.A.C. and the S.M.M.T. This further study has shown that it may now be possible to define formula racing cars in such a way as to permit of their exemption from purchase tax. My right hon. Friend has asked the Board of Customs and Excise to discuss with the two bodies mentioned the formulation of a suitable definition. If this can be done he will table an Order relieving these cars from tax. The number of all kinds of racing cars on which tax has so far been paid in the current

    547
    financial year is not known; on a Formula I car, the tax would have been in the region of £2,000–£2,700.
    Mr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that his Answer will be very favourably received by the motor industry? Is he aware that the extra cost of Purchase Tax puts a very heavy burden indeed on small firms making these racing cars and that there is a danger of it being so heavy that they may register their teams abroad or withdraw from international racing altogether if nothing is done to help them?
    Mr. Barber: Those are some of the factors which my right hon. and learned Friend has taken into account.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hundreds of thousands of people who watch car racing and all those who have the prestige of British engineering at heart will be disappointed if it is not possible to find a formula? Will he bear in mind that the definition of Grand Prix racing has been closely laid down by the international federation and therefore it should be possible to do this?
    Mr. Barber: I am hopeful that it will be possible to find a satisfactory formula.

    Colonial Service Officers
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take positive steps to encourage the recruitment of officers of the Colonial Service who are now redundant into other branches of the Civil Service, and in particular into the Commonwealth Relations Office.
    Mr. Brooke: The Government have for some time been taking steps to encourage such recruitment of Colonial Service officers. These have included special competitions for the executive and administrative classes, and concessions on age and educational qualifications and other Civil Service competitions. Twenty-two administrative appointments in the Commonwealth Relations Office are now held by former Colonial Service officers.
    Mr. Dugdale: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it encouraging to men of about 40 years of age who have served
    548
    with distinction in the Colonial Service to be told that they have to sit for an examination like 20-year-olds, and if they succeed in passing it, perhaps then to be told that they have not the right kind of experience for dealing with Asians and Africans, even though those same Asians and Africans appoint them afterwards to service under their own Governments?
    Mr. Brooke: I must refer the right hon. Member to the full statement made on this matter by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in the Adjournment debate on 21st November last.

    Leonardo da Vinci Cartoon
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that, if the trustees of the National Gallery bid up to an undisclosed maximum figure, he will make a special grant for the Leonardo da Vinci cartoon, The Virgin and Child with St. John the Baptist and St. Anne, to be sold by the Royal Academy of Arts by auction in June.
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a grant to the National Gallery for the purpose of the purchase of the Leonardo cartoon, subject to the condition that it must be on public exhibition for at least nine months of each year.
    Mr. Brooke: The Royal Academy of Arts informed the Government of its intention to sell this cartoon and offered it to them for purchase on behalf of one of the national collections. The Government warmly appreciated this approach, but saw no prospect of making available from the Exchequer the very large sum required. The Government welcome the indications that an appeal may now be launched with the object of acquiring the cartoon for the nation by public subscription.
    Mr. Robinson: If this picture—which we must somehow secure for the National Gallery—does have to go to auction, would it not be better if we made an attempt to secure it in open competition rather than through the export ban procedure? Would the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. and learned Friend at least agree to underwrite the balance of

    549
    the cost over and above what might be subscribed by the public?
    Mr. Brooke: If the hon. Member is asking whether, should an appeal be launched, the Government will make a contribution to that appeal, I can only say that the Government would not exclude the possibility of doing that.
    Mr. Dugdale: Can this picture, which I understand is now somewhere in the vaults of the Royal Academy, be seen by anyone, even including Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Brooke: That is a matter for the Royal Academy, which owns the picture.
    Sir J. Duncan: If this picture is to be auctioned in June, will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Royal Academy to put off the auction in order to give the public a chance to collect the money and buy it?
    Mr. Brooke: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that the Government have been in touch with the Royal Academy. I hope he will forgive me if I do not say more than that at the moment.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Would not a wiser approach be so to relieve the Royal Academy of its financial position as to make it unnecessary to sell this picture, on the condition that the pictures it owns will never leave this country?
    Mr. Brooke: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that the Government should make a grant to the general expenses of the Academy, that question does not arise, because the Royal Academy has said emphatically that it is its intention not to seek Government aid.
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent request he has had from the Royal Academy of Arts for financial assistance towards either the maintenance of Burlington House or support of the Royal Academy Schools.
    Mr. Brooke: None, Sir.
    Mr. Robinson: Precisely, but would not such a request have been reasonable and very difficult for the Government to refuse? Would the right hon. Gentleman not perhaps regard any Treasury expenditure on acquiring this picture for the nation as in lieu of a maintenance
    550
    grant to the Royal Academy with the added advantage that we would get a unique work of art for the National Gallery?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot speak for the Royal Academicians. It is for them to decide whether they wish to apply for direct Government assistance, but up to now they have firmly indicated that they do not.

    Victoria Cross (Annuities)
    Mr. Skeetasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the grant of a pension of £500 per annum to holders of the Victoria Cross, and, following their death, to their widows for their life, in recognition of the gratitude of the State for special services rendered in time of national emergency.
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. New arrangements for the payment of annuities to holders of the Victoria Cross were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 28th July, 1959. No amendment of these arrangements is now contemplated.
    Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the United States the holders of the Medal of Honour receive 100 dollars per month, which is the equivalent of £400 a year? Is he not also aware of the intense hardship which is caused to some holders of the Victoria Cross and their families due to the parsimony of all Governments in not giving adequate recompense for gallantry?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot accept that one can recompense distinguished gallantry by money payments. These Victoria Cross annuities have never throughout their whole history been intended as pensions. I cannot do better than to repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who told the House ten years ago:
    "The pecuniary award attached to the grant of the Victoria Cross has no relation whatever to the fame of the deed for which it is awarded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March. 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2318.]
    Mr. Kershaw: How much would it cost—
    Mr. Speaker: I am a little disturbed about our progress. I called the next Question.

    Industrial Plant and Machinery (Depreciation Allowances)
    Mr. Skeetasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the write-off period of British machinery and equipment is unfavourable relative to most other European countries and adversely affects the competitiveness of British industry; and if he will examine the whole question of depreciation allowances in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Barber: Tax codes differ so much that comparisons are not easy but certainly in some respects, flowing from the investment and initial allowances, our treatment of the depreciation of industrial plant and machinery is more favourable than that of other countries. In reply to the second part of the Question, this is a time of year when my right hon. Friend reviews various features of the tax code.
    Mr. Skeet: While appreciating the first point, may I ask if the Economic Secretary is aware that in the United Kingdom it takes over twenty years to write off industrial equipment whereas in many European countries it takes ten years only, and the average tax life of fast machine tools is fifteen years here compared with ten years on the Continent? Will my hon. Friend make some observations on that?
    Mr. Barber: The observation I would make is that I think the point made by my hon. Friend illustrate how difficult it is to make comparisons in these cases. I would point out on the other side that the position in the first year with regard to the writing off of plant is very different, because, with the relatively unimportant exception of Luxembourg, the United Kingdom gives greater reliefs for the cost of acquisition of plant and machinery than the main European countries.
    Mr. Skeet: Luxembourg has no exports, or virtually no exports.

    Public Works Loan Board
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide separate details of interest and capital repayments made by local authorities for money borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board for each year since 1950 to the latest convenient date; and
    552
    how much these repayments have been affected over the same period by Bank rate changes.
    Mr. Barber: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The P.W.L.B. rates are not directly linked to Bank Rate, and it is not therefore possible to say how changes in Bank Rate since 1950 have affected repayments to the P.W.L.B. by local authorities.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is not the Government's financial policy anti-social as regards local government finance, and will not the Government have another look at this matter?
    Mr. Barber: I am not quite sure whether I correctly heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but, in answer to what I thought he said, I can assure him that we certainly bear in mind the level of interest rates when we are deciding what the level of the Public Works Loan Board rates should be.
    Following are the details:

    REPAYMENTS OF P.W.L.B. LOANS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES

    Financial Year

    Principal

    Interest

    Total

    £m.

    £m.

    £m.

    1950–51

    …

    25

    39

    64

    1951–52

    …

    31

    48

    79

    1952–53

    …

    38

    62

    100

    1953–54

    …

    48

    81

    129

    1954–55

    …

    54

    89

    143

    1955–56

    …

    66

    103

    169

    1956–57

    …

    69

    109

    178

    1957–58

    …

    85

    124

    209

    1958–59

    …

    83

    122

    205

    1959–60

    …

    87

    124

    211

    1960–61

    …

    84

    119

    203

    TOTALS

    …

    670

    1,020

    1,690

    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reduce the interest rate on public works loans for housing.
    Mr. Barber: The rates charged by the Public Works Loan Board reflect those which local authorities pay when they borrow in the market. These rates are kept under constant review, and will be adjusted as soon as market rates indicate a need for a change.
    Mr. Allaun: As the Bank Rate went down by ½ per cent. this morning, and as Bank Rate has now gone down by 2 per cent. since last July, why has the P.W.L.B. rate been reduced by only a ¼ per cent. in that period? Does the Minister realise the catastrophic effect on rents when, as a result, a council flat costing £2,600 to build now costs £10,761 by the time the interest has been paid at the current rate of 6¾ per cent. for 60 years?
    Mr. Barber: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it clear to the House the great progress which has been made since last July. As for the other point made by the hon. Gentleman, he will know, from answers given to him on previous occasions, that there is no direct connection between Bank Rate and the rate for longer-term borrowing.
    Mrs. Slater: Will not the hon. Gentleman take credit for the Government having increased the interest rates, which they did previously—they doubled them? Is it not true that every local authority is faced with a colossal burden because the Government policy forces it to borrow money on the open market? Would he not now do something about it in view of the high cost to local authorities of this burden?
    Mr. Barber: I can only say to the hon. Lady that time and again from this Box my right hon. and learned Friend and I have made clear what the Government's policy on this matter is, and the hon. Lady knows that under our present policy it would be quite impossible to insulate the local authorities from prevailing market rates. What is clear from the news which the hon. Lady will have seen this morning is that it is no part of the Government's policy to maintain interest rates at a high level for longer than is necessary
    Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no direct connection between Bank Rate and the Board's rate. If over a period Bank Rate rises considerably, would he not agree that in practice the rate for the Public Works Loan Board has also risen, and why is the connection only one way? Why is it that over this period when Bank Rate has gone down 2 per cent. there was
    554
    only a tiny reduction in the Board's rate?
    Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, I am certain he will see that it works both ways. As far as present rates are concerned, if the rates which the local authorities are having to pay in the market come down, the P.W.L.B. rate will also come down.

    Local Authority Expenditure
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will refer the increase in local authority expenditure to the National Economic Development Council.
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. But it is open to the Council to consider any subject it thinks relevant to the economic performance of the country.
    Mr. Ridley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that local authority spending on revenue account is estimated to be going up by 7 per cent.? How can he square that with the increase expected in the national product of only 2½ per cent.? Is it not time that the two things were brought into line?
    Mr. Brooke: Of that 7 per cent. about 4 per cent. was allowed in regard to relevant expenditure in the 1960 negotiations on the general grant 18 months ago, and the rest is largely due to subsequent increases in rates of pay and prices. The future rate of growth of expenditure, certainly over the general grant field, will, of course, be considered and discussed in the general grant negotiations due to take place between the Government and the local authorities later this year.

    Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow
    Mr. Hannanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to confer full university status on the Royal College of Science and Technology in Glasgow.
    Mr. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) on 22nd February.
    Mr. Hannan: Again, the Minister has advanced a defence of the Robbins

    555
    Committee. Since, however, this question does not involve the creation of a new university—indeed, it is outwith the remit of the Robbins Committee—what are the objections and obstacles to the granting of such status to Britain's recognised leading science-based centre of education?
    Mr. Brooke: I would point out to the hon. Member that there was never any suggestion that on this matter we need wait for the report of the Robbins Committee.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last September the Secretary of State for Scotland appointed a special committee to advise him on this question and that that committee reported to the Secretary of State for Scotland that university status ought now to be granted to the Royal College of Science and Technology? Is the right hon. Gentleman preventing the Secretary of State for Scotland from accepting the view of the committee that he himself appointed?
    Mr. Brooke: Not at all. What I am doing is what it is my duty to do, and that is to await the advice of the University Grants Committee on this matter.

    Public Service Vehicles (Fuel Oil Tax)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the Darlaston Urban District Council with regard to their representations about duties levied upon fuel oil used by public service vehicles.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, following the increase in the tax on fuel used in buses from 2s. 6d. to 2s. 9d. per gallon last July, he will now consider a substantial reduction.
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the heavy burden imposed on bus travellers by the taxation of fuel oil; and, in view of the representations made to him by the Coventry City Council, whether he will re-examine this tax with a view to its remission.
    Mr. Barber: I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement, but the representations of the Coventry City Council and the Darlaston Urban District Council have been noted with others on the same subject.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Would the Minister agree that it is rather ridiculous to put a tax on public transport when, in view of road congestion, it is in the general interest that traffic be attracted to it and not away from it?
    Mr. Barber: The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot comment on that this time of year.
    Mr. Edelman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind between now and the Budget that the cost of the fuel tax to a city like Coventry is the equivalent of 16½ million 2d. fares? In view of this burden on the cost of living, will he give the matter his careful consideration?
    Mr. Barber: Certainly, Sir.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Leaveyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the need for British manufacturers to establish a market demand for their products in the countries of the European Economic Community, why instructions have been issued that United Kingdom companies shall not be permitted to invest their sterling resources in such countries for this purpose.
    Mr. Barber: No such instructions have been issued.
    Mr. Leavey: Does my hon. Friend realise that under the regulations imposed by the Bank of England it is impossible, or virtually impossible, for English companies seeking to make industrial and other investments on the Continent to do so except under quite unreasonable terms of repayment, and that when they seek to raise money by loans from Continental sources there is evidence at least that Her Majesty's Government have brought influence to bear so that they cannot do that upon reasonable terms? Does not my hon. Friend think that we are, therefore,

    557
    losing valuable time in getting ourselves established on the Continent, whether or no we are in due course to enter the Common Market?
    Mr. Barber: I am not at all sure that the conclusions which my hon. Friend has drawn from the present arrangements are correct. As I pointed out in my Answer, the instructions which my hon. Friend thought had been issued have certainly not been issued. If he has a particular case in mind and would like to write to me about it, I would be happy to look into it.

    Surtax and Death Duties
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long he proposes to retain the present rate of Surtax and the existing rate of death duties.
    Mr. Barber: This is not a matter on which I could make a statement—particularly at this time of year.
    Sir T. Moore: Surely my hon. Friend, like every other intelligent man, realises that the present fantastic rates of Surtax are a penalty on effort while the exorbitant rates of death duties are a penalty on success, so that there is no hope for a worker either to work or to save? Will not my hon. Friend do something about it?
    Mr. Barber: Of course, we made some slight progress in the Finance Act of last year, but with regard to the future I can say nothing.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Ayr are more concerned with ending the pay pause than they are with ending Surtax?
    Mr. Barber: Concerning the pay pause, that ends at the end of this month and is to be overtaken by a new incomes policy. With regard to the Surtax reliefs which were announced in the last Budget, they merely bring the level of tax more into line with that of our competitors and also with the policy advocated by the Daily Herald.
    Sir T. Moore: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has no authority from me to speak for the people of Ayr?
    Mr. Jay: Is the Economic Secretary now saying that all Government interference with wage and salary negotiations will end at the end of this month?
    Mr. Barber: No, nothing of the sort.

    HOME SECRETARY (RESPONSIBILITIES)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the additional duties imposed on the Home Secretary in connection with Rhodesia, he will now consider relieving him of his responsibilities for civil defence.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the fact that the Home Secretary is now to deal with problems affecting Rhodesia, the Common Market, Commonwealth immigration, crime and a large variety of other subjects, is it not essential that somebody should have special responsibility for overlooking the problems of civil defence? Does the Prime Minister realise that we have not had a debate on civil defence in this House for five years?
    The Prime Minister: The second part of that supplementary question does not relate to this Question but is a matter of the procedure of the House. With regard to the first part, civil defence has always been part of the Home Secretary's responsibilities, and I am quite sure that he is quite capable of carrying them out.
    Mr. P. Williams: On the matter of the Home Secretary's new duties, will my right hon. Friend not eliminate the possibility of appointing a further Parliamentary Secretary with special responsibility for Central Africa?
    The Prime Minister: That will be considered.

    DR. ADENAUER
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister, in view of public concern in this country about the effect on Commonwealth relations of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market, if he will hold early talks with Dr. Adenauer and

    559
    other European leaders with a view to eliminating misunderstanding on this matter.
    The Prime Minister: I am always glad of an opportunity to exchange views with Dr. Adenauer and other European leaders, but as I had an opportunity of discussing the Brussels negotiations with Dr. Adenauer as recently as last January, I am not expecting a further meeting at this stage.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that a new situation has been created by the insolent interview given by Dr. Adenauer to the Paris newspaper Le Monde? Is the Prime Minister aware that millions of our fellow countrymen feel humiliated and insulted at the B.B.C.'s T.V. news on Friday, 9th March, which contained a report of Dr. Adenauer's interview, and will the Prime Minister ask Dr. Adenauer to make a complete withdrawal of this interview which he gave to Le Monde?
    The Prime Minister: I read the original version of the interview given in Le Monde, and I have since read the verbatim account issued by Dr. Adenauer. I am bound to say that I do not think he intended anything of the nature or kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and the version which was issued as the official version does not seem to me to call for that kind of reply.
    Mr. Turton: Arising out of that reply, is the Prime Minister aware that in the many varied versions of the statement of the German Chancellor there is one constant statement, that if we enter the Rome Treaty either the Commonwealth or the Rome Treaty would have to undergo substantial structural changes? Will he once more make it clear to the leaders of the Six that the British Government will discontinue negotiations if it means a weakening of our relations with the Commonwealth?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Prime Minister: What I read, and the version which I read and which has been issued officially, was that Dr. Adenauer said that if all the members of the Commonwealth became members of the Community the latter's structure would need to be radically transformed. But there really is no suggestion that
    560
    all the members of the Commonwealth will become members of the Community, and therefore I think that this is an observation which is perfectly correct.
    Mr. Healey: In view of the very wide currency given by a most responsible French newspaper to Dr. Adenauer's original remarks before they were amended by the Foreign Office in Bonn, will the Prime Minister at least assure the House and the Commonwealth that the views expressed or held to have been expressed in Le Monde by Dr. Adenauer would make it impossible for this country to conclude these negotiations?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, it would be so, and that is, I take it, clear from the amended version. I am responsible for quite a lot of things, but not for Le Monde newspaper.
    Mr. Shinwell: Was not the implication of Dr. Adenauer's statement, whether in the original or the revised version, contempt for the British Commonwealth, and as we in this House are very much interested in the Commonwealth, would it not be wise for the Prime Minister to take advice from us instead of from Dr. Adenauer?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that it implied contempt at all. What has been argued—I have heard it argued by many European statesmen—that if the concept was a combination of the European Community and the Commonwealth, they should all become members—that was an impossible conception. That is quite different from so forming the European Community with us in it as to protect the interests of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. M. Foot: Why is the Prime Minister personally meddling with this Common Market affair when this is one of the very matters that the Home Secretary is taking in his stride?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member knows that the functions of the Cabinet are collective responsibility, but for convenience committees are formed with different Ministers presiding over them. The ordinary working arrangements at this stage are presided over by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Deedes: In view of the confusion which the versions of the statement have

    561
    caused, can my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of putting on record, at least in the Library of the House, the version of the Chancellor's speech to which he has just referred?
    The Prime Minister: I will consider that.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that question, will the Prime Minister make available the German text from which, apparently, both the Le Monde version and the version from Bonn are supposed to be translations?
    The Prime Minister: I will see whether that is possible.

    AUSTRALIAN MINISTER FOR TRADE AND DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (TALKS)
    Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with the Australian Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: During Mr. McEwen's recent visit to this country I had a talk with him but this was confidential
    Mr. Healey: In view of the growing concern on both sides of the House about the possible impact of our negotiations on the solidarity of the Commonwealth, can the Prime Minister assure the House that there is now total agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Australia about the minimum conditions which would be found acceptable for British entry and also whether there is agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Australian Government on how to seek Australian representation in the negotiations with the Six?
    The Prime Minister: The second question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal; it is a matter of procedure. With regard to the first part of the question, we are in close consultation with them and there is broad agreement—certainly there is close agreement—as to what it is that we should seek. Whether we can get what we want, nobody knows. We are not in that stage of the negotiations. We are in the earlier stages, where the object of the Ministers has been to get a broad picture of the situation, and we
    562
    shall come eventually to the real crunch of the negotiations.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain whether the Home Secretary's multifarious overlordship responsibilities include Australia, too, in this matter of the Common Market? Does he not realise that if they extend so far there is bound to be dereliction of duty about some important matters of policy? It is true, is it not, that the House has had no opportunity whatever of discussing civil defence for five years?
    Mr. Speaker: None of this arises out of the Question. Sir Cyril Osborne.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the growing opposition in many parts of the country to our entry into the Common Market—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am not supporting it; I am only stating the case—will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister consider setting out clearly, so that the ordinary people can understand, what will be our position with the Commonwealth, how far the Commonwealth is prepared to offer a Common Market if we do not join, and what is the real alternative?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. All that the Question is about is discussions with an Australian Minister.
    Mr. Stonehouse: In his discussions with the Australian Ministers and with the other Commonwealth Ministers about Britain's application to join the E.E.C., has the Prime Minister given any undertaking about the Commonwealth countries being directly represented in the current negotiations?
    The Prime Minister: The discussions that I had with Mr. McEwen were confidential. If they were not to be confidential these and all similar discussions would be valueless.
    Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I do not quite understand why you ruled my supplementary question out of order when all the others were allowed to be answered by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Speaker: I ruled the hon. Gentleman out of order because I thought his question was a different one from the

    563
    topic that was dealt with in the matter on the Paper. If that was wrong, I am sorry, but that was what I thought.
    Mr. Silverman: While it is no doubt difficult to keep the margins clear in a doubtful case, where the Prime Minister is prepared to answer ought the House to be deprived of that answer because of your own view of the matter, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I am often seduced by the ingenious words of hon. Members into allowing discussion to go wider than the rules of the House allow, and then I get into trouble with the House for allowing too little progress in Questions. So I incur displeasure both ways.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 26TH MARCH—Second Reading of the West Indies Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Motion to approve the General Grant Increase Order.
TUESDAY, 27TH MARCH—Consideration of early day Motion No. 82 on Rulings of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
The Opposition have chosen the following subjects for debate:
Medical, nursing and other professional staffs in the National Health Service;
University grants and salaries of university teachers;
Wage negotiations in the Gas Industry.
WEDNESDAY, 28TH MARCH—Consideration of the Motion of House of Lords Reform, and the Motion relating to the Post Office.
THURSDAY, 29TH MARCH—Report and Third Reading of the South Africa Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the International Monetary Fund Bill.
FRIDAY, 30TH MARCH—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 2ND APRIL—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the Colonial Loans Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
We hope then to be in a position to make further progress with the West Indies Bill [Lords].
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are two subjects of very great importance which, we feel, should be debated in the near future—the Common Market and the Central African Federation? Will the Government find time for debates on these two important subjects?
Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to tell the House about the proposed appointment of a Standing Committee on Procedure which he mentioned on another occasion, and which, I think, he now agrees should be set up?
Further, can he tell us anything about the setting up of Mr. Speaker's Advisory Committee on Accommodation?
Mr. Macleod: I said, in response to earlier questions, that we will discuss through the usual channels the first two matters which have been put by the right hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, the Lord Privy Seal is in Brussels for negotiations and will not be back for a few days.
On the question of a Standing Committee on Procedure, which, I agree, would be a good idea, I have, after consultations with the authorities of the House, considered the possible forms of terms of reference for such a Committee and these I hope to circulate today, particularly to the Leaders of the two Opposition parties, and other hon. Members mainly interested.
On the question of accommodation, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave at business Question Time a week or two ago to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell).
Dame Irene Ward: First, can my right hon. Friend tell me why the Prime Minister has not made his promised statement on the Radcliffe Report?

565
Secondly, has my right hon. Friend seen the Motion standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends about railways? When are we to have an opportunity of discussing the powers of the chairmen of nationalised boards and their abuse of those powers?
[That in the opinion of this House the economic and social life of Tyne-side and the North-East Coast is seriously threatened by the off-hand announcement by Dr. Beeching, Chairman of the British Transport Commission, that the electric train services of North and South Tynside will be closed, from Newcastle-on-Tyne to the coast, and is of opinion that this decision must not stand; this House therefore calls on Her Majesty's Government to examine without delay the recommendation of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries dealing with commuter services with a view to removing the anxieties of areas where the services may not at present pay, and providing realistic and practical proposals for the rail-travelling public which are not a threat to the successful integration of the life of great communities without whose working contribution the life of the nation could not be carried on.]
Mr. Macleod: I cannot give the House a precise date for a statement on the Radcliffe Report, but one will certainly be made to the House before we rise for the Easter Recess.
On the second point, I have nothing to add to what has already been said.
Dame Irene Ward: The Prime Minister gave a pledge last week that he would be giving the House his views on the Radcliffe Report quite soon, so why does my right hon. Friend not know what is in the Prime Minister's mind?
Mr. Macleod: I do, and I underline what has been said about "quite soon". As my hon. Friend knows, apart from anything else, one does not announce ordinary statements that are made as part of the business statement that is made on Thursday.
Mr. Popplewell: Will the Leader of the House look at the Motion standing in the names of hon. Members representing the North-East in connection with Dr. Beeching's recent speech, in which he forecast, as it were, the possible
566
closure of north and south Tyneside's electric train service.
[That this House strongly condemns the transport policy of the Government which refuses to accept the social needs of transport and compels the British Transport Commission to assess each section of its undertaking on a profit and loss basis, and further condemns the closure of several branch lines, in particular the proposal to discontinue the North and South Tyneside electric rail service.]
The Motion calls in question Government policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will give us time for an early debate?
Mr. Macleod: I have, of course, studied this Motion. As the hon. Member knows, this is a matter that is put to the relevant transport users' consultative committee. Apart from anything else there will be opportunities at later stages of the Transport Bill, which we will be taking soon, for such matters to be raised.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend say whether further consideration will be given to the Motion standing in my name, and the names of over 220 hon. Members, dealing with Service widows pensions?
[That this House, recognising the hardship suffered by retired officers, pensioned other ranks and widows of the armed services, especially those who are old, whose retired pay and pensions cannot be debated under Pensions (Increase) Bills and bear no relation to current awards, urges Her Majesty's Government immediately to improve the pensions of widows bereaved before 4th November, 1958, and to examine the conditions peculiar to all armed service pensioners, and, as soon as economic circumstances permit, to introduce special provisions to improve their retired pay and pensions.]
If the matter is not deal with at Budget time, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be an opportunity to debate the subject soon afterwards?
Mr. Macleod: I cannot give an undertaking in those terms. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I have drawn the attention of the Chancellor of the

567
Exchequer and my right hon. Friends—who, in any case, would have observed the Motion—to the terms of it, but it is not a matter to which I can add anything at this stage.
Dame Irene Ward: Scandalous treatment of widows.
Mr. Bottomley: Can the Leader of the House say whether the Government will find time to discuss the unemployment situation in the Northern Region, particularly the Middlesbrough area, or does he intend that we should wait for the Labour victors at Stockton and Middlesbrough, West to take their seats in the House?
Mr. Macleod: I have heard that voice before. Without prejudice, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a more encouraging response on his re-entry to the House.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Leader of the House aware that a number of hon. and right hon. Members are obliged to him for his sympathetic attitude to the early day Motion on the rights of minorities in connection with Standing Committees? Does my right hon. Friend propose to arrange a debate or to refer this important matter to the new Standing Committee on Procedure?
Mr. Macleod: My intention, assuming that I could get a reasonable measure of agreement with the terms of reference—to which I referred in response to an earlier question from the Leader of the Opposition—was to put a Motion in my name on the Order Paper in this sense.
Mrs. Braddock: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt remember that last Thursday I asked a question about the abuses at the count of the Orpington by-election. He said then that he would consult the Home Secretary to see whether a statement could be made. Can I take it that the absence of the Home Secretary means that a statement is not to be made today? If so, can one be made next week?
In the interim, since so many hon. Members have been to me to say that they did not know what happened at the Orpington by-election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to obtain from the
568
B.B.C. a copy of the film and show it in the House so that every hon. Member will have an opportunity of seeing what actually happened?
Mr. Macleod: Unlike the hon. Lady, I know what happened in the Orpington by-election. Representations have been made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has the main responsibility in this matter, and I think that it is contemplated that a statement will be made to the House.
Sir M. Lindsay: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a Motion standing in my name and the names of a number of my hon. Friends? Can he say what possibility there is of finding time to debate it, if not next week, at any rate the week after?
[That this House deplores the conduct of Lord Beaverbrook in authorising over the last few years in the newspapers controlled by him more than seventy adverse comments on members of the Royal Family who have no means of replying]
Mr. Macleod: I do not exactly leap to Lord Beaverbrook's defence, but I am bound to say that I cannot find an opportunity in Government time for such a Motion.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this matter is of sufficient public importance to give some time to debate it, say, before next Christmas?
Mr. Macleod: I am supposed to be dealing with the business for next week.
Mr. Dugdale: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that he intended to circulate a report to hon. Members and particularly to certain hon. Members? If so, how can he do that?
Mr. Macleod: I did not say that. When one tries—and obviously in a matter which affects the procedure and Standing Orders of the House one does try—to obtain general agreement between the parties, one circulates a Motion which one would like to put on the Order Paper with all-party agreement through the usual channels and in other ways. Obviously, it is impossible to consult every Member of the House.
Mr. Blyton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has agreed with the Leader of the Opposition, through the usual channels, on the question of the Common Market? Will he issue a White Paper tolling the British public exactly what is happening in the negotiations and explaining the disastrous application that we have made to join the Common Market?
Mr. Macleod: That does not arise out of the business statement. However, I will, of course, call the Lord Privy Seal's attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said
Mr. Harold Davies: Will the House have the chance of at least a half-day's debate on the deterioration of the situation in South-East Asia and Vietnam before the Recess? Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange to let the House hear what is the Government's policy for alleviating that situation?
Mr. Macleod: I cannot see an immediate opportunity to discuss that subject.
Mr. C. Royle: Will the Leader of the House say when the House will have an opportunity to discuss the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service, which is very much delayed?
Mr. Macleod: That is a matter which could, perhaps, be most appropriately discussed in Supply time.
Mr. Slater: Do we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) that the Government are not interested in the unemployment on Tees-side? Is he aware that the people there are very concerned because of the rise in unemployment which is taking place from The Hartlepools along to Middlesbrough and up to Stockton, and that even the visit of the Prime Minister to Stockton will not alleviate their anxiety?
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman knows vary well that one is always deeply concerned when the unemployment situation worsens. The immediate question before the House is whether Government time can be found to discuss such a subject in the immediate future. I remind the hon. Gentleman that next
570
Tuesday, 27th March, we shall be discussing the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. On that, it is in order to raise many subjects—indeed, almost any subject.
Mr. P. Williams: Reverting to the question of the Common Market, can my right hon. Friend say When documents which have been promised to the House will be made available? I refer to the documents on the agricultural policy of the Six. Until these documents are available, and the facts are to hand, the Government would be taking an unwise step in negotiating further.
Mr. Macleod: That is a long way from the business announced for next week, which does not make any provision for discussing this subject. However, as I said in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), I will draw the Lord Privy Seal's attention to what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain an answer which he gave a few minutes ago about getting the agreement of the parties on the terms of reference of his Motion proposing the setting up of a procedure Committee? May I once again draw his attention to the fact that, fortunately or unfortunately, there are Members of the House who are not members of the parties as they are organised here and that the difficulty which led to the setting up of this Committee arose out of this? Does not he think it necessary, therefore, to ensure that other Members besides the official representatives of the major parties are consulted whenever consultation is necessary?
Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman was returned as a Labour Member and nothing else.
Mr. Macleod: I intended my answer to cover the point put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He will understand chat it is very difficult to consult all those one would like to consult. As I said last week, I would discuss the terms of reference, not only through the usual channels, but rather more widely.
Mr. Peyton: When we get opportunities such as that afforded by the Consolidated Fund Bill next week, and at a

571
time when we are faced with greatly increased expenditure, would it not be fitting, without denying the rights of the Opposition, to discuss ways and means of limiting this vast expenditure, which has such a stranglehold on the economy?
Mr. Macleod: What my hon. Friend suggests is in order. Supply days, like the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, are, by tradition, those on which the Opposition have the initiative in putting forward proposals. That does not mean that other matters are out of order.
Mr. J. T. Price: The Leader of the House said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) that there will be an opportunity to discuss the grievances arising from the contemplated closures of branch lines in the North-East during later stages of the Transport Bill.
Is the right hon. Gentleman forgetting that that Bill is proceeding under a Guillotine? If the right hon. Gentleman is not taking into account the effect of the timetable on the Oppositon, will he bear in mind that, since it was agreed by this House about a fortnight ago, the Notice Paper on the Transport Bill has been flooded with scores of new Amendments which have been tabled by the Minister of Transport and by his hon. Friends to the disadvantage of Opposition Amendments concerning important matters of principle, thus preventing them from being discussed in a proper manner? This will also prevent adequate discussion during later stages of the Bill.
A Government in possession of a majority can gravely disadvantage the Opposition, first, by getting a guillotine Motion accepted and then by flooding the Notice Paper with Amendments of a technical and drafting character so that important matters of principle shall not be discussed. Speaking for myself—and, I hope, for other other hon. Members—I regard this as a gross breach of Parliamentary procedure.
Mr. MacLeod: I do not accept that for a moment. Quite apart from the Committee stage, there is also the Report stage and Third Reading. There are opportunities to discuss the wider implications, such as there were when a
572
much larger Bill was produced some years ago by the Socialist Government. The additional opportunities include not only those provided in private Members' time, but the opportunities available during Supply times. In particular, there is the opportunity afforded by the general debate next Tuesday.
Mr. C. Pannell: On the Question of Mr. Speaker's Advisory Committee on Accommodation, will the right hon. Gentleman remember that it was the financial exigencies of last year which gave an excuse for the developments not being proceeded with during the Recess last year? Has not the right hon. Gentleman an idea of the necessity of hon. Members, as occupants of the House, being consulted about any of the projected building, rather than that the Ministry of Works should get on with it straight away?
Will the Leader of the House also bear in mind the projected developments on the site on the other side of the road? A lot of the trouble springs from the fact that the convenience of hon. Members is not consulted at every stage. Will not the right hon. Gentleman see that it is a matter of urgency that the Committee is set up?
Mr. Macleod: I will certainly bear in mind the points made by the hon. Member. As I think he knows from an earlier answer which I gave to him, it is the question of accommodation on the site on the other side of the road from the Palace of Westminster that I was considering in relation to asking for advice.
Dame Irene Ward: May I ask whether the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill is exempted business? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have at least fifty things which I should like to raise, which I gather it would be in order to raise?
Mr. Macleod: I am afraid that the answer is, "Yes, it is."
Mr. Bellenger: Hitherto, the right hon. Gentleman has given us the business for the following week and then for the Monday following that. Today, he has announced the business for the Tuesday following next week. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I understood him aright, the right hon. Gentleman said

573
that the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill would be discussed on Tuesday week, or perhaps I misunderstood him.
Mr. Macleod: Next Tuesday.
Mr. Lipton: Having put down a Motion on the subject of the pay of nurses and midwives, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it would not have been a little more courteous, and a little less cowardly, if the Government had found time to discuss this problem, rather than that they should sit back and wait for the Opposition to force them to take notice of it?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the claim of nurses and midwives for increased pay is negotiated on its merits.]
Mr. Macleod: On the contrary. This is an eminently suitable subject for Supply time, as is shown by the fact that the Opposition have put it first among the list which they wish to discuss next Tuesday.
Mr. Hannan: Referring to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), may I ask the Leader of the House whether, in any consultations which take place anent this question, he will suggest to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be included?
Mr. Macleod: If there were any question of wider consultation arising out of any incident which might have taken place in a recent by-election, that would be done.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee Tomorrow.

  AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to move,
  That this House, gravely concerned at the position of the aircraft industry, calls for more efficient planning between Her Majesty's Government and the industry in order to eliminate the uncertainty which now prevails.
  During the last few years I have been engaged in "shadowing" various "earthly Ministers" and I now find myself elevated—I speak purely in a geographical sense—into the somewhat rarefied atmosphere in which the Minister for Aviation moves and has his being. Perhaps on this, the occasion of my "maiden speech" both this Session and on this subject, it may be appropriate if I start on a non-controversial note—in which both I and the Minister have a vested interest—and salute him with the delightful Irish greeting, "May your shadow never grow less.
  The Motion which I now move depicts the anxieties felt throughout the whole of the aviation and aircraft industries by employers and employees. Much of that anxiety stems from the belief, which is indicated in the Motion, that there is a lack of efficient planning between the Government and industry. I notice that the Government have tabled an Amendment to the Motion. The Opposition, the people employed in the industry and, indeed, the employers, would accept the first part of it but I doubt whether the government could obtain support from any section of the industry for the second part, or for the contention that they make. Some people, including the employers, might well ask whether the 1957 White Paper was the first step in the process of promoting competitive efficiency.
  We mention the question of planning. I wish to outline where we believe that improvements could be made. This is

  575
  an extremely wide subject and I do not wish to attempt to cover too much of it, as other hon. Members wish to speak. I will, therefore, try to itemise some of our objections to the Government's lack of policy, and some of the issues which we feel are causing anxiety in the industry, and make some suggestions. In the sense in which we use the expression "need for planning" we believe that experience has shown that there is a need for a far more adequate interchange of information between the Government and the industry, including the need for far greater efficiency in market research.
  Looking at the estimates and the methods of estimating, to which I shall refer later, we believe that there is a need for far greater efficiency in the way in which estimating is handled, and to put an end to the tendency of the Government to exaggerate production targets, and of the industry to understate or to underestimate costs. It would appear that the industry is trying to do far too many things and having to cancel many of them, after expenditure on a fairly large scale has been incurred. Therefore, we suggest a list of priorities.
  The VTOL strike P1127 is, I understand, still not ordered into full-scale production. On the whole issue of vertical take-off and landing we are hopeful, our technicians and engineers having made such remarkable progress, that the industry will lead the world, to our great advantage from the point of view of exports and the domestic market. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is delaying both the SC1 and the aircraft to which I have referred, the P1127, from going into full-scale production.
  In our list of priorities we believe that the outstanding success which our industry has achieved in engine production has given us a pre-eminent position in world markets. This is something on which we should concentrate, to ensure that we maintain a very high standard—the standard which we have from our engine makers—in future types of aircraft.
  There is a need to concentrate on a short-haul civil jet. Here, I make the same criticism of the number of projects begun without the Government specifying
  576
  early enough in the life of these projects which of the many developments they believe should be proceeded with. I refer to the life of the projects and not to the life of the Government, which, I hope, is nearing its end.
  We are in a commanding position on the hovercraft which would certainly justify a concentrated effort to put it into full-scale production at the earliest possible moment. In our list of priorities we have a question which I hope the Minister will say something about—that of the supersonic civil airliner. I know that he is about to engage in conversations with the French about a supersonic civil airliner, but a great deal of money has already been spent in Britain on getting the general theories right, and I should be grateful if the Minister would say as much as he can on how far we have made progress in the theory.
  I know that we cannot begin in terms of an airframe and then try to fit very powerful engines to it. I have a little knowledge of engineering, and I know that we cannot do that. At the moment, we seem to be in a position in which the Government are dithering around on this without anyone being given a clear indication of what is the Government's intention.
  We have by no means achieved the correct balance in the industry between production, on the one hand, and research and development, on the other. This is vital in a thousand ways. Certainly, until we have achieved that balance we cannot hope to get the employment targets right, whether we think in terms of numbers or in terms of types of skill.
  These are the problems which are causing the gravest anxiety. After the announcement that this debate was to take place, I was surprised by the very large numbers of organisations of shop stewards, trade unions and employers who said how worried they are about the not-distant future unless some of the things which I am suggesting are done.
  Turning to the question of contracts, surely it is not necessary to convince the Minister of the need for far better contract procedures than are revealed in the Estimates Committee's Report. I hope that he will say something about the need to develop incentive contracts,

  577
  as is being done in the United States, to replace either cost-plus or fixed-price contracts, which often are very wasteful or have to be taken back when it is realised that the price is ridiculous. We believe that there is a need for a new look at contracting, especially in incentive contracts for those firms which are obviously doing an extremely good job.
  Irrespective of whether the Minister argues that the industry is now rationalised to a degree which has made it satisfactory, I am sure that he will not argue that the sub-contractors have been rationalised at all. We hear of many cases in which the procedure on subcontracting and the results achieved are anything but satisfactory financially. Considering the time factor, they can be a most vital element in holding up delivery dates.
  There is a need in this sense to create an effective public control system which at a comparatively early stage can cut out an obviously dated effort—dated in the sense that we know that something better is coming along—or, conversely, can prevent a firm from cutting out a programme on the ground that it is too expensive for that firm to handle, although it may well have great possibilities for the nation.
  It should be possible, in the present structure of the industry—and until we hear that Mr. Clore has made a successful bid for the R.A.F.—to make these arrangements, because the vast majority of our customers ore public agencies, such as the Services or the great air Corporations.
  While I am going through this list, I will try to itemise some of the issues which we believe threaten the future of the industry, some of which could have been avoided had we looked at them earlier. This includes insufficient export orders for developed aircraft. This of itself results in uneconomic short-run productive effort. Those of us who come from the engineering industry know that if we can achieve a far longer run on this type of project, costs can be slashed by large percentages. We believe that because of this lack of export orders we have reached a position in which uneconomic runs are prevalent in the industry.
  I mentioned in another context the belated abandonment of costly projects.
  578
  Much of this is done after initially underestimating the cost factors. If we start on that kind of wrong foot, by initially underestimating, maybe for devious reasons, and then the true economic costs hit us, there is a tendency for a belated abandonment as costs rise.
  We believe that another issue which is of enormous consequence is the failure to make adequate arrangements with European countries while circumstances were so favourable some time ago. We know of the French approach to us. I will try to say a little more about that in a moment. We believe that this failure will put the industry in an extremely difficult position.
  There is also excessive competition between types of projects and a complete lack of harmonisation between the Service and civil programmes. We should remember that the greatest success story in aviation, the Boeing, began as a Government tanker, and certainly on a Government programme, and was then taken from that programme to become the great airliner which we now know. That is a lesson. I well understand that the Services like to specialise on craft which are to their particular liking and that the air Corporations would like their own specifications. But we are not looking at the duality of these things half as much as we should. I hope that the Minister will say something today which will give us an assurance on that kind of thing.
  New problems are arising which are inevitably inherent in an industry which is developing so technically and rapidly as is the aircraft industry. I suppose that lengthening development periods is one which springs most readily to mind. As the craft are becoming vehicles for far more electronic devices, there is a tendency for development periods to lengthen, and this can disturb the balance between development and production. On the same subject of the intricacies and types of gear being produced for aircraft, it means that cost is bound to increase. It may be that we are reaching a position in which the inadequate resources of the industry are a conditioning factor which is causing the industry not to take the kind of risk which otherwise it might well be able to take.

  579
  Perhaps looming over all is the competition of the Americans. These are great problems. I, as a novice, would not dream of trying to criticise the competent people who are handling our affairs in the aircraft industry, but it seems to me that we must develop a far better method between the Government and industry in facing up to these problems if we are to hold our own in the competitive world in which we live.
  May I ask the Minister one or two questions on the new approach to aviation? In the international sphere, particularly, we see great changes taking place. The emphasis is on interdependence. How will this work out? I am interested principally in our own industry. Is the British industry to specialise on certain things? I have mentioned engines as being among our great successes. Or are we to have designated to us other types of work in which we have a first-class record? If, under interdependence, we specialise on certain types of projects in which we have excelled, what will be the effect on the remainder of the industry? What will be the effect on those parts which we are not likely to get? The question of shares in a venture of this type is important, and perhaps the Minister would let us know his thoughts about it.
  Turning to the question of technical knowledge, if there is to be specialisation on certain parts of the industry it presupposes, does it not, that those who are developing those parts will, by the very nature of their development, get more "know-how" in those regions than those who are not developing them? It seems to me important that we should have a facility for an exchange of "know-how", technical achievement and knowledge throughout all the countries concerned, irrespective of the part of the industry in which they are specialising.
  I know quite a number of industries but, looking at this industry, I feel that I have never come across another quite like it. From the economic point of view, I remember arguing on many occasions, especially when referring to exports, that in this country we can never base our prosperity on appeals for increased production unless we define more clearly the type of production on which we want people to work harder. They must be
  580
  working harder to produce the right things.
  The right things for us, in the context in which I am speaking, are commodities which require a high level of technical skill and are very sparing in their use of imported raw materials, for unless and until we effect this kind of conversion, increased exports will inevitably result in an increase in raw materials imports and a continuation of our balance-of-payment problems.
  As far as I can see, the aircraft industry is excellently suited to the kind of objective which I have outlined. Over 90 per cent. of the value of our aircraft exports is pure export, compared with an average of 75 per cent. in manufacturing industry as a whole. Certainly, the levels of technical skill available in this country are very high. Very few other nations possess it in such ratios to the working population as we do. It is also the case—I am not boasting about it; indeed, I have certain reservations about it—that we get our very highly skilled labour at a far cheaper cost than do our principal competitors in the United States. This must be a very great advantage to us in the competition.
  I know that there are offsets to this. The United States has certain great advantages—large numbers, large home population, indigenous raw materials, and so on. However, it is the case-here is one of the contradictions of this great industry—that, although it is a new and expanding industry, there is not an aircraft industry in the world, I believe, which is self-supporting. The economics of aircraft are all haywire anyway to a simple "bloke" like myself.
  I have outlined the virtues of this great new industry in raw materials and skilled labour. Yet by the very nature of its products, it cannot stand on its own feet. I could understand this in older industries, where there might be a need to prop them up with public money, for industries are like ourselves—we reach our peak and then decline. However, I assure hon. Members that I am still on the way up.
  Yet this industry has, apparently, never been in an economically solvent state. I suppose that that is in some degree because of the defence element in it in which we tend to hide a very poor economic situation on the civil side. But

  581
  if we are to have a diminution on the defence side, the economic position of civil aviation will become very precarious indeed. We should begin to look at this.
  In my criticisms I do not criticise the industry as such. Indeed, I pay tribute to those who have helped to build it up, irrespective of the job Which they do. Their record is very good indeed. The British industry is second only in size to that of the United States. The annual value of its exports of aircraft, aeroengines and parts from 1955 to 1961 was well over £150 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "Per year."] During the 1950s the industry—
  Mr. Philip N. Hocking: The value has surely been £1,500 million during the last ten years or so.
  Mr. Lee: If I did not say that, I am grateful to the hon. Member.
  During the 1950s the industry produced many outstanding aircraft, such as the Comet and the Viscount, and a string of engines which established for themselves world-wide reputations. I understand that during that period more than 40 per cent. of the gas turbine airliners on order or delivered throughout the non-Communist world were British and that 55 types of non-British aircraft were powered by British aero-engines, which proves that there is no lack of knowledge or know-how in the industry.
  Since 1957, the yearly value of gross output has been in excess of £550 million per annum, and there are now well over 300,000 people employed in the industry—a most impressive performance by an industry which is now the most vital part of our defence effort, and one upon which we rely heavily for exports.
  I believe that much of the apprehension in the industry to which I have referred arises from the fact that it feels that it is now in a most dangerous phase, poised between two generations of civil aircraft. The Comet jets and the Vanguards and Viscount turbo-props are now tapering off. The Argosy freighter seems to be doing very well.
  In respect of freighting, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the things which we could probably do would be to try to make our exporters feel more air-minded in moving their goods? At the moment they are not
  582
  very air-minded. I believe there is now need for plenty of propaganda about this. I believe that delivery dates, quite as much as costs, will be the factor which will determine whether we can step up our export efforts.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: The point about sending exports by air is very important, but in most cases, or in a great many, the goods are bought f.o.b. London and the people to whom they are exported determine the way in which they shall be sent. It is almost invariably because cost plays such an important part in final distribution costs that they choose a cheaper method. However, a great many more goods are being sent by air if they are light and not bulky.
  Mr. Lee: I am sure that the bon. Gentleman is right, but I do not think that we are doing enough. The hon. Gentleman is right when he talks about costs, but I am arguing about the delivery date factor in getting contracts. I believe that we are reaching the point when delivery dates will be an even more important issue than costs themselves. The Government can do far more about this. The other day B.E.A. flew some people out to Gibraltar and had a conference with them about air freight. I should like to see more done.
  The Avro 748 has received a shot in the arm following the Minister's decision. What will be the effect on the Dart Herald I do not know. There has been a very large order from B.O.A.C. for the Vickers VC Super 10 and Standard 10–42 aircraft, comprising 30 Supers and 12 Standards, at a cost of £151 million, Other small orders have been given.
  I should like the Minister to tell me whether when the Corporations or his Department are looking at cost factors or the number of aircraft to be ordered, or when they discuss these matters with the Services, they ever discuss the subject against the economic point, the break-even point in relation to profitability or loss. I read in the Press today something said by Sir Roy Dobson. It appears to me that it would be a good thing if we look seriously at the economic point rather than merely order as few as we can over a given period until they are proven. If we are to gamble—this £150 million expenditure on one aircraft is a great gamble—when we come to the point of investing we

  583
  might as well give ourselves a chance of backing a winner rather than a good loser. I think that we may be losing out in some respects in not going as far as we can in guaranteeing the industry that it shall reach the point at which profitability is assured. These axe some of the criticisms which we feel can with justice be put to the Government.
  Take the position of B.E.A. In the past, it has financed most of its very huge development costs from the profits made on its international routes. If it is now to be restricted by the Air Traffic Licensing Board and to be threatened by its decisions, none of us must complain if it does not look as far ahead as it has been able to do in the past. In other words, the Corporations cannot possibly spend huge sums of capital in anticipation of increased traffic for themselves at the same time as the licensing board is allowing independents to use the traffic routes which B.E.A. has built up and on the basis of the profitability of which it is spending very great sums of money.
  If the demands of the independents are acceded to, by 1965–66 it will probably cost B.E.A. a loss of revenue of about £4½ million. This is a great threat to the industry as such, because had B.E.A. been faced with that kind of threat at the time it put so much into the introduction of the Viscount and the turbo-prop engine itself one of our most vital products might never have been adopted.
  While we are arguing, apparently, that competition can be wider and give more benefit, I saw in the Financial Times today:
  "C.A.B. to tackle air competition. Study of European and Atlantic routes."
  The fact is that in the United States, Civil Aeronatics Board is now initiating a major investigation into trans-Atlantic and European routes in order to cut out as between Pan-American and Trans-World airlines competition which may be damaging to each of them.
  This is remarkable. We, with our limited resources, can afford to threaten our two great Corporations with more and more competition which is wasteful and uneconomic, while the mighty industry of the United States has now reached such a position that competition between
  584
  its two greatest airlines has to be vetoed. We had better begin to look again at the question of competition.
  B.E.A. has ordered 24 Tridents. I have not heard of any other sales or export orders. I was told the other day that the break-even point with the Trident would not come until about 120 had been sold.
  These are very dangerous days for the aircraft industry, and I hope that the Minister will agree that there is need for a new look at the attitude. I compliment him on his own attitude to the B.O.A.C. decision, but I am very fearful about what might happen to B.E.A. unless he will agree that the independents are not justified in trying to take over some of the most profitable routes from B.E.A., routes on which B.E.A. has spent money.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Trident, which is recognised to be an excellent aircraft, but does he not appreciate that the design and specification have been tailored to suit the requirements of B.E.A. and not the independents and perhaps not foreign airlines? Had they been, perhaps further orders would have been forthcoming.
  Mr. Lee: That is one of the weaknesses that I mentioned. But we have specialised in this kind of thing. Naturally, each of the power lobbies will ask for an opportunity to get their own specification. I mentioned the position of Boeing. I think that we have overdone this specialisation to the detriment of our hopes in foreign markets.
  Mr. George Wigg: My hon. Friend mentioned 24 Tridents. Are these sales? Have the contracts actually been signed?
  Mr. Lee: I understand that they are sales. I understand that there is an option on 12 more, but B.E.A. has not yet taken it up and it will await the decision of the Minister on the licensing point before doing so.
  Mr. Wigg: Twenty-four sales to B.E.A. or to whom? I thought that my hon. Friend suggested sales outside this country.
  Mr. Lee: No, there are no export orders as far as I know. I understand that this has been the only one.

  585
  While we are on the question of exports, I would point out that our exports of military aircraft have simply nose-dived. If one looks at the overall figure of £150 million for exports of aircraft themselves, it looks stable compared with last year and the year before that, but it is a fact that on the military side exports of both combat and non-combat aircraft have collapsed since 1959—from 173 and 77 to 21 and 40 respectively in 1961. This failure of ours to get them away has come, I think, from the almost complete domination now of European markets by the Lockheed F104, to such an extent that it hardly seems possible for us to make a great deal of headway, certainly this year.
  This is most peculiar. It is not simply the case that European aircraft industries are unable to get their stuff away. In fact, during the same period the French have built an aircraft industry, and their exports are mounting very well indeed. In 1956 their value was £25 million, in 1958 £30 million, in 1959 £33 million, in I960 £56 million, and for 1961 the estimate is £115 million.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: To put the picture into perspective, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that many of the countries to which we sold military aircraft in the 1950s—I am thinking in particular of South American countries, New Zealand and Central Africa—have not yet come to replace them? One would not expect to have repeated those sales yet because the original aircraft have not yet worn out.
  Mr. Lee: But if the hon. Member is right about this, it means that this industry is condemned to be seasonal for the rest of time, and that is the point I was making about one generation going before the second generation is ready.
  It is not the case that other European industries have done as badly as we have in exports. I instanced the French position and I should like to quote from the Financial Times of 17th August, 1961. It shows gravity of our position. This is what the paper said:
  "There is hardly a major European aircraft and engine manufacturer which is not now linked in some way with the big American companies, and the United States aircraft industry as a whole has well over 100 commercial or financial agreements with companies in France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium and Hol-
  586
  land—many more in fact than has the United Kingdom."
  The article then referred to the Lockheed Starfighter and suggested that its success was the direct result of such agreements. It added:
  "Out of a world-wide total of around 1,500 Starfighters to be built outside the U.S.A. on licence, it is estimated that nearly 1,000 will be built in Europe, mainly in West Germany and Holland at an estimated outlay of 2,000 million dollars."
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some idea how we shall break in on the European position. As it is, we are in the greatest difficulty over the future of exports of combat and non-combat planes and Tridents. We have already heard about the difficulties in estimating expenditure on research and development. I do not want to go over the whole business of how, whenever we start on anything, the estimates seem to go "haywire". I mention only how expenditure on Seaslug, Thunderbird, Firestreak, and Blue Streak rocketed in terms of estimates long before they were ready or were abandoned, as the case might be. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about this estimating problem? Does he propose to follow the recommendations of the Zuckerman Committee on the Management and Control of Research and Development?
  I should like to quote from that Report. It says:
  "(a) All defence projects which lead to the development of weapon systems should normally be processed through the following stages:—

  (i) the formulation of a draft operational requirement (Staff Target), followed at an appropriate stage by an agreed operational requirement and the initial sketch of a technical specification;

  (ii) a feasibility study;

  (iii) a project study;

  (iv) and, finally, development itself."

  I want to contrast this with the Third Report of the Estimates Committee on what has been happening here.
  On the Air Supplementary Estimate, the Committee says, on page xiii, in paragraph 42:
  "In the financial year 1961–62 the value of the production target figure arrived at was £101 million. The value of the delivery figure was £43·3 million, which was further reduced by £1·8 million for unallocated shortfall' making the final figure, used in the Estimates. £41·5 million."

  587
  The Committee adds, in paragraph 43:
  "The striking discrepancy between the production target and the value of expected deliveries has persisted for a number of years. The witnesses, in seeking to justify production targets, which were admittedly very optimistic and acknowledged to be unrealistic… told Sub-Committee G that if the production targets were modified the manufacturers of aircraft would relax their efforts and produce fewer aircraft."
  I should have thought that that was almost libellous. I know that Sir Roy Dobson has quite a temper. I should like to put that to him, provided that I was on the other side of some wire netting when I did it.
  The Estimates Committee added:
  "Your Committee are concerned not only at the persistent recurrence of inaccurate estimating, but also at the implications of a practice which appears to authorise manufacturers to base their preparations and sub-contracts on much larger quantities than those which the House authorises the departments to pay for. They therefore recommend that the whole system of procurement should be reviewed immediately."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to accept the need for a complete review of the whole system?
  I should like to push this matter home by quoting one or two questions and answers reported in the Minutes of Evidence. Gilbert and Sullivan could not have done half as well. For instance, on page 56 of the Report, there is this against Question 491:
  "Could you elaborate on this idea that the programme is perpetually behind? Do I understand it right, that when you come to make an estimate, you do not put down what you have ordered, but the amount you think you are likely to get, which is miles below what you have ordered?—That is right, Sir."
  Question 492 reads:
  "What sort of difference is there in magnitude between what you expect to get and what you have ordered?—On this vote as a whole, what we reckon is £100 million difference. That was the amount of shortfall we applied when we framed our estimate."
  I think that the Committee had become a little boggle-eyed at the thought of £100 million being tossed around as the difference between an Estimate and what one got.
  Question 493 reads:
  "To get this clear: covering what categories besides aero engines, frames and so on?—The great bulk of this money is, in fact, on the air frame and aero engine programmes where the supply department, the Ministry of
  588
  Aviation, set the aircraft firms what they call production targets."
  I emphasise those words "what they call". The right hon. Gentleman ought to look at this sort of nonsense which passes for estimating in an industry which handles such huge sums of public money.
  There is a further question and answer which I should like hon. Members to hear. This is Question 498:
  "In other words, you feel it right to put in your estimates—and I am not challenging the wisdom of doing so"—
  said the very charitable questioner—
  "only 60 per cent. of what the Air Force would like the manufacturers to produce?—That is right. This, of course, is something that we have been doing for years past; there is nothing new in this particular principle. It is something we have to do to avoid overestimating, in the light of past experience."
  The questioner went on, in Question 499. to ask:
  "Is it not reasonable to suppose that if, year after year, you cannot get nearer than 60 per cent. of your target, then there is something wrong with your target?—The target is something which is set there for people to try their best to reach, and if you get your target lower you of course will get a smaller achievement still.… But, having said that, undoubtedly there is quite a substantial shortfall element here."
  It is not fair to the House of Commons that we should be asked to pass sums of this kind when we have so-called Estimates based on the kind of thing that I have just read to the House.
  I should like to refer the House to the Rotodyne as an example of lack of decision leading to uncertainty. We all know now that the project has been cancelled. Westlands Aircraft (Fairey Division), where much of the work was done, employs about 2,000 people, including 800 production workers. As recently as two months ago the management were going ahead with retooling and they based their whole floor programme round the Rotodyne. Cancellation leaves them with grossly inadequate work in relation to the floor space, and within a few months workers will be faced with unemployment. Is it true that lack of decision by the Government on inter-city communication and noise has been an important factor in B.E.A. refusing to order the Rotodyne? After seven years of work and £11 million of public money lost, this is a remarkable decision at this stage.

  589
  I notice that in the defence debate on 6th March the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) said:
  "When I was Secretary of State for Air, in 1956, I thought that I had put the Rotodyne out of the military programme, which was already overloaded, but three years later my successor rose at the Dispatch Box and talked about the forces having the Rotodyne. At the end of the day, in 1962, we are told that there is no Service or civil demand for it, and that the project is cancelled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 261.]
  So, in 1956, it was out, in 1959 it was in, and in 1962 it is out again. Could we have information about this project which was known by the right hon. Member for Flint, West as long ago as 1956 to be an overdone success—if I may put it that way? Why is it the Government have messed about with it and that we have not had a decision to cut it far earlier? The firm which had based its programme around the Rotodyne put out other programmes which could have gone on in place of it.
  As to the mergers, the Tories won the 1959 General Election on the virtues of competitive private enterprise. Then the present Minister for part of our Commonwealth relations was given the task of eliminating a great deal of private enterprise from the industry. We had the shotgun marriages because it appeared to him that the structure which the firms had produced was not adequate for the industry.
  I have talked about the wasteful nature of our research and design. It is not, in fact, the kind of structure which can deliver the goods we require. I mentioned the French industry, which has been built on 70 per cent. of public ownership. The consortia of the type we have got cannot streamline our research and design especially to the point which the French are now managing to do. When we see the position to which the French have brought about grouping and compare that with the performance of our Government who base themselves on the efficiencies of competitive private enterprise and then treat Handley Page in the way they have done, one can only say that it really is the most disgraceful situation.
  It may be that it is Government policy to penalise firms which take Tory propaganda about the nature of competitive private enterprise seriously, because that is precisely what I believe to have hap
  590
  pened in the case of the development of the Dart Herald.
  I have a most interesting letter from an ex-member of the R.A.F. He is a wing commander who confesses that he is a Tory. I should not have thought there were many people around today who confess that they are Tories.
  Mr. Burden: Still fewer that they are Socialists.
  Mr. Lee: This man points out that the R.A.F. is "hopping mad" about this decision. After all, he is speaking about people who are in a good position to judge, and he says:
  "They believe that the order will cost £5 million more and cannot be delivered for another two years, whereas the R.A.F. undoubtedly need a plane now."
  That is the kind of criticism we are getting, and it does seem to me that it would be far more honest of the Government if they said to the firms outside the consortia, "Until and unless you obey our instructions you will get nothing whatever in the way of Government orders".
  We know that the same position arises so far as Short Brothers are concerned. Here is a firm in which the Government are a major shareholder—with a holding of over 50 per cent. It has been responsible for the development of many very good aircraft indeed, and yet, sited in Northern Ireland as the firm is, and where there is an 8 per cent. unemployment figure, there is more apprehension and fear now in Belfast as a result of the position of Shorts than I care to see in any part of the British Isles.
  These are some of the criticisms which we feel are justified in view of the Government's failure to plan and to organise the industry in a competent way. It is an industry, as I have said, in which a very great deal of capital—of public money—is now bound up. It is an industry which is capable of giving us very great service both on the civil and the military side. The Government's failure either to bring in, in a properly co-ordinated way, any degree of public ownership, as the French have done, or to allow private enterprise its head—their failure to do either of those things—has been a very grave handicap indeed to the industry as a whole, and there is now great anxiety in all sections of the industry.

  591
  It is because of that that I move this Motion. We feel the Government's record in the aircraft industry is typical of the sloppy, slipshod way in which they have bungled so many of the economic problems which now face the country. In the interests of the people in the industry and the nation as a whole we believe that it is only by the establishment of a far more highly planned industry that the nation can get both ample defence, at more moderate cost, and exports worthy of the efforts which it is now making to improve its economic position.
  4.46 p.m.
  The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): The House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) for giving us an opportunity to debate the aircraft industry. He made, with his customary skill, his maiden speech on this matter. He seems to have stumbled on some parts of the truth, but to have stumbled into a great deal of error as well, which I shall try to eliminate in the course of my remarks.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I suggest that the actual wording of the Opposition's Motion might be slightly amended in the course of our discussion, and, therefore, I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "commends the aircraft and associated electronic industries, both for their performance in overseas markets and their formidable contribution to our defensive strength, and supports the steps being taken by Her Majesty's Government to promote the competitive efficiency of these industries in the difficult conditions which confront them".
  The Ministry of Aviation covers a very wide field indeed, the Corporations, the independent airlines, the Air Traffic Licensing Board, with very important questions of air safety, and the rest, but here, I think, we are concentrating principally upon the industry itself. Certainly, that is what the hon. Gentleman concentrated on, and in that I want to follow him. I think that the best thing to do would be to start with the policy. We can go on to see afterwards whether it is working, but let us see if the policy is right to start with.
  Mr. Charles Longhlin: Have the Government got one?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes. I want to start with the policy, as I said, and then we can put up against it any other policy, be it a Socialist policy or a Liberal policy—if we can find one. I had hoped that the Liberal Party would have shown a little interest in this great industry, but not a solitary Liberal member turns up to listen to the debate or to contribute an idea. I thought that we could compare the policies one against another, and see which is right, and then go on from that to see how our policy is working, with all the faults, and so forth. I think that that would be sensible.
  What kind of an industry was it which faced my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations about three years ago? An industry of many names, including Bristol, Fairey, de Havilland, Handley Page—a very famous name—Hawkers, many names really famous in aviation; but, on the whole, rather small, rather diverse, and economically not very strong. The question which confronted him was: should it be left like that, or should an attempt be made to merge the firms into larger units?
  The decision which was taken at that time was to merge the industry into five major groups, the two fixed-wing groups, the helicopter group, and the two engine groups. At that time the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) welcomed this decision. He said that it was long overdue. I always permit hon. Gentlemen opposite to change their minds from time to time, but that was the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman at that time.
  In exchange for the formation of those groups, pledges were given to this industry. They were that, in future, orders should, save in exceptional circumstances, be concentrated on the groups themselves. Pledges were given that increased support would be given to civil projects. They were that we should seek to harmonise—and, I think, rightly—the military and civil requirement, and that we should back all this with a substantial programme of research.

  593
  To summarise, we have today an industry which has only fairly recently undergone a major reorganisation and been streamlined in the way that I have described; possibly faced,—I am not talking about some exaggerated rundown—like the American aircraft industry, with the necessity to streamline, to concentrate, in some fields perhaps to become a little smaller, backed by a substantial amount of Government research, by the great publicly-owned research establishments, and investment and marketing on an ever wider basis, sometimes with Europe, and sometimes with the United States. I am trying to summarise the plan at the moment as fairly and as objectively as I can.
  The first question the House has to answer is whether that is the right policy. Secondly, if it is not, is there another policy? I have a tolerant and open mind. I have been studying what the hon. Member for Newton has said. It is very difficult to ascertain precisely the Socialist policy for the aircraft industry. Since 1957 there has been some coyness in the approach to their precise proposals, but in that year a pamphlet called "Industry and Society" was introduced, which rather pushed nationalisation into the background.
  I do not want to overstate it, but I think that I carry the hon. Member for Newton with me in this. It did not give nationalisation quite that clarity and emphasis which it had had in previous pamphlets. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman made a number of criticisms of it. He said:
  "Perhaps the most vital issues of all are those contained in the executive's pamphlet Industry and Society. This document suggests a new approach to public ownership based on the purchase of shares in a number of large firms.… The trade unions within the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions have for long been working on their 'Plan for Engineering'. Their suggestions include the nationalisation of the aircraft and machine tool industries.
  Now, the suggestion is, it seems, that the unions concerned should drop their plan after so much time and thought has been devoted to it.…
  If the acceptance of the document presupposes that the case for public ownership in any industry other than steel and road transport is to be shelved it is hard to see how very considerable sections of the industrial wing of the movement can support it."
  Is that still the hon. Gentleman's view?
  Mr. Lee: Yes.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: At least we know now that the party opposite wants to nationalise the industry, and that all this "boloney" about planning and the rest of it, all these polite phrases, are merely a smokescreen.
  The Amendment that really matters is that in the name of the hon. Member for Ayrshire and Bute, although I cannot refer to it because it has not been selected. But this is a case of women and children being pushed in front.
  Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order. There ain't no such Member as the hon. Member for Ayrshire and Bute. This is merely a creation of the right hon. Gentleman's fertile imagination.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I apologise for what must have been regarded as a slanderous statement, but I repeat that we had better be clear in our minds what is our policy.
  I have stated the Conservative policy. I will discuss whether or not it is working, but we have to be clear about the alternatives. The alternative policy as stated by the official spokesman of the Labour Party is nationalisation of the aircraft industry, and no bones about it. Now we know what we are debating.
  Mr. John Cronin: We cannot have the right hon. Gentleman putting up an Aunt Sally like that and knocking it down. Nobody has said anything about nationalisation of the aircraft industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the Motion and the Amendment.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope that the hon. Member will refrain from referring to a respected colleague as an Aunt Sally. To do so is to carry things too far, and I therefore rise to the defence of the hon. Member for Newton.
  I leave the Socialist policy for a moment, and turn to the policy of the Liberal Party. The aim of the Liberal Party is to sack about 20,000 men from the aircraft industry. It thinks that the Labour Party has been rather mealy-mouthed about the deterrent. I gave the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) notice that I would raise this

  595
  point, but perhaps my message did not reach him. During his election campaign, he said:
  "The Tories waste hundreds of millions of pounds a year on Britain's independent H-bomb deterrent. The Socialists are split on whether we should have it. But for the Liberals, we say"—
  Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman served notice on an hon. Member who has not yet made his maiden speech, and is proposing to take him to task before he has done so. Does not this outrage all the traditions of the House?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): There is nothing out of order in what has gone on so far.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: This is the place for debate. I have this much respect for the hon. Member for Orpington. Whatever else may be said, he must have fought a fine election, and I am sure that he would be the last person to criticise me for saying this.
  To go back to the policy of the Liberal Party, is this money to be devoted to conventional arms? Not at all. It is to go to education, teachers, housing, and the abolition of Schedule A tax. That, surely, will strike terror into the heart of a potential enemy. However, it is the policy of the Liberal Party.
  To summarise the alternatives, from the Liberal Party we have a suggestion that 20,000 men should be sacked from the aircraft industry, and from the hon. Member for Newton we have a clear-cut statement that the industry should be nationalised. I respect the hon. Member for his views, because that was his belief in 1957 and he is still of that opinion. Our policy is the merging of groups, backed by research and funds provided by the Government.
  Mr. Wigg: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make fun of people and play games by talking about the abolition of Schedule A tax striking terror into the heart of a potential enemy, I hope that he will circulate a copy of the speech he made when he resigned, because I am sure that a potential enemy would be deterred by it.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I would be delighted to circulate my resignation speech. I would have no need to consult the hon. Member for Orpington if I did. His speech has been circulated in the Daily Mirror. I did not publish my resignation speech, but it was a good speech and I do not retract from it.
  Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he intends to deal with the aircraft industry, which is our business today?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I can fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. This discussion is getting very awkward.
  I will now come to how our policy is working out and what the present situation is. It is not a situation of inactivity. The Government are putting about £300 million a year in defence expenditure into this industry at present. In addition to that, they contribute about £9 million in support of the civil side of the industry, together with the purchases from the Corporations, to which the hon. Member for Newton referred.
  Taking the military and civil together, a massive amount of public funds is being put into the industry. Employment has actually risen over the last eighteen months, from about 280,000 to about 300,000. That does not mean that there have not been concentrations in particular areas—there have—but, overall, employment has risen.
  Seven or eight new aircraft have either taken the air for the first time, or are due to take it either this year or early next year. They include the Trident, with the Spey engine; the VC10, with the Conway; the DH125—the small aircraft with the Bristol Siddeley Viper; the Short Belfast with the Rolls Royce Tyne; the Short Skyvan, a private venture light transport, which should fly shortly; two Beagles; and, some time next year, the BAC111.
  That is a picture of activity. I will not argue that they will all sweep the board in export markets, but among them are some very fine aircraft, and the tribute which the hon. Member for Newton paid to the men in the industry must extend to the fact that they produce aircraft with the object of selling.

  597
  Exports were up on 1960 last year, and reached £150 million. That is supported also by exports from the electronics industry totalling about £65 million a year. I would pay special tribute to the electronics industry, particularly that part of it which is associated with aircraft and missile work. It is an essential and very often vital part of it.
  The ingenuity which these firms manage to put into the specialised and very complicated equipment necessary in modern aircraft and missiles is remarkable.
  Mr. Rankin Mr. Rankin rose—
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman must wait a moment. I have given way several times.
  What concerns the aircraft industry is not the present—not the level of employment now, nor the shortage of workers, nor the load in the factories at the moment. I think that the hon. Member for Newton said this and put it very fairly. That is why I said that he had stumbled on quite a bit of truth. The problem which confronts this industry is in the design staffs—the brains who are the future of the industry.
  Of course, it is true that we cannot take premature decisions simply for the purpose of occupying design staffs. No one would suggest that we should. But, at the same time, we recognise the need for a healthy, long-term future for these priceless design teams, and for design teams of an appropriate size. I do not say that we can keep them at exactly the same size and that we may not need to scale them down, for we must have an appropriate size, but we will do our best to hasten necessary decisions.
  The problem is really twofold. One is the technical aspect of starting a project, which begins with the design team. The other is how to stop it if it is not suited to the needs, or if it is not quite up to the needs that have developed. The hon. Member for Newton said that some projects should have been stopped earlier. But these are the two problems which confront us in these matters.
  The need is to identify and detail a problem before starting the really heavy work. The design study contract
  598
  system is specially geared for this. This was referred to in the Gibb-Zuckerman report, which summarised the arrangements which operated in the Ministry when I took over. One of those arrangements is the design study contract.
  I am going to place a design study contract with the British Aircraft Corporation for a variable geometry aircraft. This is a very important problem. For those who are not expert in these things I should explain that the gist is that the performance of an aircraft depends a great deal upon the attitude, angle and area of the wings. The ideal configuration of the wings varies with take off, altitude, and whether the aircraft is supersonic or subsonic.
  One of the most fascinating problems of aerodynamics is to see how one can alter the configuration of the wings in full flight. We are placing a design study contract for this. I should make it plain that that does not mean that we shall build, or that we shall be committed to building, such an aircraft. What is important is to identify the problems that confront us, so that when a decision has to be taken it can be taken with knowledge of the facts.
  The hon. Member for Newton looked a little further into the future and identified some of the other great problems. One was that of a supersonic transport, which is a vast problem, complicated in all its aspects, both technical and economic. But it will happen. There will be one. There is no doubt about that. There will be a supersonic aircraft.
  Mr. Rankin: When?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I am choosing my remarks with caution. There will be such an aircraft. The Americans are at work on Mach 3 and we and the French have been working on Mach 2. We have done an immense amount of research. Thousands of wind tunnel hours have been devoted to the study of the configuration.
  The brilliant work which we have done, and how far ahead we are in some respects, has been underestimated. There have been break-throughs in many ways—in thin wing delta configurations and the rest. Much of that

  599
  work has been done at the Royal Aircraft Establishment and by the design study team of the British Aircraft Corporation.
  Some months ago, I approached the French. They did not approach us first. Indeed, my predecessor approached them to see if we could work out a joint proposal, without anybody being committed. A great deal of work has gone on between the technical teams of both countries. M. Buron, the French Minister of Transport, is coming here next week. He and I will have further talks with the object of reaching a decision—though not a decision to build a vastly expensive project "off the cuff", just like that, for that sort of attitude cuts clean across what is needed in preparing projects of this character, both civil and military.
  We shall see whether we can get down to an analysis of the problems and a detailed proposition in such a form, technically, administratively and financially, as could be presented to Governments for their proper consideration. This is the next step. I am in no way saying that the decision is "Yes" or "No". I am saying that this is the right and proper next step in supersonic transport.
  I have sought to show that this is not an industry which is short of projects, or which is inactive in any way. If I may say so, it sometimes does itself a good deal of harm in its public image. The amount of criticism which goes on inside the industry about one another's projects is terrifying. The Press laps it up, quite prepared to publish what everybody says about everybody else's project. A "sucker" is always to be found to believe the lot.
  I hope that I shall not be misunderstood, and I certainly do not mean to say, that my hon. Friend, if I may call him that, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is a "sucker" in any sense of the term—we have too deep a respect for him; he makes valuable and often courageous contributions to our debates—but even he has absorbed a little of this fallacy. The other day, he referred to two brilliant aircraft, the Dart Herald and the Avro 748, as horrible aircraft It just is not true. They are both very fine aircraft. I believe that they will
  600
  both sell very well and that they will make a contribution to the aircraft industry.
  I beg all concerned both in the House and outside in the industry to stop tearing one another to pieces. No other country does it. We do not find the Americans running down their own aircraft. Across the Channel, the French do not do it. Nevertheless, believe me, mistakes are made. Let no one imagine that the only mistakes happen to be made on this side of the Channel. They are not. Dreadful mistakes are made in all sorts of places. But other people do not criticise each other to the extent that we do. In the interests of the industry as a whole and the interests of our country, we could do with a little less of it.
  Mr. Wigg: I am content to leave time to show who is the "sucker". Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the F27, which has now flown for half a million hours, can fly further, can carry more, and is cheaper than either the Avro 748 or the Herald, and that 20 companies have assessed the value of these aircraft and are all taking the F27? What is the good of the right hon. Gentleman talking the slush that he has just talked?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the Fokker happened to be in operation considerably before the other two aircraft and, therefore, not unnaturally, more have been sold.
  I shall not debate it with him now except to say that I shall be happy for a demonstration to take place of either the Herald or the Avro against the Fokker at any time anyone likes. I believe that we could make a first-class showing with either of them in contrast to the Fokker. The Fokker is good, too; I do not say that it is a bad machine—it is perfectly good—but I say that these two aircraft are equally good and that I have no doubt that there is a good market for them.
  This is the point. If the hon. Gentleman is fearful of competition, then our interests do not lie in decrying British aircraft. It is in our interests for somebody to say something good about British aircraft.
  Mr. Wigg: If it is good, yes.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I hone that we shall have a little more of it.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: To be fair to the Fokker, it should be said that there is a 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. content in it of British accessories—engines and hydraulics.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: That is absolutely correct. I am very glad that my hon. Friend said that.
  The Fokker is, of course, an earlier design of aircraft than the Herald or the Avro, and to some extent it is, perhaps, not as good at the moment because it is an earlier design, but in it, as in many other aircraft, there is a very good percentage of British production. That is a good illustration—I am obliged to my hon. Friend for pointing it out—of the valuable work which the whole of the aircraft industry puts in, not only the airframe makers, but those manufacturing equipment and engines.
  I turn now to another area of success, the Royal Aircraft Establishment, the Royal Radar Establishment and the National Gas Turbine Establishment. The work done here is very little publicised, and much of it is too complex for debate or, at least, for Ministers to debate. A good deal of it is highly classified and cannot be referred to, but I will cite two examples.
  The first example of good work done is in what is called micro-miniaturisation. A piece of electronic equipment, a wireless set, or something like that, which, a few years ago, we could put into a matchbox, we can now put into a thimble. The advances are fantastic, and a very great dead is taking place at these specialised establishments. Another example is in blind landing techniques. Thousands of successful landings have been made at Bedford with the pilot sitting there without his feet on the rudder or his hand on the stick, simply monitoring the figures which come to him. Many of us have taken part in these landings. I will willingly arrange for the hon. Member for Newton to participate in a blind landing at any time he likes. I can assure him that he will be perfectly all right. If he is worried, I will go with him. All manner of work of this kind is going on.
  There is another place, not an establishment, where much is being done, namely, Woomera in the desert of Australia, right on the fringe of the Australian outback. It is not altogether
  602
  realised what an immense contribution this joint project between the Australians and ourselves makes not only to the interests of both our countries, but to the interests of the free world as a whole. It is a magnificent range, with 1,000 miles of range and all the supporting equipment at Salisbury, near Adelaide. We are deeply grateful to the Australian Government and to the Australian technicians working there for all that they are doing in our interest.
  Mr. Lee: Does the right hon. Gentleman's offer to me just now include a visit to the Woomera Range, especially when the M.C.C. is in Australia?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman wants to visit anywhere, I assure him that I should be very happy to do anything I can in that respect, because I believe that the more people we can, within reason, enable to see some of these things the better it will be. Indeed, I believe that they would be delighted to see him at Woomera. I remember landing there in a helicopter at about seven o'clock in the evening. Everyone gathered, and, as I stepped out, one of the children said, "Is that Father Christmas?", to which his father replied, "We very much hope so."—which, I thought, was a very quick answer. I do not say that I have been Father Christmas, or that we have given all the money that we should have liked, but it is a very fine effort to which we should pay a great tribute.
  I turn now to the Estimates. The hon. Member for Newton, in asking about them, got two sorts of Estimates mixed up, though I do not blame him for that because it is quite easy to do so. The Estimates Committee Report to which he referred related to our procurement Vote. I do not say that we are perfect—no one would believe me if I did—but I can say that, over the past six years, the procurement Vote has totalled £1,000 million and that we have overestimated by one-tenth of 1 per cent. That is the fact. Can anyone show me a firm which can guarantee that its record in financial matters is as good as the record of the Ministry of Aviation on that side of its work?
  I do not say that we have done as well as that everywhere. In missiles and weapon systems we have all had

  603
  trouble. This was dealt with to some extent in the defence debate the other day. Valuable suggestions have been made by the Estimates Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Gibb-Zuckerman Committee and others, and some were in operation in my Department before I even got there. But we are constantly considering how we can improve things. I ask hon. Members just to consider what the requirement is. It may be put like this, "We want you to provide an aircraft which will go at near supersonic speed, 200 ft. above the ground, following the contours, without the pilot actually operating any manual controls", which would be impossible in these conditions. "Can you do it? If so, what will it cost?". I am not saying that we should not be able to answer it, but I am saying that we should not have too much contempt for the people who find it a little difficult to answer.
  As work goes along, something is found of which no one had thought and there are difficulties which no one had precisely foreseen. That happens in this country as in every other which has anything to do with it, whether in Europe or the United States of America. I am sure that if we looked at some of the estimating in the United States of America, even our Estimates Committee would breathe a sigh of relief for the estimating in this country. Estimating is not easy. It is not easy to foresee problems which have yet to be solved and decide what they will cost. Nevertheless, with humility, I fully accept the advice which is given to me by the various committees, by the House and by everybody else. I can only say that we do our best.
  How do we save money? We save money much in the way that the hon. Member for Newton suggested—by cooperation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air was talking about multi-purpose aircraft—an aircraft to serve a number of different rôles. It will save money to have an aircraft which will serve a naval and military rôle—in which variable geometry is not wholly irrelevant. There is also the possibility of joint civil and military aircraft. We have various committees, for instance, the Transport Aircraft Re-
  604
  quirement Committee, to examine every requirement and see whether these things can be matched for another rôle and whether an aircraft can be adapted to match another rôle. It is right and proper that there should be such efforts and sometimes, although not always, they are successful.
  Above all, there is international cooperation. I have spent a great deal of time on the promotion of E.L.D.O. which is a good example of the kind of co-operation which the hon. Member was advocating. This country in particular and Europe in general has a rôle in space in the years to come. It is an illusion to think that just because other people happen to be a very long way ahead at a particular moment in history, one should drop right out of the race.
  I do not think that. If we can cooperate with others, there are great benefits to be derived not only in space, but in the other technological fall-out, with advantages going to the engineering industries. One of the great purposes of E.L.D.O., sometimes against difficulty, has been to see that that knowledge and information is spread as widely as possible in every country which is participating, not only in the firms actually working on the space side, but all the engineering industries, so that the advantages can come to civil engineering.
  The hon. Member mentioned the P1127 and the RB162. It would be very nice to place massive orders for all these things, but we have to work within the limits of what we can do. We work much better when we work with other countries. We work with the Americans and the Germans in the P1127 vertical take-off aircraft and with the Germans and French on the vertical take-off Rolls-Royce engine.
  I am proud of this industry and I know that the bon. Member for Newton is. It has had failings, but it has had its successes and it is in a position to seize the widening opportunities which are now opening before it.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Is it your intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call the Amendment to the Amendment, which stands in my name? It is to leave out from

  605
  the first "industries" to the end and to add instead thereof:
  "but greatly concerned at the position of the aircraft industry and the enormous sums of public money spent on the aircraft industry since the war, especially on military aircraft already obsolete, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to transfer the aircraft industry to public ownership, so that its resources and manpower can be devoted to the manufacture of civilian aircraft which can be used to improve civil aviation in Britain, increase the exports of civilian aircraft and thus provide useful and permanent work for those employed in the aircraft industry".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not the intention to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I wish to intervene only briefly, and I make no apology for saying that it is entirely on a constituency matter. Even if I were not so concerned today with something which affects many who live in my constituency, I do not think that I would want to use the time of this important debate in the rather light-hearted party banter with which it was started by the Minister. It was all very amusing, but when the lives of many of our people are seriously affected by the changes in the aircraft industry, the best use of the debate is to try to see exactly what is happening and what action can be taken by the Government and the industry itself to improve the situation.
  If the principles of the document "Industry in Society", which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—and I doubt whether he has read it—were operating in Britain today, we would not have had ail the vacillation and ups and downs and hopes and fears which have been borne by the aircraft industry for all these years. I will leave it at that, for I do not believe that this debate is the occasion for that kind of party controversy.
  The matter which very much concerns me, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, is the Government's decision to withdraw support from the Rotodyne project. This project has been a matter of intense concern in Hayes for a number of years, and the recent announcement came as a considerable shock. I do not know whether the story of the Rotodyne is typical of what has happened in other sections of the air-
  606
  craft industry, but I hope that it is not. It is a tale of frustration and uncertainty, of hopes being raised and dashed and all the time the future of many men has been threatened as a result of the continual changes in policy.
  In 1956, it seemed to many people, including many with expert knowledge of aeronautics, that the Rotodyne was something with a potential which could possibly bring striking new developments in air transport and air communication. It was the result of brilliant research team work in the old Fairey Aviation Company. This was the team which had done very fine work on guided missiles and which had produced the Delta II the first machine in the world to exceed the speed of 1,000 m.p.h. and to obtain an absolute world speed record of 1,132 miles an hour and hold it for Britain for more than two years. Dr. Heslop and his team, backed, incidentally, by a tradition of very skilled craftsmenship going back to 1916, have been working not only on this project, but upon the development of an airliner with a vertical take-off.
  I well remember the thrill—as many others can, I am sure—which I had when I received a telegram from the firm saying that the Rotodyne had satisfactorily passed its first in-the-air tests, exhaustive tests which had been undertaken at the aerodrome at White Waltham. It is obvious that the characteristics of the Rotodyne gave great confidence for the belief that it was likely to provide a striking new development in the history of aviation. It has many of the advantages of fixed-wing aircraft, but also the great advantage of the helicopter that it can hover and take off and land vertically in a very restricted space. Furthermore, costs of operation are far less than for a conventional helicopter and its speed in the air when in forward flight is greater than that of some fixed-wing aircraft, and twice as fast as a helicopter.
  Taking all those factors into consideration, especially the fact that it was a very safe aircraft in difficult (weather conditions, it was hoped that here was a project which the Government would back, and many people were delighted when by 1957 this aircraft had successfully passed its first test.

  607
  Development costs in an entirely new design of this kind were bound to be enormous and the firm asked for help and was supported in this by myself and other hon. Members. Negotiations went on for a long time and on 1st December, 1958, when we did not seem to be getting anywhere after more than twelve months of protracted discussion, and when workers were feeling uncertain about the future and some skilled men were leaving for other jobs, which at the time were available, I asked the Minister of Supply whether he would make a statement. I was asked not to press the matter as negotiations were still continuing.
  They must have reached a fairly critical point by then, because the then chairman of Fairey Aviation said that the firm was likely to be faced with some redundancy if decisions could not be made fairly speedily. Finally, we reached the satisfactory conclusion that the Government were prepared to give some financial backing to this new and revolutionary design. At the time we were told that B.E.A. was interested and a number of machines were ordered—although there was no firm contract—provided certain modifications could be made. Spokesmen from B.E.A. went on record as saying that they believed that the Rotodyne was opening new possibilities for air transport for short distances between this country and the Continent and between cities in this country.
  Then a fresh complication occurred in this unfortunate story. The Fairey Company was taken over by the West-land Company. The workers, who had expressed concern, were to some extent reassured. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and I travelled, not by Rotodyne but by helicopter, to Yeovil, where we saw the directors of Westlands. They gave us an assurance that they had no intention of abandoning the Rotodyne but intended to integrate the research teams, and that, if anything, the Rotodyne would have greater assistance on the research side than it had in the old days.
  Furthermore, they said that so far as the position of the workers in Hayes was concerned they would bring in work from Eastleigh, and now helicopters—
  608
  the Wasps—are being made in Hayes, for which I and others are very grateful indeed. The change to a new company at that time did not seem to imperil work on the Rotodyne. Work went on and has gone on ever since. I have been told that from time to time men have not always been fully employed, but that there was a general expectancy, once the green light was on and certain difficulties had been completed, the Rotodyne would have its chance of a large-scale production.
  That was the decision up to a month or two ago. I was told, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) mentioned, that rearrangements had been made on the floor of the factory since Christmas to start work on large-scale production of the Rotodyne. Then, suddenly, we heard that the Government were to withdraw their support from this scheme. I think that this is a tragic decision. There may be some good reasons for it, and I shall listen to them if there are, but it seems to me to be a tragic result not only for the 800 workers directly affected on production and 2,000 altogether, but also tragic for British aviation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us a little more.
  It is an astonishing conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton said, that first the Rotodyne was in both for defence purposes and for other purposes, then it was out, and then in again. This story of vacillation in itself raises all kinds of points and it does not give us very much confidence either about the Government's new found enthusiasm for planning or their foresight in regard to defence. I find it very difficult to understand how it was that a previous Minister of Supply and the Minister of Aviation were at one time quite prepared to put considerable sums of public money behind this machine, and then, quite suddenly—I will not say casually, because it may have been as a result of considerable thought—a completely reverse decision was taken. That is deplorable and I hope that we shall get some answers as to how this astonishing in, out, in decision on the Rotodyne arose.
  If the machine from the beginning was thought not to be a "starter", I could understand it. I think that not to

  609
  back it would have been a wrong decision, and that is the view that many of the experts take, but that, apparently, was net the opinion. Who really takes the final decisions in these cases? What is this advice based on? I understood when the Minister made his statement that there were no orders for the machine: apparently B.E.A. has now taken a different view about the Rotodyne. I wonder whether that change by B.E.A. is due to the fact that it feels far more financially vulnerable in the future because of the air licensing procedure than it did in the old days and that it can no longer afford to take a long view about investment in aircraft because it does not know what its commercial position will be in two or three years' time.
  It could be—I hope that I am wrong—that the Rotodyne is the victim of a new licensing system, because B.E.A. feels that it cannot be made the hostage to fortune if it does not know what licences are to be granted in two or three years' time. This is a new factor of uncertainty which the Corporations did not have to face a few years ago.
  I would also ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say, as I am sure he will, whether there are any steps which might be taken to help to ease the position in Hayes, and whether he can say anything about other helicopter work which may be required. I know that the firm itself—I have had an opportunity of talking with the managing director—regards this as a blow, but that it will try to share it through the whole of the 13 companies of the group, so that its full effect will not be felt in Hayes. I am very glad to hear that.
  The Minister of Labour is doing everything that he can, and we hope that people will not be out of work for a long period. A hundred draughtsmen and 12 craftsmen are involved so far. It is not very pleasant for a craftsman who has been many years in the factory, perhaps nearly the whole of its life, to have to leave. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us what information he can. I suppose that the Government have made up their mind on this matter and that it is hardly possible to believe that the Rotodyne will be in again. I hope that none of us will live to see, should this machine be
  610
  flying in a year or two, that it has been taken over by the Americans, which is what, I fear, may happen.
  5.40 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The whole House will have enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). I can well understand his feelings and anxieties about his constituents. This must be a great blow and disappointment to the craftsmen in Faireys. The company has gone through many difficulties in recent times, and we are all sorry that there has been this further disappointment. However, one must be realistic. The hon. Member blamed the Air Licensing Board. He said that the fact that independents had been brought in had caused B.E.A. not to place the order. He is wide of the mark. B.E.A. is considering ordering American helicopters. Therefore, independents would not seem to have anything to do with that. About £10 million or £12 million has been spent on the Rotodyne, but local authorities would not accept the noise of this machine. It was quite intolerable. Little progress was made. It was one of those problems which perhaps could not be overcome for many years. This made the project impossible.
  Although it has taken thirty years to get to the Rotodyne from the days of the old Cierva Autogyro, it is only five years since the "Flying Bedstead" was flown at Hucknell by Rolls Royce. Today the Hawker P1127 on the same principle is flying at 600 miles an hour. This is the direction in which Britain, which already has a lead, must spend her limited resources in future.
  However, we sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the craftsmen, skilled as they are, will be short of work. The type of work which they can undertake is required in all forms of engineering—for instance, hydraulics, and so on, in which Faireys specialised.
  Mr. Cronin: I should like to take up two points with the hon. Gentleman. First, surely he appreciates that a vertical take-off aircraft needs engines which are so heavy and powerful that they could not be used as a commercial proposition in the foreseeable future Secondly, the Rotodyne is much less

  611
  noisy than the helicopter. Considerable progress has been made in reducing the noise.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: My impression at the Farnborough Air Display was that it is still very noisy. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about vertical take-off. I am told that the P1127 could take off in Britain and land in North Africa. If that can be done today, imagine what may be able to be done in five or seven years time. We must recognise that this has a real future.
  The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) said that it was for the Government to decide on projects. I hope that this does not mean that we are to eliminate the companies from deciding themselves if they think they have a good project. At the moment Vickers have the 111. Even before the aeroplane has flown they have sold a number and had a deposit from a well known American airline. This is not a Government idea. Heaven forbid that we shall ever have the Government telling industry what they think industry can sell abroad, because that would not be very much.
  The hon. Member for Newton referred to the small orders for exports. He must recognise that the Americans with their great internal airline system, invariably order American-made equipment. This has not happened with the 111, but invariably where American banks and great insurance companies are involved they insist that American equipment is ordered. Therefore, it is very difficult to get in. Britain did it with the Viscount and with the 111. There will be exceptions, and we must take advantage of them.
  I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Newton did not give us more information about what the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) referred to in the defence debate, namely, that the Labour Party is to run down the V-bomber force. I was hoping that we should have some guidance today from right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the V-bomber force. As I understand it, quite a number of Mark II Victors and Vulcans have yet to be delivered, although they have been ordered. If
  612
  they have not been delivered, they presumably have seven to ten years' life ahead of them. If the Labour Party is to run down and get rid of the deterrent, how many years will it take to do this? The party opposite should tell us. They started this hare about the deterrent about a fortnight ago. I appreciate that they have got themselves into some difficulty. They have shifted their ground two or three times since, but the House is entitled to ask for further information, because this has a large bearing on our national defence and is important to the many thousands of workers in the industry.
  Mr. Wigg: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman in his search for information. I am always seeking information. It is not true that the Labour Party started a hare about the V-bombers. This animal never came out of its burrow until after the cancellation of Blue Streak.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I listened to the debate, but I should be out of order to follow it up now. The right hon. Member for Smethwick said that it was the intention of the Labour Party, presumably if it returned to power, to get rid of the V-bomber force as the planes wore out. This point requires elucidation. Perhaps the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) will give us some information this evening.
  My right hon. Friend, who made a very brilliant answer to the party opposite, referred to self-criticism by the aircraft industry. In free enterprise there will always be criticism, but one should not take too much notice of this. It is five years since I was connected in business with the industry, but from my knowledge of it I do not think that self-criticism does much harm. I have not heard much of it. It is occasionally heard, but no more than there is between Douglas and Boeing.
  The real critics are the Americans, who attack the industry in this country and wild go to any length to denigrate the British aircraft. Only a year ago the Lockheed Company extended an invitation to hon. Members on both sides of the House to go to the United States with their wives free of cost to see what was going on, hoping, I imagine, that influence would be brought to bear here.

  613
  I would not dream of accepting. I was asked, but I think that one puts oneself under an obligation if one accepts such invitations. I do not say this because some hon. Members went. I mention it merely to show the extent to which the Americans will go to influence foreign Parliaments. It is going on all over the world.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned an invitation which was extended to British Membars of Parliament. Will he say whether the invitation was accepted and how many Members went?
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not know the exact figures. I think that eight or ten hon. Members went, some with their wives. I emphasise that I do not know the exact figure.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member looked at me. I was invited. I also did not go for the same reason as he mentioned.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I can imagine that the hon. Gentleman would not go. He is not the type that would. I have a great respect for him.
  Mr. Rankin: I was not even asked.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: That does not altogether surprise me. We must recognise that this great aircraft industry, which has been praised by both parties, is going through a very difficult time. However, this was bound to happen. One foresaw when the 1957 White Paper was published that with the rundown of conventional weapons these weapons would become fewer. Any Parliamentarian would be wrong to ask for increased orders for their own sake, particularly for military weapons.
  One thing which politicians are doing and should be doing is trying to bring about disarmament, which we hope will be achieved to a large extent. These weapons are becoming fantastically more expensive as the months go by. More electronics are being used. My right bon. Friend referred to the miniaturisation of equipment and how it is being reduced to the size of one's small nail. During the defence debate the numbers of present-day aircraft in the Services was compared with the numbers of aircraft ten years ago. This is not a fair comparison, any more than the aircraft of ten years ago could be fairly com-
  614
  pared with those operating in the war, when a Spitfire could be bought for £20,000. Today the cost has risen out of all comparison.
  The industry is complaining about lack of work. My right hon. Friend referred to the numbers employed in the industry. The Ministry of Labour figures show that some 300,000 are employed in the industry today, which is twice the number employed ten years ago. When the Korean troubles came the industry was developed very considerably, large orders were placed throughout the country and the numbers rapidly increased. The information from the industry differs from that given by the Ministry of Labour by 20,000 or 30,000. This is something which should be looked into so that we can get an accurate analysis. The industry says that it is 11 per cent. smaller in numbers than it was in 1957. That requires verifying, because the figures can be misleading.
  Many factories have diversified Although they are actually aircraft factories they are making equipment for coal mines, hydraulics for railways and various forms of high precision engineering in British industry. That is excellent, because the more the aircraft industry can pass on its "know-how" and techniques to general engineering the more likely we are to get exports as a trading nation. It means that the latest designs and techniques can be incorporated in other vehicles and engineering. The engineering industry gains in the form of metallurgy, high grade metals with the lightest structures and miniaturisation.
  During the last three years substantial production orders have been placed. The industry ought not to be dissatisfied on that score, but there are very few new projects for aircraft, missiles or engines. This is worrying the industry at present. One has to be fair about this. When the mergers took place—and I am told by those connected with the two groups that this is working far better than they thought it would—the Government did not promise the industry that it would remain at the same size as it was two years ago. I do not think anyone could expect that it would. In fact, the industry will have to be rather smaller and more compact, probably 25 per cent. less than it is today.

  615
  My right hon. Friend referred to collaboration with Continental countries. Is there enough with the N.A.T.O. Powers? To do this is necessary to bring the British military operational requirement, the initial requirement, more into line with the N.A.T.O. requirement and with the requirements of Commonwealth countries. The Trident was referred to earlier. We know that there was quite a battle here three years ago about that. It was to meet the specific requirements of B.E.A. De Havillands built it, tested it and did a good job. Now it is not selling abroad well at the moment, though we all hope and expect orders to be forthcoming.
  Is Britain getting a fair share of orders from N.A.T.O.? I say that it is not. My right hon. Friend referred to the supersonic airliner. It is common knowledge that whatever we do the French have every intention of going ahead, possibly with Britain, and if not on their own. We are not involved in any way in the space race. We have definitely got to maintain our position with the super aircraft business. I hope that we can have collaboration with the French as my right hon. Friend suggested. It may be that the shell, the fuselage of the aircraft, will be made in France and the engine made in Britain. Britain has great experience in engine manufacture. The export figures are largely due to engine exports of Rolls Royce and Bristol Siddeley. Britain has a wonderful lead in that direction.
  I understand—this is only what one hears as one has to pick up information where one can—that the Bristol Siddeley is considered favourably because it could engine the T.S.R.2 and could do both jobs with the same engine. I want to know how Rolls Royce stands in this matter. There is a legend in the world that it is made of money and that the pavements of Derby are lined with gold. That is not so. The firm has millions of shareholders' money locked up in research and development. Unless this great company employing nearly 40,000 is given some real research work, its position will become very precarious in a year or two.
  The problem goes further than that. Behind the scenes in all these negotiations between the politicians here and in
  616
  France we have the Americans at work. There is the pressure of Pratt & Whitney, who would like to keep Rolls Royce out of Europe at any price. Too often we are seen off by the Americans with their high-handed methods. They were great friends and allies in the war. I am in business in America, and I know how they trade. They may be good friends, but they are the toughest people and use methods which, I am glad to say, we do not stoop to in this country. I hope that the British Government will deal effectively with this matter. The real answer to the supersonic airliner question would be a joint effort on the part of these two great countries with Bristol Siddeley and Rolls Royce working together. Both are well-known and are highly respected in France. Something on those lines might be worked out.
  I referred to vertical take-off aircraft when commenting on the remarks of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Here Britain has a real lead over the Americans and everyone else. Orders have been placed for the Hawker 1127, and now plans and specifications have been provided by the Hawker Company for the N.A.T.O. competition. The Hawker 1154, I understand, will have a speed Mach 2·5, about 1,400 miles an hour, with a vertical take-off. The way to get it into N.A.T.O. countries is not to wait until everyone has argued for two or three years, but for Britain to build it now, to fly it and get it into production. Then we shall maintain the lead which we have with the 1127. Of course, this will cost money, but Britain cam afford to spend money on research when we have an initial lead and want to maintain it for export orders. I hope that something will be done in that direction fairly soon.
  The industry has done an excellent job on exports. The amount of materials used which are imported is almost negligible, but this will diminish unless research and development are given to the industry in the very near future. Government establishments and the industry must keep a balance of work for project teams. I think we all agree that these establishments do a remarkably fine job at Farnborough, Malvern, Bedford and elsewhere, but that is not fully recognised. They collaborate well with industry, and the results are good, but

  617
  Government establishments are equipped to undertake fundamental research and the objective is to supply the basic technical information for use by industry. That is from Farnborough and Bedford.
  The other research and development is carried out by the industry itself. This provides work for competent technical staffs. We have a good return on the money invested in research and development, but we have to see that the industry does not Jose in this respect. A number of these highly skilled men are influenced by their wives and can easily be attracted by more pay, and perhaps certain conditions, not only to other firms in Britain, but maybe to North America and elsewhere. We must try to keep these teams here.
  I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me for referring to his Ministry. As I see it, it is still more or Jess a Ministry of Supply. We now have a Cabinet Minister there, and a very good one at that, and we have a good Parliamentary Secretary, but that is not the be-all and end-all. We have the same technical staff at the Ministry. I want to be quite fair to them, because a great many of the technical staff at the Ministry have been there for a great many years. They have grown up with it, but it has been impossible for them to make the same progress as those employed in the industry. They cannot keep in step, and in that they are at a disadvantage. The industry hesitates to be critical of the Ministry, because the Ministry is a customer and the industry does not like voicing its opinions, but it is indeed unhappy, and so are many people in the Services, about the Ministry of Aviation.
  One thing I criticise is the continual delays which take place in the Ministry. There may be good reasons for this, but there was the case of the Herald. I do not want to go into the whys or wherefors of that, but as a Conservative I believe in private enterprise. If a company can develop an aircraft as Avro did, I do not think it should be given the order regardless of performance or price. It has taken 18 months to settle this. Now we come to the Vigilant, and there may be queries about that. I understand that the order has yet to be placed, or the contract to be signed. I understand that a fixed price has been given to my right hon. Friend's
  618
  Ministry. If that is the case, and if there are still technical points outstanding, they ought to be thrashed out. I thought that the order had been placed.
  Regarding the Belfast, we are all very pleased that Shorts are making good progress, but I would ask my right hon. Friend whether it is economic for a company to be making only ten of a new type of aircraft. Through no fault of the company, it will be probably the most expensive aircraft ever produced in Britain. The bill may be anything from £40 million to £50 million. Can something more be done for Shorts? The Government are shareholders in this company, and I personally do not believe in a Government holding shares in an industry like this. Could not something be done to give Shorts extra support to enable men and women to be employed in Northern Ireland, which we all want to see? By bringing them in on the mergers we could give them extra strength to do sub-contracting and that sort of work. This is something that should be looked into.
  We have at the Ministry of Aviation a Controller, Guided Weapons and Electronics, and a Controller, Air. The Controller, Air, used to be an air marshal or air chief marshal who had close liaison with the Air Ministry, the principal user of the equipment. Today we have a very highly qualified and technical man, and I wonder whether it is a good thing or not to have a Service representative at the Ministry of Aviation. I should have thought that the right thing to have done here would have been to have one executive and two deputies.
  One cannot mention names, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there are one or two men in his Ministry who are not technical men and have far too much power. They are constantly delaying for the sake of delaying because they want to look into everything. One hears of these delays all the time. I hope the Minister will not take this amiss, because it is not meant personally—in fact, I have said it long before he took over his present office—but I should like to see the procurement of aircraft and electronics done by a procurement department of the Ministry of Defence. The Minister of Defence is the man who decides what the three Services shall

  619
  have. Otherwise, they would be going round the corner and ordering through another Ministry.
  We hear arguments that the same thing is suggested with research and development, and this could well be carried out, and we could have a Minister of State. It will be a very nice job for somebody to do this work, but the question then arises of what is to happen in civil aviation. Here, again, it is a question of dealing through bilateral agreements and so on, with a Minister of State working for the Ministry of Transport. To get aircraft and electronic equipment about six Ministries are involved, including the Treasury, and I believe that the Prime Minister and his colleagues should look into this again to try to sort out some method which will simplify the ordering of equipment. We are told of ventures that have been started and stopped, and it is the same in industry, where a man must be big enough to take the responsibility of deciding when a project will stop. Perhaps the Rotodyne ought to have been stopped two or three years ago; I do not know, but reading the Report of the Public Accounts Committee about development costs rising from £3 million to £30 million, we should remember that the important thing is that the taxpayers' money should be taken care of.
  I conclude by saying that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is doing a very fine job in very difficult circumstances. I think the industry itself is doing a very fine job and every man in it, but they have to be given encouragement and real research and development work if Britain is to retain the position which it has today. Otherwise, we shall lose that position very rapidly indeed, and, in consequence, we shall lose exports.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Diamond: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who speaks with very great knowledge and experience of these matters, knowledge which is matched only by his personal courtesy. We are always glad to listen to Mm, and it was a pleasure today to compare the way in which he approached these problems with that of the Minister of Aviation.
  620
  The hon. Gentleman wants to see a leading British aircraft industry. So do I, and so do all of us; but the hon. Gentleman is conscious of some of the shortcomings and did not regard this as an opportunity for making joke after joke about it. He is conscious of the shortcomings of the Ministry and the lack of speed in coming to a conclusion, which is so damaging to businessmen, who must plan their production and must have quicker answers to their questions.
  The hon. Gentleman is conscious of the gap that is coming, and we know that it is a gap, but the plant is there during the gap and will be idle, and the men and the skilled teams are there during the gap and they, too, will be idle. The hon. Gentleman said, and we all agree with him, that we do not want to retain men in this industry if they are not necessary. We are all seeking disarmament, but this is not the only industry in which there is a shortage of skilled men. There is the same shortage of skilled men in every industry, and there is the same shortage everywhere. The shortage in this country, and I imagine everywhere else, is a shortage of brains, and we must spread them as best we can. It is no use tying men up in any particular industry if there is no need for them there, and we all agree with him about that.
  The hon. Gentleman concentrated on some of the problems of the industry, whereas the Minister said he was going to set out what the policy was and would follow this up by explaining how the policy was working so that the House might come to a conclusion whether he was to be criticised or not. The right hon. Gentleman partly said what the policy was. He referred only to the question of co-ordination and contraction of the various firms concerned, and then proceeded conveniently to forget all about it, to ignore all the difficulties and to treat us to a display of his debating hilarity and skill which I could not help thinking was much out of place. I dare say it was as much out of place to four of my constituents who have come from a factory where 2,100 are to be sacked before the end of the year and who were listening to the right hon. Gentleman in the Gallery. I dare say that they, too, thought that it was possibly their lack of a sense of humour that prevented

  621
  them from laughing uproariously at the jokes which the Minister made.
  Why the Minister chose to pick on an hon. Member who has not yet made his maiden speech and to attack him in this way when he had no need to do so, I do not know. He could have criticised Liberal policy and what was said by Liberals in the by-election without naming a new Member who has not yet made his maiden speech and could not reply. Why the right hon. Gentleman chose to do that, I fail to understand. "Anything for the sake of a joke" must be the Minister's motto.
  I apologise if I bring a serious tone into the discussion, but I regard this as an extremely serious matter, and so, too, I dare say do the hon. Members from Northern Ireland and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle). All of us who are involved with men facing the sack in large numbers because of mismanagement, mainly to be laid at the door of the Ministry, take a serious attitude to it. I want to point to some of the things the Minister said he was going to do but failed to do, and, first, I will deal with what the policy was and the extent to which it was carried out.
  I hope that nobody will ask me what my policy is. I am not in the Government. I am tracing what the policy is within Conservative philosophy. The hon. Member for Macclesfield said what his philosophy was, and I understand, accept and respect it. We have a Conservative Minister, a Conservative Government and a Conservative majority, and we are just beating at the air to try to suggest Socialist remedies in these circumstances. All we can do is to see what Conservative policy is, and the extent to which it has been carried out. I dare say that I shall carry the hon. Member for Macclesfield with me in a good deal of what I am going to say. I go back to 16th July, 1959, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), then Minister of Supply, gave a clear analysis of the problems facing the aircraft industry. The right hon. Gentleman has continued to give us very clear analyses ever since he has moved from the Government Front Bench and occupied the third bench below the Gangway. They
  622
  have been clear, helpful and, perhaps, less inhibited than when he was a Minister.
  I am not quoting the right hon. Gentleman's words but am giving a summary of what I understood him to say at the time, having listened carefully to his remarks. On 16th July, 1959, he referred to the American and N.A.T.O. problems and to various matters which the hon. Member for Macclesfield has mentioned, but two things in particular emerged. One was that there should be a new structure for the industry based on the closest possible partnership between the State and the manufacturer, with the consumer closely represented. The second was that there should be integration with Western Europe on the example of the Coal and Steel Community so as to provide for economies of scale and appropriate outlets. That was what I got from that debate. I want to examine the extent to which the conclusions which emerged from that debate have been carried out.
  Let us deal, first, with this closest possible partnership between the State and the industry with the consumer fully represented. The Government have been far from giving guidance as to a long-term plan. And which industry more than the aircraft industry needs a long-term plan? Everybody knows that every industry must make its plans, but the aircraft industry in particular, by virtue of the time that it takes from the first conception to the time when the aircraft are flying off the airfield, needs a longer-term plan than any other industry.
  Far from giving guidance, the Government have shown confusion, because they came out in 1957 with their famous White Paper saying, "No more manned aircraft. We are going into missiles." That has not happened. We are going back into manned aircraft. There was a complete switch of policy in 1957 and there has been a gradual switch back since then. This is the main cause of the lack of ability to plan for the industry.
  Consider the guidance which the Government have given in terms of the labour force. The labour force at that time was 250,000. We were told that as a result of Government policy there would have to be a rundown of the

  623
  labour force to 100,000, a drop of 150,000, over a period ending in 1963. We are now in 1962 and the present number employed in the aircraft industry is either 280,000 or 300,000, depending upon how one defines one's terms and the difficulty of including in the aircraft industry everybody in the electronics industry. It is sufficient to make the point clear that far from the substantial three-fifths rundown, which was the guidance given by the Government, there has been an increase.
  Mr. Hocking: Is it not also true that this increase in the labour force is largely supported by the large number of private venture projects that have been fed into the industry over the last few years?
  Mr. Diamond: No, it is not true to say it to that extent. The Minister bas made the point clearly that a substantial part of the work in the aircraft industry depends upon Government orders, a much more substantial part than could be accounted for by an increase of from 100,000 to 300,000.
  The third way in which the Government have sown confusion is by the board set up under the Air Transport Licensing Act, as a result of which a number of private airlines have been encouraged to apply for licences—some companies have them and some do not—and as a result of which B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. have not been able to plan their long-term requirements with the same certainty. Whereas formerly they had the field to themselves, they no longer have it to themselves. They must estimate what part of the field they must allow to others and, therefore, they can no longer say to our manufacturing industry, "We shall need so many of this and that kind at a certain time."
  Mr. Burden: If the hon. Member recalls the situation, B.O.A.C. stated that it had sufficient capacity already to take care of all growth in air traffic over the next six years.
  Mr. Diamond: That may be. I have made the point, however—and I am sure that the hon. Member, who is well informed, on these matters will agree—that this is an extremely long-term industry. It is no use dealing with merely the next six years. There is
  624
  no aircraft which B.E.A. will fly which can be a conception today and be flying off the airfield in six years' time. It takes longer than that.
  Those are the three ways in which the Government, far from helping, have sown confusion. Fourthly, far from the policy of close partnership, they have departed from it considerably. This is not because they were pressed into doing so. I wish to read what the Society of British Aircraft Constructors said at the time concerning co-operation with the industry:
  "Instead of leaving the industry to find its own salvation, the Government must play a much more active rôle in planning the industry's future"—
  this was the manufacturers speaking; they had the sense to realise that it was impossible to work as two separate entities—
  "not only by providing the funds which are unlikely to be forthcoming from private investors, but also by mapping out the lines of future development."
  The funds were forthcoming. The right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations made a statement in February or March, 1960, announcing the provision of the funds.
  I want to read what the Guardian had to say about that on 16th February of that year:
  "Parliament should demand some assurance that they will get a full return. Mr. Sandys, when asked whether the Government contemplated taking shares in the aircraft companies in return for capital assistance"—
  it was I who asked the question—
  "said that it did not. Why? A share in the equity wth the possibility of capital gains would be an excellent investment from the taxpayer's point of view. The argument that this would involve the State interfering with management hardly applies here, as it is precisely because of such interference that the need for injecting public capital has arisen."
  The Government are a 70 per cent. shareholder of Shorts. The hon. Member for Macclesfield put the figure at above 50 per cent., but I believe that it is as high as 70 per cent. or even more. They are a controlling shareholder. It is nothing new for the Government to hold shares in the aircraft industry. Therefore, far from having a long-term plan to help the industry, there has been complete lack of planning.

  625
  I want to quote what "Interavia" has to say about this. "Interavia" speaks with authority on these matters and had this to say in relation to the Farnborough Show of last year:
  "The complaints among the industry are not directed primarily against the lack of financial support, but against the lack of a firm programme that would enable the companies concerned to make a reasonable long-term plan, as there are limits to the time that missile teams can be maintained in being without a contract."
  Therefore, as to the first leg of the argument that the closest possible partnership is needed, I am saying that the Government have failed to provide it and have, on the contrary, sown confusion in these four distinct ways and made life a good deal more difficult for the manufacturers and for the workers in the industry.
  The next leg of the argument was integration with Western Europe so as to secure exports. Several hon. Members have quoted figures showing how the exports of aero-engines have gone up with commendable speed. Rolls Royce is doing an excellent job, as is the whole aero-engine industry. But total exports presents a different picture. If one takes 1958 as the base year, at which point exports were rising, the present level of British exports is 3 per cent. below that of 1958. In other words, the total of all aircraft materials exported in 1961, including aero-engines—and airframes, which have suffered a remarkable drop—was 3 per cent. below 1958. Exports of aero-engines went up, including engines in the completed aeroplanes, so all credit is due to the aero-engine manufacturers; more credit, in fact, than the figures demonstrate.
  Let us compare that with the French figures. We went down by 3 per cent.—and this is what the Minister of Aviation regards as a matter for light-hearted debate and jocularity—between 1958 and 1961 while the French aircraft industry's exports went up by 300 per cent. They have built up their industry from nothing after the war. They achieved a particularly good design in the Caravelle, and they have gone from success to success.
  I do not believe that this is a matter that can be lightly glossed over or that the Minister of Aviation can regard a question about whether or not we would nationalise the industry as being such
  626
  a stunningly good winning point. Has the right hon. Gentleman realised the full implications of the French figures? Have those figures been drawn to his attention? Does he realise that a large part of the French industry is nationalised and that it was mainly the nationalised firms which achieved the great break-through in French aircraft design and manufacture?
  The Minister did not make such a frightfully good debating point when the question of nationalising the industry came up. Is he aware that a large part of the capital and practically all the research is provided by the Government? According to Conservative philosophy it seems perfectly all right to use public money for private enterprise, but there must be no accountability to the public for it.
  This is most unsatisfactory and, as the situation develops to an even more unsatisfactory pitch, the Ministry does little about it. Far from getting to grips with the problem as presented by the Continent, the Government do nothing. It has already been said that the Americans are getting to grips with this problem. They have their agencies and we understand that the French have come to terms with the Americans and it is thought that the Caravelle may be manufactured in the United States and that instead of having Rolls Royce Avon engines it will have an American engine incorporated in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is what I am informed. Perhaps the Minister can say whether this has been looked into, whether the Government are satisfied that they have nothing to fear and that they can continue in their present complacency.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think the hon. Gentleman's information is about 18 months out of date. The project to manufacture Caravelles and replace the engines with General Electric ones was dropped some time ago, and I do not think that there is any danger of it being resuscitated unless, of course, T.W.A. places a substantial order; and even then they would be made in France.
  Mr. Diamond: Nevertheless, I repeat the question. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary takes these matters seriously and affords hon. Members a great deal of information. We are all concerned to support, as far as possible,

  627
  the future of the British aircraft skill, its ability and its workers. This brings me to the subject of the European Coal and Steel Community, which can be cited as an example. Under E.C.S.C. pits have been closed, just as aircraft works have closed down in the aircraft industry. But when the pits have closed down the workers who have lost their jobs have been treated in this way: They had 100 per cent. of their wages for the first four months and 80 per cent. for the next four months. In fact, by the time six months had elapsed—or half way through the 80 per cent. period—90 per cent. of all the workers displaced had been re-employed.
  There is a simple principle here; that where there is a redistribution or reorganisation of the industry—which may be necessary, for no one is denying that we all wish to make the aircraft industry more efficient and, to do that, we must look at it as a whole—in the interest of the community and the State the workers should not be penalised. After all, it is not their fault that the industry has to be reorganised. It may be that certain pits had to be closed down in Belgium and elsewhere. Certain aircraft factories may have to be closed down here. I do not know. But the British workers should be treated as well as the coal workers I described.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch will know about workers who have written to me and who are very much concerned about the position. In my constituency 2,100 workers will be discharged between now and the end of this year, starting next month. They are to be discharged although, in due course—we do not know how long—a new tenant will be found for the Gloster Aircraft Company's factory and these men will be needed again.
  With all this going on we have the Minister talking about teams and the value of keeping research workers together. What is he doing about keeping these units intact? I know what he says he is doing, but, in fact, he is doing absolutely nothing. I put a question to the Minister asking him what he is doing to keep the men at work until the new tenant is found. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "My Department is in constant touch with the Ministry of Labour and the Board of
  628
  Trade on these matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 906.]
  We know how to assess an answer like that. Then we had an Adjournment debate, during which the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "… we are and have been in the closest touch with the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade on problems arising from the change in the size or shape of the industry…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT 7th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1712.]
  I followed that by putting a Question to the President of the Board of Trade to find out what he had done, and when I asked him what steps he had taken he replied, "None". It may be a pleasant picture to see the President of the Board of Trade holding hands with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary—"keeping in closest touch"—but so occupied that he does nothing and leaves the workers of Gloucester in such a difficult position. The workers about whom I am speaking are threatened with the sack. They know that from next month redundancy notices will be issued. They also know that there will be work for them in due course, but they do not know how long that will be.
  All this could have been avoided if the Government had seen fit to plan at the time. When the integration of the industry took place the Government said they knew that it was inevitable that there would be redundancies and that, as part of the integration plan, certain factories would close down.
  This is happening in my constituency I dare say there are reasons for it happening, but the present position is that the factory is closing down not through lack of work. Since the close-down decision was taken—whether this is due to another change of Government planning, I do not know—the factory has been overwhelmed with work and all the men have been spending their time shipping out plant and transferring to another factory. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) knows that there are considerable opportunities in his constituency for engineering workers. The work is all being transferred, whereas if full knowledge had existed of what might be required there is no doubt that the men could have been retained. There was a change of plan on the Government's

  629
  part and that is why the factory had to be closed. The company, Hawker Siddeley, said that and that the Government denied it. I am not in a position to judge. My suspicion is that there has been a further change. I only know that the men are being thrown out of work.
  Mr. Julian Snow: Some of them are going abroad.
  Mr. Diamond: Yes. Some are going to make Fokker aircraft—about 80 or 100 of them. The men are being placed in this unenviable position, and I am sure that every hon. Member opposite as well as we on this side will sympathise with them.
  There is so much work in this factory which is being closed that some men are having to work overtime, yet others are being sacked. They say, "Why should we work overtime and our mates be threatened with the sack?" The answer that they get is, "You either work overtime here or we ship the parts to Coventry, or wherever the factory goes, and they work overtime there". All this puts employees in unnecessary difficulties purely because the Government have failed to carry out what they promised to carry out, namely, a long-term plan, and have not had regard to the social needs, as happened in the case of the Coal and Steel Community. If it is proposed to reorganise an industry, which may be necessary in the interests of the nation, the whole burden should not fall on the workers.
  6.33 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Gough: Every hon. Member will have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and, indeed, with any hon. Member who speaks on behalf of his constituents when they face unemployment. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument.
  I have an interest in this matter in that I do a great deal of business with the Hawker Siddeley group on the welfare side, including dealing with its pensions, and I am sure that the employers, as a group, try to do the best they can for their employees. In view of the hon. Gentleman's strictures on my right hon. Friend about his levity, I hesitate to say that one thing which surprises me is how the hon. Gentleman has managed to get
  630
  four of his constituents into the Public Gallery.
  I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) on his maiden speech on this subject. He spoke with commendable humility—in fact, such humility that it was only towards the end of his speech that one realised that he was speaking in support of what is more or less a censure Motion on the Government. If the hon. Gentleman had dealt with this matter on a party political basis—I am glad that he did not, and I have no intention of doing, either—it would have been utterly inappropriate and out of place.
  This subject is too serious to start bandying words across the House on a party political basis. I am impressed by the words of Surtees, who said that
  "More people are flattered into virtue than bullied out of vice."
  We on this side feel that there is a great deal of virtue in the hon. Member and his hon. Friends raising the subject of the aircraft industry because it is a matter on which many of us spend a great deal of time, and, therefore, we are glad to have the opportunity of debating it.
  A great deal has been said about the Government's part in this matter. I should like to put my remarks on a fairly high level of principle and to deal first with the industry itself. Because of the steps which the Government have taken in the last few years, the industry has had to face quite a revolution. I do not think that it has been said often enough—I certainly make no apology for saying it now—that the members of the industry have supported the Government in this evolution extraordinarily well, and deserve a big pat on the back. In the 1957 White Paper there was suddenly a change in slant from ordinary aircraft to the missile, both for defensive purposes and as a deterrent. That caused many cancellations. In addition, there was the major reorganisation which brought together a large number of firms to which my right hon. Friend has referred.
  A few weeks ago I said some fairly harsh things in the House about certain members of the aircraft industry. I happen to be the chairman of the Royal Aero Club, and I have known many of the people in this industry, both as men

  631
  and boys, for about thirty years. It gives me great pleasure today to add my word of praise to the way in which they have come together. It is not easy to be brought together in firms, and some of these people, like Sir Roy Dobson and Sir Aubrey Burke, in one group, and Sir George Edwardes and Sir William Verdon Smith, in another, deserve praise. They are setting high standards in their groups which make it possible for these groups to act efficiently. Since I had some harsh things to say about West-lands, perhaps I might be allowed to say how much I regret the decision concerning the Rotodyne. It must have been a very severe blow to Westlands, and I am sorry for the company.
  The industry, having been rationalised in the way that it has, is entitled to ask, and we as Members of Parliament are entitled to ask, whether the Government have followed suit and have rationalised themselves. This is not meant in any sense of criticism. This is a very difficult and serious problem, but I think that we all realise that the machine itself is too cumbersome. I wonder whether enough thought is being given to streamlining it so as to overcome the delays. An enormous number of very important Government officials are engaged in this industry.
  I was talking to someone in the industry this morning, and I was amazed when he told me that his group—it is one of the big groups—invited no fewer than 1,400 Ministry representatives to Farnborough last year. They were all top-notch people. It is not the £5 a week man who is invited to Farnborough, with a caviare lunch laid on, and that sort of thing. I repeat the question which has been posed today: is the organisation too cumbersome from the Ministry's point of view?
  An enormous amount of money is spent in this industry. My right hon. Friend referred to the sum of approximately £300 million a year. As in any industry, the yardstick in this industry is, first, what is the amount of money spent, and, secondly, is it being spent wisely and can it be cut down? My right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary know that, if they make quick decisions which might give the impression that money is being wasted, no one
  632
  will be after them quicker than hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The dilemma in the system is that the Government must have an enormous number of committees, which often overlap and which undoubtedly cause an enormous amount of delay. The Minister might start thinking about shedding some of his other responsibilities in order to get on with the job concerning the aircraft industry. In my opinion, this is the most important part of his work.
  It is about time that my right hon. Friend might consider giving up being a "station master" and put the airports of this country under a form of authority similar to the Port of London Authority. This point has been put to my right hon. Friend before by hon. Members on both sides of the House. A great deal of the Minister's time is taken up by what I might call "pettifogging" questions, to do with London Airport, Gatwick and the rest of it, so perhaps he might consider that suggestion. It might help.
  I am not proposing that we should reduce in any way the money which we spend on research and development. I think that there are certain aspects of research and development which might not be being considered sufficiently at the moment. I should say that, first, we should study the constant increase in the complexity, and, therefore, in the cost, of aircraft. Today, an aircraft is such a fantastically complex piece of machinery that by the time it is built, certainly in the commercial sense, it is almost impossible to make it a paying proposition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) drew attention to the enormous increase in the cost of the fighter. He reminded the House of how much was paid for Spitfires and Hurricanes in war-time. I think that it was about £20,000 or £30,000, and, therefore, one could have bought almost dozens of Spitfires and Hurricanes for the price of one fighter today.
  When we are looking to the future, and hoping that the whole opportunity of the aircraft industry will be vastly increased—and concurrently with a reduction in armaments as the result of the normal policy of the world towards a state of peace which we all hope will be the case—I think that one of the first requirements in relation to research

  633
  and development should be to see whether we might be able to find a way to manufacture some form of aircraft for a commercial purpose. Perhaps it would be a machine which is not quite so fast but very much cheaper.
  The only other thing I wish to mention has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). That is the nuisance of noise. I think that this was the principal reason why the Rotodyne was turned down. Anyone interested in the aircraft industry generally must agree that it is a nuisance. I have heard Lord Brabazon and other people speak about it and it has become almost intolerable. I say that as one who is a tremendous supporter of the aircraft industry. In the middle of the twentieth century we ought to take this matter much more seriously and be more concerned about the appalling noise which we are creating above the earth's surface.
  I come back to the problem which faces the industry vis-à-vis the Government, to which I wish to make an ordinary businesslike approach. A businessman would approach any industrial problem by looking, first, at his present market and the opportunities of salesmanship. Also, he would look at what he could offer for the future. As I think was said by the hon. Member for Gloucester and others, by and large the market is provided by the Government, and that is that. Therefore, the salesmanship necessary in that respect is the relationship between the industry and the Government. I am informed, I believe it to be right, that by and large that relationship is good.
  We come to the next point which has been mentioned, but I make no apology for referring to it again. It is that the Government cannot provide a sufficient market to keep the aircraft industry going efficiently. That is why the hon. Member for Gloucester has the difficulties in his constituency which have to be faced. We must, therefore, go further afield. I wish to underline what was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. Many of us, myself included, do not believe that we are—I will not say not making sufficient effort, because we are doing that—but we are not making a sufficiently constructive effort to sell to foreign countries, particularly
  634
  N.A.T.O. countries and, as will be the case later on, to sell within the Common Market.
  Is our salesmanship good enough? I do not think that it is. The reason is plain. Often we are too naïve in the matter. Our salesmanship in the N.A.T.O. countries is left in the hands of Government-sponsored delegations, it is left to civil servants. I am sure that they are exteremely good civil servants; but I know few salesmen who would make good civil servants, and I do not know many civil servants who would make good salesmen. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, we are "up against it" with the Americans.
  I expect that many hon. Members will remember President Eisenhower's letter to his ambassadors two or three years ago. He drew their attention to the fact that at that time the United States aircraft industry was the third biggest industry in the world, and he told all his ambassadors that it was up to them to become salesmen. Those of us who served in the Second World War will remember what happened, especially those who served in Italy. I remember only too well that when the Americans were advancing up the Italian peninsula, almost at their forward headquarters they had some of the most peculiar looking officers—disguised colonels and majors, and goodness knows what—with proposal forms in their pockets, and they were doing business.
  One hon. Member said that those were not the sort of methods that we ought to adopt. I hope that they are not. But we must realise that we are up against some "tough eggs"; and that if we do not put out our best form of salesmanship against them we shall not get anywhere.
  The industry feels that it is rather shut out of the list. Possibly with the best will in the world, some Government-sponsored missions do not like to see what they consider rather hard-boiled and common salesmen from the various groups in their party. But I should like to see much closer integration. I should like the firms to be allowed to send their own representatives to meet the representatives of other countries and to do the job. Then we should know whether we are right or wrong in this matter.

  635
  Whatever it may be, I believe that at present our salesmanship is not quite good enough.
  I mentioned that we are spending an enormous amount of money on this industry, but are we spending it correctly? As a businessman, I like to look at the products which I have, to see which is the best and whether I can concentrate on them. There are two items on which we should concentrate, and they have both been mentioned in the debate. The first is the vertical take-off aircraft. We are four or five years ahead of anyone else in the world in respect of that. I do not know whether I ought to say too much about it, but I believe that we have a new transport aircraft coming along which will be a world-beater as well. These are the two items in respect of which I should say that we are ahead of anyone else.
  I should like to pose one other question: where are we behind? Before the war this nation was the biggest manufacturer of light aircraft in the world. The name of de Havilland in those days was represented much more by light aircraft than anything else. Where are we today? But for the fact that Mr. Peter Masefield and his associates are trying to bring forth the Beagle there would not be anything. I was shocked to hear from my right hon. Friend that he has only two Beagles on his programme at the moment.
  But for that, we should not have any business aircraft at all. Yet the United States is now exporting annually to Commonwealth countries no less than £30 million worth of light aircraft per annum.
  Mr. Diamond: I agree entirely with what the hon. Member said about the Beagle. Peter Masefield and the Beagle Company are anxious to take over the factory at Christchurch, where men are threatened with redundancy, but they are suffering from severe delays because they cannot agree on terms for the factory, which belongs to the Ministry.
  Mr. Gough: I hope that the hon. Member and I have been able to put a jerk into this matter.
  I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that he was glad to have the co-operation of the Americans and the
  636
  Germans in the P1127, but are we being a little naïve about it? Are we certain that we shall get our fair share of it? The Government gave an order for six aircraft and then a further order for three aircraft, with three for Germany and three for the United States. What will those three aircraft be used for? Knowing the Americans and their methods, I am not sure that those aircraft will not be stripped down to the last nut and bolt and copied, and possibly four years' advance may easily be lost. I plead with my right hon. Friend not to be too trusting.
  If we have something good, then, to use a colloquialism, let us hold our horses and, when we are ready, go into the market with a bang. I remember that not many years ago we were the first with jets, but I do not suppose that many Americans remember that. There was a time when the whole of Europe was flooded with Meteors and Hunters. If we are four years ahead with any development, let us concentrate the money on it, get the timing and salesmanship right and then go to town on it.
  On the other hand, let us look at the part of the industry in which we are not so good—the light business aircraft. We can get back our pre-war position in this respect, and it is vital that we should do so, but we are not approaching the problem in the right way. I put down two Questions for oral answer the other day on this subject. One was about Croydon. That is going to the wind. The second Question, which was not reached and was given a Written Answer, asked how many airfields have been closed since the war around the area of London.
  The total number is 35. I do not want to make any party point about this, for both parties are equally to blame. We are not air-minded. The reason that Croydon is being closed is that some of my hon. Friends who represent Croydon have been bringing pressure to bear. They do not like the noise and they do not like aeroplanes. They would rather have factories.
  The fact remains that if we are to go into the Common Market and to try to capture markets in Europe, we shall have to have more and more business aircraft, and it is no good getting the aircraft industry to build these aircraft if we deny the users the airfields from which they may be used.

  637
  It is probable that over the next decade the total annual sum of £30 million will be scaled down. We all want to see that happen. If we can achieve success at the Summit with universal disarmament, it must be scaled down. But we need not be pessimistic about it. There are other things which we can build. If we concentrate on those things at which we are good, and if we build up what is needed for the future—in particular, the lighter aircraft which will be used more and more—then we shall succeed.
  All of us, irrespective of party, should ask ourselves whether we are air-minded. Is the nation air-minded? I heard the other day that the Alcock and Brown statue at London Airport—very few people know of it and very few Americans know that Alcock and Brown were the first to fly the Atlantic—is to be put in a car park. That is not the sign of an air-minded nation which is prepared to support its aircraft industry.
  We must give a lead from the House. I should like to see the House of Commons Flying Club started again and I should like to see Ministers having their own private aircraft, to support this industry. In addition, I agree with the hon. Member for Gloucester that some support should be given now to the Beagle aircraft. If that is forthcoming, then I am certain that this great aircraft industry, which has been doing a good job, will continue to do a good job.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) speaks with an incomparable commercial, technical and operational knowledge of aircraft, and I, for one, would hesitate to dissent from anything that he said, but I believe that he has not gone sufficiently below the surface to the deeper political implications of the debate. Our function today is not simply to consider the technical aspects of the aircraft industry, important though they are, but to consider the whole structure of the industry and whether it is the most apt structure for the needs of our times.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) spoke in very moving terms about the difficulty of the aircraft workers in his constituency. I speak rather as a residuary legatee benefiting from his troubles, because
  638
  much of the work which has been stopped at Gloucester has been transferred to the Gloster-Whitworth Factory in Coventry. There the situation might well justify the general bouyancy which the Minister showed in opening the debate. I believe that we have enough work in connection with the Argosy freighter aircraft to last for at least two years, and among those workers there is no pessimism about their immediate future. But they have a deep concern about the overall picture. It is not satisfactory to them that they should be in full employment while their fellow workers in Gloucester are made redundant. The situation in Gloucester is paralleled by that in Christchurch.
  In the course of the debate other hon. Members will refer to the plight of workers made redundant or who can foresee in the district in which they live, which in many cases were formerly areas of light industry, no suitable outlet for their skills. These workers will therefore be forced to move out of those districts or, alternatively, to emigrate. When I say "emigrate", I mean that, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, already large numbers of tempting offers are being put out by foreign firms, not only Fokker but also firms in the United States. They are seeking to attract these men of great skill and long experience, many of whom are specialists in their particular kind of tool making, which everyone knows is one of the most important activities in the aircraft industry. They are also attracting, at a different level, designers and draughtsmen. They are all being attracted away.
  Mr. Lee: Is it not the case that a number of the people to whom my hon. Friend referred have already gone to the United States and that they played a not unimportant rôle in the development of the Atlas, which Colonel Glenn used for his expedition the other week?
  Mr. Edelman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reinforcing that point. One of the great tragedies is that it seems likely that much of the British skill developed from apprenticeships onwards will be absorbed in overseas developments in which the British contribution will not be recognised.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christcihurch

  639
  (Mr. Cordle) will permit me to refer to what is happening in Christchurch, where about 1,400 workers are shortly to be made redundant. They are being enticed by the Fokker Aircraft Company, Which is offering free board and lodging and free flights home every six weeks. These are powerful inducements. It would be of relatively small account, bearing in mind one's views on the movement of labour in the Western world, if it were not ultimately to redound to our detriment. It seems to me, as a consequence, that the words of the Amendment which the Minister quoted so optimistically have an undue bouyancy which does not correspond with the observations of many hon. Members or, as I shall seek to show, with the general attitude of those who are engaged in the aircraft industry, whether as employers or as workers.
  The Minister described very touchingly the way in which he landed at Woomera and was immediately surrounded by people who thought that he was Father Christmas. If Father Christmas is considered in the image of a man with a sack who doles out bounty all over the place, then he and his predecessors can be regarded as a sort of Father Christmas who, at the expense of the taxpayer, for many years has been distributing largesse to the aircraft industry for which the country has not had an appropriate benefit. But if we look at the state of the aircraft industry today, the Minister is a Father Christmas with a cloven hoof, because whereas on the one hand he has brought substantial benefit to those who have extracted these subsidies, of very long duration, from the Government, on the other hand, under his administration and following the policies of his predecessor, there has been created anxiety in the hearts and minds of very many workers in the aircraft industry throughout the country.
  It is true, as he pointed out, that there seems to be an upward trend in the overall numbers of those who are engaged in the industry, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us later how he arrives at the figure of 300,000 alleged to be engaged in the industry. I inquired of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors to see whether I could obtain from them some
  640
  accurate statistics of those who are employed in the industry, but no one there was able to tell me, simply because the total number of workers engaged is shrouded in all sorts of other activities in which the various firms are engaged. I view the figure of 300,000 with a certain amount of reserve.
  Nor do I believe that the estimate of good health in the industry can be made merely on the basis of how many workers are employed in it. We have only to look at the French industry, in which 83,000 workers are employed in all its manifold activities. Last year those 83,000 workers produced exports to the value of over £100 million—not much less than the figure of our own total exports. The most striking thing which one sees immediately is that if one compares the apparent productivity of the French aircraft industry with that of the British aircraft industry, it is obvious that there is something wrong with our productivity.
  Mr. Hocking: Will the hon. Gentleman care to say how much of the figure for the French aircraft industry which he has quoted originated in his own constituency?
  Mr. Edelman: I am talking about exports and that point is therefore irrelevant. The point is that for some reason or another the French aircraft industry was able to export to that amount.
  If we balance what the French are doing against what we have been doing in this country, we must consider why our performance in terms of productivity seems to fall so much below that of the French. I think that there are multiple reasons for this. So many projects have been started and dropped, so much experiment has never come to fruition and so many enterprises have been embarked on which have never come into production that there is clearly something wrong with the planning and administration of the industry.
  My hon. Friend spoke—his point has been reinforced from the other side of the House—about the hiatus which is likely to occur when the present generation of aircraft comes to an end and before a new generation appears. In this connection I want to quote a letter which my hon. Friend the Member for

  641
  Letchworth and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and I wrote to The Times on 18th April, 1957, in which we recommended that our own aircraft industry should combine with that of France in order to try to produce for B.O.A.C. and for France
  "an Atlantic non-stop jet airliner capable of competing with American aircraft in an advanced development stage."
  That suggestion was dismissed out of hand by many aircraft constructors, who believed that we should be able independently to produce something that would accept the American and potential French challenge.
  We have now reached the stage when, whereas the Americans are proceeding with the; development of supersonic aircraft and the French seem within reach of producing their supersonic Caravelle, we ourselves are lagging behind. Accepting all the difficulties and technical problems to which the Minister referred, we are nevertheless lagging behind. That is quite certain. We shall be outdistanced because, whereas the Joint Federal Aviation Commission which has been studying the question of supersonic aircraft in the United States expects that the Mach 3 aircraft will fly in 1967 and be in production in 1970, and whereas the French, who have had £70 million for research for the super-Caravelle, are likely to produce an aircraft which will fly in 1965 and be in service in 1968, at present we have nothing comparable with which to challenge them.
  Mr. Snow: My hon. Friend has quoted a letter Which he and I and another hon. Friend wrote to The Times in 1957 on the subject of collaboration with (he French—a letter to which we received a very dusty answer from the S.B.A.C. In view of the visit by M. Buron about which the Minister has talked, it was right that my hon. Friend should quote the letter, but I would point out that the should have referred to me as the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth—not Letchworth.
  Mr. Edelman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
  At this point I can perhaps congratulate the Minister on the steps that he has
  642
  taken in older to promote co-operation with France in this connection. I personally oppose the idea of the Common Market, but I am fully in favour of European integration. I believe that it is possible by division of labour between the United Kingdom and some of the countries of Europe, and by combining our research and technical experience, to produce an integration of our activities which will be of benefit to ourselves and those with whom we work. From that point of view I certainly hope that from the visit of M. Buron there will emerge an effective collaboration which will be in the interests of Britain and France.
  Having said that, I have stated the last of the congratulations which I can offer to the Minister. Looking back over his whole stewardship, I can find nothing in it which has remedied the built-in defects of the system of aircraft procurement. I believe that the aircraft industry for several years now, certainly since the war ended, has benefited from the very proper praise which was given to the men—the designers and producers—who before and during the war planned and were able to produce the aircraft which helped us to win the war.
  Those were the days when everything went. Those were days when it was very proper that the subject of accountability to the nation should not receive such close scrutiny as we have to give it in peacetime. Indeed, when the great requirement was to drive the German aircraft from our skies, it was natural that the Government should constantly be under pressure, and should yield to that pressure, which required that as much money as possible should be poured into the production of aircraft.
  At the beginning of the war I had something to do with aircraft production. I remember how difficult, slow and reluctant certain Government Departments were in those days to give the go-ahead to firms which were interested in research and development. Dramatically, all that changed. Suddenly all the money that was required was made available.
  But in those days the aircraft industry as a whole, which even then was a relatively small and tight community, operated on the cost plus system, which has for many years been consistently criticised by hon. Members on both sides

  643
  of the House. One would have hoped that, despite the Minister's encomium to the estimators in his Department, the abuses which clearly existed under that system might wholly have disappeared. Instead of that, we can see in the case of Blue Steel, for example, now a project which was in the beginning estimated to cost £16 million—
  Mr. Wigg: Does not my hon. Friend mean Blue Streak?
  Mr. Edelman: —had a final figure of about £60 million. I hope that, when he replies, the Minister will not just brush that on one side. The whole House will want to know how it is, in view of the praise which he offered to his calculators, that a weapon of this kind should have been so grievously miscalculated in its financial implications.
  We bandy these great figures about because we are concerned with defence. We are hesitant in offering criticism because it is something which affects the whole country. However, they are very heavy figures, and they deserve much closer scrutiny than the Minister has yet given them. I want to know what his reply has been to the criticism of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I want to know, not only in the case of something which because of its nature makes a dramatic impact on the country, not only in the case of a missile like Blue Steel but also in respect of the many other aircraft which are now being developed, what scrutiny he gives the accounts in order to ascertain where the money is going.
  I have already referred to the figure of 300,000 workers in the industry mentioned by the Minister. It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and other hon. Members should seek to defend the opportunity of men to work in the industry to which they have been directed. Nevertheless, that does not exonerate the Minister from an obligation to ensure that the money which is poured into the industry is not allowed to become an excuse for inertia on the part of those who at present control the industry.
  The essential thing to remember about the industry is that it is not an ordinary commercial activity. If instead of calling these figures "subsidies" we trans-
  644
  lated them into terms of losses, I wonder what would happen. If we were tonight talking about the railways, for example, I wonder what sort of outcry there would be from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). Suppose all the subsidies which have been put into the aircraft industry in the last ten years were computed and then translated into losses. From an ordinary commercial point of view, it is obvious that the firms which now operate the aircraft industry have been wholly feather-bedded throughout their existence. Whereas on the one side when it comes to paying out dividends they regard themselves, understandably, as ordinary commercial enterprises, when it comes to making losses they immediately start clamouring for Government support.
  I was interested in the hon. Member opposite who, while professing the Conservative philosophy and talking about the virtues of private enterprise, at the same time joined in the general demand coming from the industry for more assistance and more financial support. There were great cries of derision when the Minister made a few derisory comments about an article which my hon. Friend wrote in Tribune. The attitude was that on the Opposition side of the House there are hon. Members who are clamouring for more and more Government support whereas those on the Conservative side of the House are believers in the pure milk of private enterprise.
  The fact is that the aircraft industry has not for many years been an industry of private enterprise. It has been heavily subsidised. It has been heavily rationalised, so that today there are only two major groupings. It seems to me—now I state entirely my own point of view—that the ultimate logic of all that is that the aircraft industry should be regarded as a public service both for defence and for transport and that, finally, instead of having two groups, there should be a single group concerned with the tasks which lie before the industry. In other words, I believe that the only way to bring the aircraft industry under public control, with full public accountability, is to nationalise it.
  I wholly agree with the recommendation of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. I believe that the only way in which we can have some idea of where the thousands of

  645
  millions of pounds which we have been pouring into the industry is going is by bringing the industry as a whole into public ownership.
  In the meantime, there are immediate problems to be tackled. There is the problem of the gap to which I have referred, the problem of how Britain can regain the pre-eminence in the aircraft industry of the world which the genius of her designers and the skill of her technicians and workers deserve. I believe that the need of our times is, first, that there should be either a full Ministry or, failing that, a board set up with a man at the head of it capable of the drive, the dynamism and the foresight required to restore the British aircraft industry to the place in the world which it merits. If that is done, we shall have a chance to take our proper place in competition with the United States.
  Two hon. Gentlemen referred to the tough and rough methods of American salesmen in world markets. It is proper that that reference should be made. I was astonished when an hon. Member referred to something which I did not know, and perhaps a few other hon. Members did not know. He spoke about invitations from the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation to hon. Members to have a trip, with their wives, to the United States, presumably to examine the installations of the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. That is salesmanship which I should not urge anyone in this country to try to imitate.
  At the same time, I believe that we are faced with a ruthless competition which needs all our determination to combat. I do not believe that the Minister, for all his euphoria and enthusiasm, has the qualifications to compete with the Americans on that basis. I do not think that it is a matter of him making elevating speeches. What is necessary is someone inside a Government Ministry who has the authority and power to rationalise the industry fully and then go out into the markets of the world to compete; someone who has the vision and foresight which many men had in the early pioneering days of the aircraft industry; and in that way, and in that way only, will it be possible to restore the British aircraft industry to the position it should occupy in the world, and that is number one
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. John Cordle: The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) touched on several matters which concern me to a great degree in my constituency, and I am grateful to them for giving me a lead into what I have to say.
  I am glad of the opportunity to put before the Minister one of the biggest problems that has faced the people in my constituency for many years. The whole question of the future of the de Havilland factory at Christchurch raises problems which are not merely industrial or economic, but which affect the lives of many hundreds of people in the vicinity. I cannot over-emphasise the urgency of this problem. Since the amalgamation of the Hawker Siddeley group with the de Havilland group and the streamlining and contraction which has taken place in recent months in the aircraft industry, the employees at the factory at Christchurch have suffered considerably.
  Their anxiety about the future has not been lessened by the long delay in the change-over from de Havillands to the Beagle Aircraft Company. It seems that no one is accepting responsibility for this uncertainty. Hon. Members know that de Havillands has placed the closure date of the Christchurch factory as 1st July, with the termination of its lease with the Ministry for the premises on 30th September. We are all greatly encouraged to know, and I am sure that the Government are equally pleased, that the Beagle Aircraft Company has negotiated for these excellent and well situated buildings, and is prepared to take some part in absorbing the high grade technical aircraft workers and unskilled labour in the area.
  I intervene in this debate to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the need to expedite this difficult change-over. I can readily sympathise with and defend the case of the tenant who has to leave a factory which he has rented happily for over twenty years. Obviously, there are numerous tasks in tidying up affairs, and these tasks surround the de Havilland directors at the moment as they get

  647
  down to the moving of their various tools, jigs, drills and presses to Chester and to Hatfield.
  It takes time, and a lot of time, to vacate such premises, and no doubt the directors of de Havillands can defend the case for carrying on to the end of the term, especially as they have to complete their existing orders for Sea Vixen aircraft. But the employees find matters more worrying as they visualise a time of possible unemployment.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North, and the hon. Member for Gloucester mentioned this unfortunate and regrettable gap that is likely to occur due to this slow run-down process. The winding up of one organisation and the beginning of another creates an obvious need for a complete review of the labour force that is likely to be employed by a new company which is not on a Government cost-plus basis, but is on a strictly competitive commercial basis, and has to look at every penny in this hard, cold world of competition.
  One had thought that there was an argument for the Beagle Company taking possession of part of the premises while de Havillands began to move out, but on looking closely at this it would be impossible for such a plan to be put into operation because the main assembly hall, which would be required for the new jigs for the manufacture of an executive aircraft—this business aircraft it is producing—is still very much in function with the jigs in operation for the manufacture of the Sea Vixen, and it seems that until the last Sea Vixen and all the component parts have been completed there is no likelihood of the Beagle Company moving in. It is for this reason that de Havillands should make every effort to facilitate a smooth take-over, prompted by my right hon. Friend.
  There is also the difficulty of a new company engaging staff when it still does not know the date on which it can take possession of the premises. It seems, therefore, that the workers will find themselves out of a job, and it is on this point that I am most anxious. There are at present about 1,650 employees at de Havillands. Our hope has been that they would be quickly absorbed into the new company and kept together as a
  648
  team. For the past twenty-three years they have worked well as a team. Their record of good relations between workers and management is without question above average.
  The urgent points that I want to make to the Minister are these. First, that he has a responsibility because de Havillands is still running on Government grants and Government orders. Secondly, because of this responsibility, this large factory must not be allowed to die slowly with consequent appalling hardship and uncertainty to the workers of all grades. Thirdly, my right hon. Friend must see that de Havillands does not stand in the way of the Beagle Company coming in to take over the premises at the earliest possible date, so that as many employees as possible at all levels are absorbed in to the new company without loss of time and work. Fourthly, my right hon. Friend must also recognise and appreciate the need for urgent action so that the large potential export orders on the Beagle Company's books are not delayed simply because the company cannot get possession of the premises.
  If this change-over can be effected smoothly before the termination of de Havilland's lease on 30th September, the Beagle Company will be able to move in and begin production the sooner on its several types of executive aircraft. With a full production of a minimum of 500 aircraft a year for buyers at home and abroad, the prospect for the employees will be secure, the existing anxiety in the area will be happily relieved, and the national economy improved by vital export orders.
  I am fully aware that I have pressed my own cause and the difficulties being faced at Christchurch, but I assure my right hon. Friend that there are many other matters of great importance in this progressive industry. One thing I do not wish to do is to leave the impression in the House tonight that the aircraft industry is on the decline. It is my firm belief that it can have a great future, and that, with the support of the Minister, such a future will be secured.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: The Minister told us that this industry covered a very wide field. I hope that

  649
  he is proud of the fact and that he will recollect that he has had many predecessors. I have been engaged for a long time in putting questions from the Opposition second Front Bench and in taking part in these debates.
  I remember when the Minister of Aviation—it was called Civil Aviation in those days—was the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I remember when the Minister of Aviation was the present Minister of Defence. I remember when the present Minister of Transport was also Minister of Aviation. Then there followed the divorce between transport and Aviation, and the present Minister for somewhere in Africa—I do not know which part—was appointed Minister of Aviation. Now, the right hon. Gentleman follows that long line of Ministers of Aviation in the last ten years. We have had all those Ministers sitting there in charge of what the right hon. Gentleman described as an industry that covers a very wide field.
  It is, in fact, the second biggest industry in the United Kingdom. The only one that employs more people than aviation is agriculture. Yet the Tory Government have treated it in the most shameful fashion. They have had a constant flow of Ministers dealing with an industry employing more people than almost any other and concerned with problems of the utmost difficulty. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) enunciated very clearly the serious nature of these problems. But they did not just start to confront the industry in the last year or two; they have been with it all the time, yet the Government have been constantly changing the Ministers in charge.
  Mr. Hocking: The hon. Gentleman said that the aviation industry was the second largest employer in the country. I understand that it only employs 300,000 people, but he said that it was second only to agriculture in the number employed. That surely cannot be right, because the building industry employs one-eighth of the working population.
  Mr. Rankin: I am guided by the figures in the Digest of Statistics. They show that agriculture employs more than 300,000, which is the number we are told are employed in the aviation industry, which takes in not only manufacture and research, but also the operational side.
  650
  The Minister should be grateful to me and to the small band of hon. Members on this side of the House who have helped to keep him in a job. Had it not been for us, he would have had little parliamentary work to do. When he came back from his resignation to sit on that Front Bench—I remember the day well—he looked a most depressed man indeed. I think that he was thinking of the long line of predecessors and was wondering how long he would be in the job. Then he saw the Order Paper and observed that there was a small group of hon. Members interested in his job and that they had a number of Questions ready for him. They were all on this side of the House.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: No.
  Mr. Rankin: The majority were. Some hon. Members opposite me now very rarely have Questions on a Monday. It is not a very popular day. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is deeply grateful to the Opposition for giving him parliamentary work to do, and for keeping him going at a time when he is telling us that he may put 20,000 other people out of their jobs.
  That is the introduction to my speech. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite should not be too hilarious. The last time I spoke on the Air Estimates, I had a very carefully prepared speech, but the Minister who introduced those Estimates gave me such golden opportunities to go after him that, at the end of half-an-hour, I had not reached my speech, and it has never yet been delivered.
  Mr. Gough: Would it be mischievous of me to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is making a very long speech tonight because so few of his colleagues can fill in the time?
  Mr. Rankin: That is a question put to distract me and to provoke me into following a course which I want to avoid. I want to get on with what I have prepared. If the hon. Gentleman desires me to bring in some of my colleagues, then they will be in here quicker than he can say Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dee—he has his choice.
  We have heard a great deal about Christchurch tonight, and I want to say something about it later. Now I have something to say about Scotland, which

  651
  is not unusual from a Scottish Member. I hope that is not the reason why the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is departing.
  Scotland is now and has for a long time been concerned mostly with the manufacture of aero-engines. Rolls-Royce has a factory at Hillington, on the verge of my constituency, and another one at East Kilbride. Tribute has been paid to Rolls-Royce aero-engines. The company employs about 10,000 men. Apart from that, we have maintenance work, and all together the number of persons employed in maintenance, repair work and engines is only about 15,000.
  That is a very small fraction of the 300,000 persons employed in the industry about whom we have been hearing tonight. This afternoon, I put a Question to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about a fifth university for Scotland. He tried to show in his replies that Scotland has sufficient universities compared with England based on the proportion of those who want a university education, in both countries. If that proportion, applied today on the university side, were applied to the aircraft production side, then, instead of having 15,000 persons employed in the industry in Scotland, we ought to have 40,000. The Minister has been failing in part of his duty.
  Scotland is helping to provide the vast sum of money invested in the industry, principally supplied from Government sources. There is £4,131 million of public money invested in aviation. If it had not been for that money, as hon. Members have recognised, the industry would not have been in the state it is now. In my view, as Scotland contributes her share to the money which helps to keep the industry going, Scotland ought to be getting her share on the aircraft production side.
  I hope that the Minister will keep this in mind. He will soon have an opportunity of stepping in to do something about it. In a year or so, we shall be moving from Renfrew to Abbotsinch. At Abbotsinch, we shall have the biggest airport in all Scotland, 773 acres. Only a quarter of that will be absorbed by the needs of civil aviation. Therefore, the Minister has the opportunity to see to it that Abbotsinch is used not only for
  652
  operational purposes, but for manufacturing purposes, also. This would do no harm to Prestwick, whose cause I have often advanced in the House.
  We are told that we ought to commend the Government's performance in overseas markets. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I am interested to hear those "Hear, hears". On 5th March, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary a Question about the Government's performance in the export of aircraft. In 1959, 430 aircraft, combat, non-combat, civil aircraft and used aircraft, were exported from this country. In 1960, the number fell to 236 and in 1961 it fell to 161. How have the Government the face to ask for commendation of a performance like that? It calls for condemnation, not commendation. They take refuge, of course, as the Parliamentary Secretary did, in saying that the value in 1959 was £154·7 million, in 1960 it was £140·4 million, and in 1961 it had risen to £146·4 million, although still more than £8 million below the value in 1959.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman has said that the House was asked to commend the Government. In fact, the House is asked to commend the aircraft and associated electronic industries. It is "the industries", not the Government, which is rather different.
  Mr. Rankin: That is an old dodge, of course. The hon. Member may take from his face the engaging smile which he always uses when he wants to hide some of his manifest parliamentary deficiencies. That is an easy way of riding off.
  During the debate, the Government side have tried to put us in the position of appearing to attack the industry. We are doing no such thing. We have been in very close touch with the industry. I have. We are attacking the Government and the Government's policy. It was not the industry which put the Amendment down, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman expects me to support him by putting Questions and keeping him in a job when the group behind him are not even present to say, "Hear, hear".
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Nonsense.
  Mr. Rankin: It may be brutal, but it is the truth. Of course, I except the hon.

  653
  Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), but none of the others.
  That is a dreadful performance over the past three years; a tremendous decline in the number of aircraft exported. Although there was an increase in the value of exports between 1960 and 1961, there was a decided fall between 1959 and 1961 and the Parliamentary Secretary cannot ride off with his reply that we should be glad that exports increased in value from 1960 to 1961.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be fair. He must look at the situation over the past seven or eight years in assessing what Britain has achieved. Vickers had a winner in the Viscount and sold about 400. The airlines have been re-equipping, perhaps far too rapidly, and they have now re-equipped. At the moment, the French are having some success with the Caravelle, but that is running dry We are coming to the next phase, with British aircraft, the VC10, the 111 and the Trident. It cannot be done every year. These things are like fashions, subject to fluctuations. The hon. Gentleman must be fair about it.
  Mr. Rankin: I could not help being fair. It is as easy for me to be fair in debate as it is for the hon. Member for Macclesfield to find a reason for this fall in aircraft exports. He concentrated on the fact that aircraft are not consumed very quickly—that was the basis of his explanation—but he failed to point out that his party is deliberately restricting the market to which aircraft might be exported. I am thinking of the Eastern bloc. Nobody has condemned the Americans more than the hon. Member. I have heard him do it repeatedly. He does not like the Americans in the business sense. He thinks that they are "tough guys". There are people who believe that they are tough guys in the political sense, too.
  We are now proving that in the case of the export of Viscount aircraft. The Viscount is one of the finest propositions which British skill and workmanship have ever produced. We cannot export it to China, despite the announcement of the President of the Board of Trade at the end of last year, because Standard Telephones, which employs 26,000
  654
  British workmen and produces the navigational equipment for the Viscount, to a British design, cannot send that navigational equipment in a Viscount to China. It is an American firm, controlled from America. And subject to an Act of 1917 which still treats China as an enemy. So we are barred from exporting our aircraft to China because of American control which the hon. Member and several of his hon. Friends have deprecated and condemned in respects other than the export of aviation commodities.
  Talking about the operational side—and I am glad of the help of the Government side of the House in this respect—reminds me of another Scottish grievance B.E.A. does a magnificent job and provides transport quickly and easily to parts of Scotland which could not otherwise be easily reached. That costs B.E.A. £280,000 a year; and it has a similar loss in respect of the Irish Sea routes—£250,000 a year—making a total loss of more than £500,000.
  The Government say Chat B.E.A. has to assume that obligation, despite the recommendation of a Standing Committee of the House, on two separate occasions, that the Government should subsidise B.E.A. in the operation of these necessary services. Instead of subsidising and helping the Corporation, the Government have set up the Air Transport Licensing Board, which will make it even more difficult for B.E.A. to create the surplus which it must have, to pay for these particular services. If it does make losses then the party opposite will howl like hyenas about the way nationalisation fails and has failed in the past.
  I come to my main and concluding point. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the supersonic airliner. I think that he accepts its necessity, but he was very vague about his attitude. He seems to think that this aircraft can be built only if he calls in French help. That is a pathetic attitude, but I agree with him that there are difficult technical problems in the transition from the supersonic bomber to the supersonic civil airliner. As he must be aware, the difficulties stem from the requirements which are peculiar to the transport of civilians and to which I want briefly to refer.
  First, the fuselage volume must be larger to accommodate passengers.

  655
  Secondly, each aircraft must have a long operating life in order to be economic. Thirdly, a supersonic machine must be compatible with the airports from which it is expected to operate and with the traffic control system which can be brought into existence at the time the aircraft comes into service. Fourthly, the aircraft must be socially acceptable in the sense that it ought not to cause undue noise at, or in the vicinity of, the airport, or on the routes over which it will be flown. Fifthy, safety requirements are even more stringent than for the bomber and more difficult to realise. Sixthly, the aircraft should have substantial growth potential to avoid large later development costs for achieving increased performance and to escape the difficulties of bringing another completely new machine into operation. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that those six points fairly well cover the characteristics which this aircraft must embody.
  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration in America has carefully gone into all these matters and has estimated that proving a supersonic aircraft from start to finish would cost £360 million. It has also taken the view that about half of the necessary research and experience has already been gained, which means that the figure will be out by 50 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman is, therefore, faced with a potential expenditure of £150 million.
  It is generally accepted that 14 million man-hours would be involved in completing the first prototype, and that is probably the reason why the British Aircraft Corporation is talking to the French Company, Sud Aviation, because French man-hours work out much more cheaply than British. We recognise that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are not very keen about having a supersonic transport in the near future as, naturally, they want to amortise their existing fleets and those aircraft on order by about 1970. After that, I am certain that they would be prepared to take delivery of the supersonic machine.
  We must remember that the first airline which uses the supersonic aircraft will have a tremendous advantage over its competitors. Traffic would automatically flow to it at the expense of the others. That would have a revolutionary
  656
  impact of employment in the British industry and on the advancement of our industry as a whole. It is because the Americans are conscious of this that two years ago there began hearings before a special investigating sub-committee of the Committee on Science and Aeronautics of the House of Representatives—on 17th, 18th 19th, 20th and 24th May, 1960. The Committee took evidence from military agencies, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, from manufacturers and airline operators. As a result, it decided that a supersonic transport should be built with government aid. The United States budget for last year provided for substantial sums to be spent on research and development in this connection, although we know that the Americans are thinking of jumping straight to the Mach 3 type.
  However, the hearings made some things clear. Existing traffic control systems and existing large airports will be able to handle a supersonic transport without difficulty. We also know that the Soviet is working on at least two supersonic designs and it may well be that while we in this country are dithering over a West European consortium and the Americans are experimenting with a Mach 3 prototype, the Russians will suddenly start operating, through Aeroflot, a Mach 2 transport of which no one had heard until today, when Aeroplane and Aviation News gave the first intimation of Russian intentions in this respect.
  At the House of Representatives hearing, the Director of Development Planning of the U.S. Air Force took the view that the supersonic transport of troops was the natural extension of the existing transportation systems employed within the Air Force; although he plumped for a Mach 3 jet, which would travel slightly faster than a rifle bullet. The American intention is evidently to develop an offshot of the B70 prototype while, at the same time, the Air Force was
  "developing a prototype Mach 3 bomber and plans to expand this development to a strategic bomber force for the inventory."
  He added:
  "While admittedly not optimised for a transport an additional B70 prototype vehicle could be considered to carry approximately

  657
  100 passengers and used to obtain the necessary data for the final design and operation of an optimised transport."
  He concluded with the words:
  "In summary, the Air Force considers the development of a supersonic transport to be technically feasible and a desirable national objective."
  I am asking the Minister of Aviation to consider this decision. He may be familiar with it—I do not know. But it has been regarded, as a result of research into the project, that it is a desirable and a possible national objective. Of course, its effects on employment, on exports, and on the operational side would be of such a powerful nature as to lift this country out of the pool of despondency that it is now in and restore it once again to the lead that it had in former days in this industry.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Philip N. Hocking: The Opposition today have stated their case very clearly. They have also told us in no uncertain terms what their policy is to be. They intend to nationalise the aircraft industry. Not only would they nationalise the manufacturing side of the industry, but they would like also to draw very tight rings around the operating side of it. I can only say that in my constituency and in the City of Coventry generally, where aircraft have been manufactured for a very long time, those views will not be taken very kindly.
  I listened to the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), whom I do not see in his place, with considerable interest. He spoke of the two or three years' work that the industry could look forward to in Coventry as a result of the construction there at the present time of the Argosy freighter. It may be that there is sufficient work in the factories and on the shop floors, but my information is that the design teams and those who work in the drawing offices have not this amount of work before them. I was also disturbed to hear him run down the British aviation industry in the way he did. He compared the British aviation industry with the French aviation industry and suggested that the French industry was much the better. This is his usual line of attack. I have listened to him speak in a number of debates on a number
  658
  of subjects, and on every occasion his answer has been that the industry must be nationalised.
  Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North is not in the Chamber, but I am. I heard him say roost distinctly that he regretted that the exports of the British aircraft industry did not compare favourably with the exports of the French nationalised aircraft industry.
  Mr. Hocking: The hon. Gentleman did say that, but in general he ran down the British industry, as he has frequently done on other occasions with regard to the motor car industry, man-made fibres and chemicals. His answer in each case is "nationalise it." I am beginning to think that he always makes the same speech no matter what subject we are debating.
  The aircraft industry is rather like the curate's egg—good in parts but bad in others. The industry is at the present time exporting and earning for this country £150 million a year. This money is earned largely from the sale of aeroengines and components, particularly components such as hydraulic systems and landing gears. The French Caravelle has been mentioned. It is significant that quite a large proportion of that aircraft is made in this country.
  The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) rather suggested that our aircraft industry should go on selling various specialised parts to other people throughout the world. This is not a very satisfactory way for the British industry to develop. We are at present exporting a large proportion of components and aeroengines largely because these products have been tried previously in British aircraft and airframes. Yet today this is the very part of the industry which is not very satisfactory.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) suggested that we should produce a supersonic jet airliner. I spent Monday of this week talking to a large number of aircraft manufacturers. I talked over the weekend to many of my friends who went to school with me and who work in these factories. None of them seemed to think that this was a practical proposition. They said that it would be impossible to operate it on many services. I am told that the

  659
  Americans have tried this and have had a successive run of broken windows as a result. It certainly would not be a scrap of use to B.E.A., though the hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be.
  If the industry is short of work from the point of view of airframes, there is a method in which it can be put right. We should try to develop a transport aircraft to an even greater extent. We should allow the companies to develop this aircraft and give them support orders. We should purchase them and allow the Royal Air Force to fly them in Transport Command.
  We heard this afternoon how the Boeing 707 was developed for civil use from a military aircraft. This country appears to practise the reverse operation. The military version of the Comet was developed from the commercial version. The military version of the Argosy was developed from the original commercial version. We should reverse this process and give support orders to a number of firms to develop a transport aircraft to be used by the Services. From it a reasonable civil version could be developed. This would help the industry considerably.
  Another point to which attention should be paid by the Government is export sales. On Monday morning I talked to one of the leaders of the industry. He told me of the difficulties the industry is having in organising sales overseas. Not having been engaged in the industry or in its financing, I mentioned the E.C.G.D. He told me that this is not a scrap of good to the aircraft industry, and that in any case it would operate only for three years. He said that in some cases today British firms were giving credit up to seven years. I am told that the Americans are giving credit for as long as ten years. It is clear that if we are to earn money in the export market through our aircraft industry, which makes a valuable contribution, attention must be paid to the whole question of credit and the amount of time for which credit is given. I urge the Government to make special arrangements so that our aircraft manufacturers can have a chance to compete with the Americans in the export market.
  660
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) mentioned how aggressive the Americans were in getting orders for their aircraft. I asked the gentleman to whom I spoke on Monday why the Americans managed to establish themselves on the Continent of Europe to the extent that they do. He said that they definitely got this business through their air attachés, who went out deliberately to sell American aircraft. Why on earth cannot British air attachés do the same for this country? Is it unreasonable to expect them to press the claims of British manufacturers throughout the world? I hope that my hon. Friend who is to reply will give some information that the Government have this in mind.
  If, as it appears will be the case, the industry is in for a hard and tough time in organising itself on its present basis, we must pay attention to these details. I believe that the whole battle must be won at home. We cannot just sell aircraft overseas. The Government must be prepared to give some form of support order to the various companies on the lines I have suggested.
  However, although my right hon. Friend this afternoon gave a very clear indication of the Government's policy, I believe that there are other things to which they should pay attention. They should say how much money they are prepared to spend on the development of aircraft over, say, seven years. It is utterly wrong to expect the aircraft industry to continue on a shoe string or on the basis of very short term intentions. The Government should give a clear lead and help in selling the aircraft overseas.
  Hon. Members opposite may well argue that I am advocating the provision of public money to assist private companies. There is no earthly reason why the Government should not take a share, as I understand that they do at present, of the profits earned through participation and development, Without this lead I believe that the industry will begin to disintegrate. We have heard about the number of people who are leaving the industry now and going overseas, some to Europe and some to North America. Morale can quickly become low. If the Government prove to people in the industry that they have a firm intention to ensure that we have a healthy aircraft

  661
  industry in this country and prove it by deeds, people will be prepared to remain and develop a very vital interest.
  We have a difficult task in trying to win our way in the world and sell our goods. It is clear that we have superior knowledge in the industry and we can benefit by the brains that are in it. I hope that the Government will during the next few years give a clear lead and help to sell these brains overseas.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: When the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) was delivering his delightful speech I mellowed so much that I almost threw my speech away. He brought back to my mind that it is just forty-four years ago yesterday that his distinguished kinsman, General Sir Hubert Gough, and his troops bore the brunt of the German break through. He was subsequently subjected to an act of great injustice and I hope that the hon. Member will take to him the compliments of those of us who are old enough to remember the black days of March, 1918.
  Mr. Gough: I am grateful to the hon. Member for those words. If I may keep in order, in addition to conveying that message to my aged and distinguished uncle, I remind the hon. Member that at that time the products of Bristols, Faireys and, I think, Hawkers were used very much in that great battle.
  Mr. Wigg: I now turn to the Minister. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) in his strictures on the right hon. Gentleman, whom I regard as one of the most polished and finished politicians in this House. He is second only to the Prime Minister. When in a difficult position, and the ice is thin, he keeps running and even covers the water, after the ice has melted, at such a speed that he gets to the other side. This afternoon was a typical tour de force, for I suppose it can be said that he got away with it. He painted the usual picture of a Conservative Adminstration grappling with great difficulties and, finally, after spending several hours with wet towels round their heads, coming to the House with a solution.
  The solution was the same on 15th February, 1960, when the present Minister for Commonwealth Relations,
  662
  having "busted up" the Armed Services, tried his hand on the aircraft industry, on which he performed a similar operation. He came to the House and gave us and the country his new plan. I remember the occasion with much amusement, and I have cogitated on it since. I have waited for this moment to refer the House to the Adjournment debate which I initiated on 7th February, 1956. I then pointed out that the situation which faces the country now is not exclusively the product of the maladministration of the Conservative Party. Some of my colleagues had their part in it also.
  At that time there were no fewer than 157 projects of which 18·6 per cent. had come to an untimely end and only 16 went into production. In that debate I forecast what the Government ought to do. That was to limit the number of contractors to five and to make the other remaining nine sub-contractors. I had the pleasure on 15th February, 1960, of finding that what I said in 1956 on this issue, as on the many other issues of defence, being adopted by the Government as though it were their own original thought.
  Since then, the Minister and his predecessors have sat back and said, "The situation is now very difficult. It is beyond our capability. It is a question of world forces and there is not much we can do about it." We heard the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon describe the policy and say that he would show how it worked out so that the House could make a comparison, but he did not do anything of the kind. Having made a rumbustious attack on us to divert attention, he carefully avoided a comparison between the policy and its application.
  How it will work out can be put in the simplest of simple terms. There are 300,000 workers in the aircraft industry in this country. In the French aircraft industry there are 83,000. Our exports represented 418·6 million dollars in 1961. The French, with roughly a quarter of our labour forces, had an export figure of 348 million dollars during the same period. If one thinks that that is the case for complacency and that everything in the garden is lovely, one should remember that the Financial Times on 9th November, 1961, pointed out that

  663
  our exports this year are likely to fall off and are unlikely to expand again. That is a very serious position.
  I come to this problem, as I did in 1956, for a very simple reason. I believe that a healthy aircraft industry is absolutely essential to the well-being of the Armed Forces of the Crown. That is my first approach and, going on from that, I believe it absolutely essential to the well-being of the economy of the country. The two are related.
  Here I go back to the point I make in every defence debate. The complex problems of the aviation industry cannot be solved by one party alone. The problems have to be moved on to a basis where they can be looked at not from the point of view of one party or the other seeking to score this or that point, but from the national point of view. This afternoon the Minister challenged hon. Members to say what they would do about it. I always try to think constructively, whether on problems of the Army or of aviation. So I always start my researches these days by taking a look at what is happening in the United States. It is quite clear that everything is not lovely at the moment in the United States aviation garden, but note what happened there and what happens here.
  Today, in this debate, speaker after speaker on both sides of the House has given the aircraft industry a pat on the back. It depends where one's constituency happens to be and whether aircraft are produced there. The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) did it to score a point against my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North (Mr. Edelman) in order to get the right headlines. He wished to extol a particular part of the aircraft industry in his constituency. This is all part of the technique, but see what happens in the United States. I have with me a copy of a report of the Task Force on National Aviation Goals which contains, on the first page, the letter which the President of the United States wrote on 3rd March, 1961, to the Chief Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency.
  He said:
  "Dear Mr. Halaby,
  In your capacity as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, you are requested to
  664
  develop for my consideration a statement of national aviation goals for the period between now and 1970."
  The last sentence of Mr. Kennedy's letter read:
  "I look forward to receiving a report by June 1."
  The letter from the Chairman of the Task Force to the Administrator was dated 1st September, 1961. It lays down in the most careful terms the considered opinion of experts drawn by the Government over the widest possible aviation field, Republicans and Democrats alike, financial experts, experts of all kinds who look at the problems of the American aircraft industry and lay down principles on which that industry should operate during the next decade. It points out that in the past, as with us, many reports have been submitted, and that they have not always been acted upon. It said:
  "we are confident that the strong executive leadership of the Administration, coupled with wise legislation and enlightened and unselfish co-operation by the aviation community, should bring to fruition the tremendous, and as yet unachieved promise which aviation holds for our continued national progress and growth."
  If that is the approach of the President of the United States, and he can get results within six months, why cannot our Minister of Aviation do the same? Why cannot our Minister face up to the fact that a trend has set in which may cause the aircraft industry to collapse. Informed opinion holds that in many of our traditional fields—in the field of light transport aircraft, for example, as was mentioned by an hon. Member opposite this afternoon—we need a working party or to use the American term, a task force, which would have a look at the British aircraft industry and state the goals which have to be achieved over the next ten years in civil and military aircraft alike.
  This is sheer common sense and yet, from the inquiries I have made, I do not believe this American report has ever been considered by the Minister of Aviation or by the Secretary of State for Air. I think that they are far too political to look at a bread-and-butter approach like this. Perhaps when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be good enough to tell the House what consideration he has given to this report, which covers every aspect of the

  665
  problems which are worrying the American aircraft industry. There is a section on subsonic aircraft and it stresses that subsonic aircraft will be the backbone of the American aircraft industry until 1970. It deals very extensively with the supersonic transport and there is a great deal on this subject in Which hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon on this problem would be interested.
  I wish that the hon. Member for Coventry, North was here, because it points out the dangers of associating with the French and relying upon the super Caravelle. For the Americans have reached the conclusion thus to go for Mach 2 aircraft means that by the time it is achieved, Mach 3, relying not on aluminium but on quite different materials, will sweep the board. They are quite confident that the Mach 3 aircraft, if it can get over the difficulties of the sonic boom, is the horse to back. These are very big problems, and, with very much regret, I have reached the conclusion that the Government's approach to the supersonic problem has again been a rather dilettante affair, and that they have not got down to the fundamentals.
  There are seven things that ought to be done, in my view. First, there ought to be a determination of the feasibility of the project as a whole. That is absolutely essential. Secondly, in order that the Government and their advisers can get to grips with the environmental problem, they should ask the Americans to loan them a B58, or have one seconded to this country, so that the necessary examination can be made of the problem by actually using the Hustler. The third thing to be done, on which absolutely nothing is happening at the moment, is that there ought to be an examination of the parameter problem. At that point, the Government can then begin to start writing out their requirements, and that should lead to a competition to establish the best air frames and engines and other essential parts. The sixth stage is that the Government should start to select the prime contractors and the first and second tier sub-contractors. The seventh and final stage is that of ordering the prototype.
  The Government have nibbled at the first stage, the feasibility of the project, and they have done a little bit in regard to looking at air frames and engines.
  666
  And they have done little towards the sixth—having their eyes on the contractors—and there is beginning to be a little dispute between Rolls-Royce and Bristol-Siddeley as to who should make the engines. I am afraid that the Government will drift on this problem in the same way as they drifted into Blue Streak and many other problems, so that what money is available will be absorbed into something which, in their view, will hold out great prospects, only to find that they have been overtaken by events and that they will have to cancel it. Surely, what we have to do is to be less ambitious and start with a policy which matches the existing situation.
  I am entirely at one with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) that on its own the Ministry of Aviation as at present constituted—this involves no personal criticism of either the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, for they are not responsible for the legacy they have inherited—cannot solve this problem. If the aircraft industry is to be saved from collapse, the Ministry must bring in the best brains that the country can find to provide speedily the kind of solution that the Americans found in a few months last year.
  If I am pressed as to what I would do, in my view the immediate job would involve the cancelling of three or four products. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) will not be surprised if I mention one of them right away. I would cancel the Belfast. I am sorry for the hon. Member and for the people of Belfast, as well as those of Gloucester and of Christchurch, who work in the industry, but, sooner or later, they will be brought face to face with the economic realities. This is one of the reasons why I protest against what I and other hon. Members including hon. Members opposite, describe as political aircraft. Political aircraft, like political soup kitchens, are no substitute for the courage and clear-thinking which are required to deal with the problems which face the aircraft industry.
  Therefore, I would cancel the Belfast. I would cancel the Seaslug. Our old friend the NA39, now the Buccaneer, should be looked at afresh. Where there are signs of backing a winner like the Bloodhound, the Government should go at it. It is quite wrong to blame the

  667
  Government merely on the basis of their failures. In this game, there are bound to be failures, whoever runs the Administration.
  My complaint against the Government is that they do not back any winners. They ought occasionally to bring one of them off. If the French can produce the Caravelle, the Mirage and the Mystere, we ought to be able to do something like that occasionally. We ought to be able to tackle these problems and produce those things which are within our compass and go on from there. Of course, the Americans and the Germans will be tough, but what is the good of coming down here and whining about it? We must think clearer and be even tougher. That is the answer to the problem, but we cannot do it if the industry has its hands tied behind its back.
  I believe that the ice is very thin. Before long, if the Government go drifting along, the country will get a great shock about the stability of quite large elements inside the aircraft industry which I do not believe will be able to bear the strain indefinitely.
  Rolls-Royce has been treated scandalously. Rolls-Royce stands for the best traditions and courageous planning and production of unequalled thoroughness. The name of Rolls-Royce stands for quality and for all that is best in British industry. I believe that Rolls-Royce has been driven into a corner. It will have to compete with Pratt and Whitney, not only in America, but it must also compete in Europe. In the ultimate, whether our aircraft and components can be sold depends upon price.
  The fundamental question is whether the profit margins which are available to the British aircraft industry, of which Rolls-Royce is a part, are sufficiently large to enable firms like Rolls-Royce, in the long run, even to stay in business at all. That is the problem that faces us. Surely the fundamental problem here is whether in four or five years' time Rolls-Royce will still exist. That puts the matter into the right perspective when hon. Members talk about their constituency problems.
  It is my belief, from the inquiries I have made, that Rolls-Royce has reached the position which now faces it because it has committed its own resources.
  668
  on launching new projects to the extent of nearly £50 million; and it is committed to finding £20 million or more even to complete its existing projects.
  I believe that the Minister has received one representation after another, not only from Rolls-Royce but from other sections of the aircraft industry, pointing out that the stage has been reached when these companies are being prevented from achieving the fullest exploitation of the position they have won for themselves. They have achieved this position on their merit in the markets of the world and they cannot maintain it unless there is further Government support.
  This is a problem which goes far beyond the many issues which have been raised. Rolls-Royce—and I deliberately emphasise this firm again—cannot continue on the basis of the February, 1960. policy unless increased support is given to its existing projects. That must be done and the House tonight is really fiddling with the problem by putting forward Amendments and Amendments to Amendments. It is fiddling while the old ship becomes waterlogged and is in grievous danger of sinking. That is a fact and the Government must face it.
  We have talked tonight as if something has just descended upon us. The Minister set the tone for this. But throughout the debate I have heard not a word of reference to the White Paper, The Supply of Military Aircraft, Cmd. 9388. That was published in February, 1955, and that gave a warning about military aircraft in the period to come. One could see from that White Paper that we were standing at the watershed. One could even see the effect of the Labour Government's decision not to develop the interim fighter. That decision had a strong effect on the future of the aircraft industry. That White Paper mentioned the Javelin, the P1, the V-bombers and the rest of the line.
  It is idle to engage in a controversy about the future of the V-bomber. The question is whether there will be a V-bomber, a fighter force, or even an aircraft industry in five or ten years from now if the Government, of their own volition—whether they recognise the facts or not—have destroyed the economic and financial basis on which this industry exists. If the foundation

  669
  of this industry cracks—as I believe it is doing—I forecast that, compared with the goals at which the Americans are looking for the end of this decade, the goal for the British aircraft industry will be this: there will not be an industry unless the Government really face up, not to the picture they like to paint, but to the facts as they really are.
  8.44 p.m
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: When I listened to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) I thought that we should get a clear analysis of the Opposition's view of the state of the aircraft industry. I hoped that he would propound some immediate and long-term solutions to the industry's difficulties. All he did, however, was to tear the industry to pieces—the airframe and other sections of it—without attempting to put anything in its place.
  The hon. Member for Dudley mentioned my constituency and the aircraft workers of Short Brothers and Harland. This firm has brought great benefit to Northern Ireland. The training schemes which it has initiated have done much to help our serious unemployment position. But I should like to stress immediately, in answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dudley, that orders placed in Northern Ireland have been placed there not for a political reason, but on merit.
  My right hon. Friend, in opening the debate, made particular mention of variable geometry aircraft as a way of breaking into the future and of developing an aircraft capable of supersonic flight of the order of Mach 2 or Mach 3. The first variable geometry aircraft was built in Belfast. The planners and designers in Short Brothers designed the SC1, the first vertical take-off aircraft to go through the transition from vertical rise to forward flight and then back to the ground again. It first flew in 1958 and completed its transition tests in I960.
  In addition, in Northern Ireland we are producing the Belfast air freighter and the Skyvan. We have diversified and are producing the Seacat, for which we have received many orders from N.A.T.O. countries, and such other electronic equipment as analogue computers.
  670
  I wish particularly to say a few words about vertical take-off. Ever since the beginning of aviation, scientists have been concerned with the problems connected with runways. Runways have become longer as the aeroplanes have become heavier and faster. It is apparent that, with the very fast aircraft of the future, a new solution will be required. It was suggested during the Bleriot lectures in Paris, as long ago as 1954, that the ideal solution for a very fast supersonic aircraft, would be to rely not on the wings, which create a great drag at high supersonic speeds, and the flaps, landing carriage and all the other equipment amounting to about 10 per cent. surplus of the aircraft's weight when flying at full speed, but on the modern little engines which can be, and have been, developed by Rolls-Royce with a power thrust about sixteen times their own weight and which virtually lift the aircraft off the ground and transfer it to forward flight.
  It is being more widely accepted that in such a project, in which Britain clearly leads the world, we in this country have the opportunity of continuing the research and development and of retaining the lead in aircraft production which we have had since the beginning of the century.
  Mention has been made of the fact that we developed the first jets. Rolls-Royce developed the special vertical take-off engines. There are many military applications for a vertical takeoff aeroplane. The immediate application is as a fighter-reconnaissance plane, and such a project, the Hawker P1127, has been extremely successful. There is an order for nine of them at present, and there is every expectation that there will be further orders.
  We must consider how this particular development can be used in future. From the military point of view, it could be used in connection with observation planes, and even with transport planes to bring equipment to unprepared pieces of land which could easily be made ready. Such planes would be less vulnerable to enemy attack. They could carry and move both men and equipment at will. It could land on a piece of ground—ordinary good turf would do—or on a piece of concrete no bigger than the aircraft and take off again. This is the prospect for five or ten years ahead.

  671
  The time has come for the Ministry of Aviation to place further development contracts for such aircraft.
  In answer to Questions which I put to him, the Minister said that the evaluation tests on the existing two SC1s are not complete and that there is no operational requirement for such planes. How can there be when there is not sufficient aircraft for the military commanders and the defence staff to see how they work? If we are to retain our lead in this important sphere, I suggest that the Minister should consider giving more and immediate support to the idea of a multi-jet vertical take-off plane in addition to the Hawker single jet system which is very limited in its application.
  Such a plane could be used by the Army and also by the Navy. A modern aircraft carrier could be equipped with helicopters for anti-submarine work, and vertical take-off planes for observation and reconnaisance. In this way, the policy of the Government, as expressed in the Defence White Paper, of reducing the number of types of aircraft could be carried out and the same plane could be used from an aircraft carrier and with troops in the front line for reconnaissance work.
  I wish to say something about the order for the Belfast freighter. This aircraft has been especially designed and tailored to meet the needs of the Army and the remarks of the hon. Member for Dudley, the attack which he launched on this aircraft, is completely unmerited and unwarranted. The plane will be capable of carrying equipment which no other plane in the world can carry and its capacity, load and range will be much greater than any comparable competitor.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: My hon. Friend has heard the attack on the Belfast freighter by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and he will recall that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, after visiting Belfast, changed his view and is now a strong supporter of this aircraft. Would my hon. Friend consider inviting the hon. Member for Dudley to visit this constituency and examine the plane, and then perhaps the hon. Member for Dudley might change his mind?
  Mr. McMaster: Certainly. I regret that the hon. Member for Dudley
  672
  appears to be about to leave the Chamber. If he would consider finding out a little more about this aircraft I am sure that the firm of Short Bros, and Harland Would give him the same welcome as was given to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Wigg: I make it a practice never to accept the invitations of aircraft manufacturers.
  Mr. McMaster: If the hon. Member cares to make speeches without first having ascertained the facts—
  Mr. Wigg: On the contrary. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have thrashed out this subject over and over again. I should be willing to come to Belfast and to debate it with him, or perhaps he might like to debate it with me in my constituency. There have not been any purchases of the Belfast, and neither will there be.
  Mr. McMaster: Lack of time prevents me from following up this matter and I regret that I cannot produce all the detailed facts which I have in my possession to answer that point.
  With an order for only 10, when Transport Command now needs 25 or 30 strategic air freighters, it is difficult for the firm manufacturing the plane to quote a price. If the Minister of Aviation increases the order, as I feel sure that he will, the price will be halved. How can representatives of the firm who go abroad seeking orders quote a firm price when the price can vary very much once final orders are placed?
  I hope that the Minister is considering other variations. There is a demand for a tactical freighter and it is the policy of the Government to reduce the number of types of aircraft. A variation of the Belfast could carry upwards of 250 troops, with arms and equipment, over a short distance, and I suggest that this would meet the requirement for a tactical freighter. But, as in the case of the SC1, time is of the essence, and unless these orders are placed quickly it will prejudice the obtaining of orders from abroad. There are many inquiries both in this country and in the United States in respect of this transport aircraft.
  I conclude with some comments on long-term planning. It is essential that

  673
  the Minister should think ahead. The number employed in the aircraft industry has increased from 280,000 to 300,000 over the past eighteen months, and the industry is reasonably satisfied with the immediate future, but to keep design teams together it is necessary to think of the suggestions which have been made tonight in respect of vertical take-off, transport and supersonic plans and to plan for ten years ahead.
  My right hon. Friend spoke about interdependence. He urged the aircraft industry to rely more and more on interdependence. But in certain fields in which we have a lead it is essential that our secrets should not be given away too readily either to Continental or to American competitors just for the sake of the word "interdependence". Let us have interdependence by all means, but let us make sure that we exploit the advantages of the lead which we have at present.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) made an eloquent speech on behalf of the products of Short Brothers & Harland. I reassure him, I, too, think that the Belfast is an admirable aircraft—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) will also be pleased to hear that. But we should keep our enthusiasm a little under control until the aircraft has flown. With that qualification, I say that I am sure that it is a very good aircraft.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me when I say that we ought to express deep appreciation of the excellent work done by designers and teams in the British aircraft industry and the skilled workmen who support them. I join the Minister of Aviation in expressing appreciation of part of the work done by his Department. I refer to the Royal Aircraft Establishment, the Royal Radar Establishment and the National Gas Turbine Establishment. They do first-class work and the country has every cause to be proud of them.
  But I propose to pay no further compliments tonight. I wish to make three points. First, there has been excessive expenditure on guided missiles, with
  674
  some mediocre results; secondly, the policy of the Ministry of Aviation during the last two years has caused a serious decline in the competitive powers of the aircraft industry; and thirdly, the Government have no satisfactory plans for the industry for the future.
  Turning to the first point, in a Question I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to let me know the cost of these various missiles and he told me in reply that it would be contrary to the public interest to let me know it. I am not quarrelling with that, but it seems that the public interest coincides with the Government's political interests, which no doubt is a happy coincidence for them. From time to time, however, we hear some facts about the missiles.—rather like rooks projecting out of the water at half-tide—particularly when we see the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee and of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This is practically the only information which we have about the cost of missiles.
  I will refer briefly to some of these missiles. I will not take up the time of the House about Blue Streak, for hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that that was a monolithic miscalculation which, as the Minister told us, has cost £90 million so far. Sea Slug is a missile which has been developed over the last fifteen years and which so far has cost us £70 million. It is a missile which will be fitted to some ships which have not yet been built—guided-missile destroyers—and it will be an anti-aircraft missile with a range of twenty to forty miles. The only Objection to this heavy expenditure is that this missile has been developed for aircraft which will very soon cease to exist—in other words, aircraft which bomb ships direct or at a very short range. Already the United States has a guided missile which can be fired from an aircraft at a range of 500 miles, and it is unlikely that the Russians are far behind them. One feels that Sea Slug, which has cost £70 million, is of rather dubious value to the Army.
  I turn to Thunderbird. This has cost us a mere £40 million, but it is simply an anti-aircraft missile, and to a very large extent it duplicates the functions of another missile, Bloodhound. Parallel development has been taking place. The

  675
  Minister shakes his head, and it is true that Bloodhound and Thunderbird are different in as much as one is for the Army and one is for the R.A.F.; but the only essential difference is that they are manipulated by personnel wearing different uniforms. The development was started by separate firms.
  The cost of Thunderbird was £40 million in 1960. I do not know the cost of Bloodhound, for it is one of those secret matters which the Minister keeps locked in his bosom. I turn to Fire-streak. This is a missile which has cost us merely £23 million. It is an air-to-air guided missile fired by one aircraft at another aircraft. In other words, it replaces the guns of an aircraft. This missile is fitted to our Lightnings, Javelins and Sea Vixens, and it has only one disadvantage: it can be fired only when the aircraft is actually in pursuit of its victim. It cannot be fired at an aircraft which is approaching it, or at another aircraft which is broadside on to it. It seems to me that that, again, is of very limited value. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Government are purchasing different missiles which can be fired at aircraft from all directions.
  Lastly on the matter of missiles, I refer to Blue Steel, which had cost us £60 million up to September, 1960. That is a guided bomb which is fired from an aircraft and has a range of 150 miles. If we are fortunate, Blue Steel will be in service at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. Again, this has a disadvantage. American bombers now have as standard equipment a missile of a similar nature which has a range of 500 miles.
  So I suggest that a very large amount of missile construction and development work has gone on for immense sums of money with a very limited amount of profit to this country. In spite of the Minister's reticence in this matter, I suggest that his Ministry has spent about £600 million on missiles in the last ten years and that about £200 million of that sum has just been money poured down the drain—roughly the equivalent of six groundnuts schemes, if another unit of measurement is required.
  My second point concerns what I regard as the baleful effects of the
  676
  Government's policy on the aircraft industry. The Minister is in a light-hearted mood this evening. He was even more lighthearted when he made his speech. I am a little surprised at his complacency, because if one looks at the figures for aircraft exports the position is a little depressing. In 1958 we exported £98 million worth of aircraft, but in 1961 the figure was only £58 million. This decline in exports is even worse than it seems, because during the time that our exports have been declining the airlines of the world have been stocking up with new jet aircraft to bring their fleets up to date. So we have been having a shrinking share of the world's market.
  As I thought the Minister would be interested, and as I am not very good at adding, I asked the very excellent statistical department of the Library to prepare some figures—I shall give the Minister the report—of the proportion which we have of the world's exports of aircraft. It appears that in 1958 we exported 20 per cent. of all the aircraft of the Western world, excluding Communist Russia and the satellite countries
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On what basis?
  Mr. Cronin: In value. In 1960 the figure had dropped to 10·6 per cent. I am glad that the Minister is looking a little more serious, because these are very grave figures. This is an extraordinarily rapid decline. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what the Government propose to do about it, because if our aircraft exports decline at this rate we shall very soon have none at all.
  One wonders what the reasons are for the decline. First of all, in terms of time I suppose that the earliest one was the 1957 White Paper, which took all the emphasis off building aircraft and insisted that missiles would replace all fighting aircraft in the future. It was a gigantic blunder. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are thoroughly familiar with this matter, and I do not propose to develop it.
  The attempts of the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations at integration of the aircraft industry were not entirely helpful. He encouraged firms to integrate, or perhaps one might say he menaced them into integrating.

  677
  But now the Minister is in some difficulty because he is obliged to spread his orders evenly among these firms irrespective of the merits of designs. Consequently, firms outside the consortia know that they are going to be discriminated against. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House were very displeased about the question of the Dart Herald and the Avro 748, which is a typical example.
  The Minister and his predecessors have on numerous occasions failed to support obviously useful aircraft. I will go into the military examples shortly, but I should like briefly to mention the Fairey Rotodyne which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) discussed earlier. This has been recognised on all sides as a tragic failure on the part of the Ministry. Quite apart from the activities of the Ministry of Transport, it is obvious that with the congested condition of our cities a reasonably equipped vertical take-off aircraft which can take off from the centre of a city and go to another one has a big future. It is quite certain that the Fairey Rotodyne will be developed by the Americans in the near future. No doubt there have been many desirable opportunities for economy, but I suggest that on this occasion the Minister really threw away the baby with the bath water.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman say why British European Airways were not prepared to place orders for the Rotodyne?
  Mr. Cronin: I do not sit in with the board of directors of British European Airways, and therefore I cannot answer for the decisions made by them. Nevertheless, I think that it was generally recognised by the aircraft industry that this was a first-class development.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: It was too noisy
  Mr. Cronin: It was not too noisy. It was much less noisy than the helicopter and progress was being made on reducing the noise still further.
  The Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, I960, has had the effect of causing the big Corporations to be rather doubtful about how many big jet aircraft to order. For instance, the B.O.A.C. has a gigantic order for 42 VC 10s. This is a
  678
  staggering financial commitment and has to be considered against the background of not knowing to what extent profitable routes will be retained. This will cause both the Corporations to look over their shoulders. It will have the effect of making them dubious about placing orders for new aircraft, and will also have the effect of causing further uncertainty in the industry.
  The Minister and his predecessors have caused havoc in another section of the aircraft industry. I am referring to private flying. Private flying could be a profitable part of the aircraft industry in this country. It is a branch of the industry with great export potential. At the moment only about 1,000 private and executive aircraft are registered in this country. In the United States the figure is 68,000, and they had 7,500 new registrations last year.
  What is the reason for this? It is simply that the Minister of Aviation and his predecessors have carried on a system of persecution of private and executive aircraft. No private plane can be flown in a controlled zone unless the pilot has an instrument flight rating, which involves passing a technical examination and doing a lot of theoretical work. The pilot has to write extensive papers on complex technical matters.
  Further, control zones are becoming wider and wider. Prohibited zones in which private aircraft cannot operate are also being extended. Only recently the Royal Air Force has decided to prohibit private planes from flying within a 15-mile radius of Lyneham, and this has disrupted the normal route between London and Bristol and Cardiff.
  Taking it further, the Ministry has made regulations about radio equipment. This is desirable, and one appreciates that careful consideration has to be given to matters of safety, but one can fly anywhere in the United States or in France, provided that one has a radio with five frequencies. In this country one cannot fly even if one has a radio with 40 frequencies, so rigid are the requirements of the Ministry of Aviation. The Minister and his predecessors have had a deleterious effect on the civil side of the industry.
  I turn now to military aircraft. Hon Members on both sides of the House will remember the days when countries

  679
  all over the world used to queue for our Vampires, Meteors, Hunters and Canberras. All these planes were initiated by the Labour Government. If one drove down towards the south of France, Meteors and Vampires flew over one's head.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was under the impression that there was a Coalition Government during the war and also that some of the aircraft the hon. Gentleman has mentioned were actually in service during the war.
  Mr. Cronin: I am not prepared to accept that correction. Vampires, Meteors and Hunters have been developed since the war. All these aircraft were initiated by the Labour Government. But they are all subsonic aircraft, and the time came for transonic and supersonic aircraft and when other Governments wanted imports of supersonic aircraft from us.
  The aircraft manufacturers produced some excellent machines. The Hawker 1083 was a supersonic fighter which was to have been displayed at the Farnborough Air Show in September, 1953, but its development was cancelled in the previous July for no clear reason. The Supermarine 545 was cancelled in 1955 when almost ready to fly. The Avro 720 was cancelled in 1956, and the Saunders-Roe 177 in 1957. All these were excellent fighters with speeds of Mach I to II. The Hawker P1121 was meant to be a replacement of the Canberra, but that was cancelled in 1958.
  Each cancellation was initiated by the Ministry of Aviation withdrawing its support. As a result, since the days of the Vampire, the Meteor, the Hunter and the Canberra, we have had no fighters and strike aircraft which we could export. I think the Minister will agree that we have no such aircraft to offer on the world's markets.
  Of course, we will now have a supersonic fighter, the Lightning, but it is our only supersonic fighter and it is a very poor show among the masses of supersonic aircraft which the Russians showed at Tushimo and the French showed at Le Bourget. Our record has not been very good.
  It would not be courteous of me to comment, but I shall read an extract
  680
  from the official magazine of the Royal Air Force, the Royal Air Force Flying Review, for September, 1961. This is a responsible magazine read by Royal Air Force senior officers. It referred to Vampires, Hunters and Meteors and said:
  "Their supersonic successors have long been caught up in ministerial vacillation and policy changes and consigned to limbo."
  It added:
  "The fault is not that of British aircraft manufacturers but that of short-sighted politicians who failed to see the need of consistent planning."
  That is the view expressed by the periodical of the Royal Air Force.
  The Government have no satisfactory plan for the future of the aircraft industry. It would appear that they have no planning organisation to co-ordinate civil and military and export requirements. There is a committee for defence research and a committee for civil transport requirements, but no committee to co-ordinate both sides or which will also take exports into consideration. If the Government have made some changes, we should be glad to hear of them.
  The Minister has made no attempt to start an investigation into the possibilities of planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) told us how President Kennedy, as one of his first acts, insisted on an investigation into the next ten years of United States aviation, including future possibilities and existing opportunities. No such investigation has been ordered in this country. There is to be no attempt to co-ordinate aircraft requirements for the Commonwealth airlines and Air Forces.
  The Minister, with that charm of his, has been trundling Blue Streak all over Europe. What attempts has he made to go to Commonwealth countries and ascertain their requirements? As far as one knows, none at all.
  I come now to the question of export credits. One of the reasons why we cannot sell our aircraft as effectively as the Americans is that the Americans can always offer better credit terms, I inquired from the Export Credits Guarantee Department and was told that it would guarantee export credit for five years for small aircraft or seven years for jet aircraft. The various private financial institutions in the United States

  681
  will give much longer guarantees. As a result, we lose orders. Can the Minister tell us any other reason why most of the countries of Western Europe have Lockheed F.104 fighters? Is there any other reason why Qantas and Air India stocked up with Boeings instead of Comets, at a very much higher price? It was simply because there have not been satisfactory export credit arrangements.
  I come now to the Minister's plans for space. There is no need to discuss in detail the recent tremendous advances in space technology, but there are certain purely practical considerations which should be emphasised. There is obviously a need to handle a very large increase in transoceanic facilities for telephones and telegrams. Communications satellites can do this at very much lower cost. It has been estimated that one could make telephone calls from the United States to anywhere in the world at 10 cents a call once there was a communications satellite system. The Bell Company, the private corporation which runs all the telephones in the United States, has said publicly that it expects that its revenue from communications satellites in 1970 will amount to billions of dollars. There are, of course, other uses for communications satellites, apart from telephones and telegrams—the broadcasting all over the world of television programmes, facsimile transmissions of mail, newspapers and magazines, and similar facilities.
  I ask the House to consider what action the Minister is taking in this respect. We understand that we are to have a European space vehicle produced in co-operation with France and Germany. This space vehicle is to make use of Blue Streak, which has already cost £90 million. The Minister told us the other day that a further £70 million would have to be found, of which our share would be £26 million. Thus, our total share will be about £120 million out of a total cost of £160 million. We are paying two-thirds of the cost and having about one-third of the credit. I do not know whether there is any special reason for that, but it does not seem to be a very satisfactory bargain.
  The first European space vehicle launching is to take place at Woomera in four or five years. The first space vehicle launching in the United States
  682
  was in 1958 and in Russia in 1957. The United States already has twenty-five satellites in orbit and three communications systems working already, with five expected this year. Our very first trial, which may not be successful, is to be in 1967 at the earliest. I suggest that the Minister and his predecessors may well have been Rip van Winkles for all the help they have been in developing this very important project.
  The Government's economic policy has caused a steady deterioration in the competitive power of British industry as a whole. We have learned from this debate today that the British aircraft industry has suffered not only from this but from an uninterrupted series of miscalculations by the Ministry of Aviation. The present Minister is an amiable person and a very able debater, but he staggers under the burden of his political philosophy. He cannot effectively direct the future of British aviation, and the same applies to all the occupants of the Treasury Bench. They are probably all very good men according to their lights, but now the men are dull and the lights are dim. A complete change of Government is urgent and imperative if British industry and particularly the British aircraft industry are to maintain their competitiveness in the world of the future.
  9.26 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): As I was saying when I was interrupted at the end of our last debate on aviation, our care in the Ministry of Aviation is for the health and prosperity of the whole aircraft industry, and by that we mean its viability and competitiveness to stand on its own legs. But that is not our only care. This debate would have served to remind me, if I needed any reminding, that in the Ministry we have an enormous range of responsibilities.
  We have responsibilities to the employees and manufacturers of guided weapons, aircraft and electronic firms, to the Armed Services, the Corporations and other customers, to private fliers. We have responsibility for the management of many airports and for advice and financial aid to others; for technical services in the air and on the ground and for the conditions of operation of everyone flying in this country—the corporations, the independents, the foreign

  683
  operators, the private fliers, the gliders, the parachutists. We have a responsibility for the quality and standard of the pilots and aircrew and a very important responsibility for research and development at our own establishments. We have a responsibility even for the location of statues of eminent men in British aviation in the past—and I am glad to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) that he is misinformed about the intentions of London Airport. We also have a responsibility for the safety of the travelling public and to the non-travelling public for mitigating the nuisance to their convenience, caused by flying. Finally we have a responsibility which everybody forgets—we have an over-riding responsibility to the taxpayer.
  I mention all those responsibilities because of the strictures which have been made by one or two hon. Members about the size of our Ministry. Almost all those responsibilities have been mentioned one way or another during the debate, and my right hon. Friend dealt with some of them. Some have been covered in our recent debates on defence and the Air Estimates, and others in our debates on safety and licensing a few months ago. Some will be dealt with in future debates, such as the future of some of the airports which we own and of which we intend to divest ourselves, and on the state of the Corporations.
  In this short time I cannot hope to deal with all the remaining points which have been raised in the debate, although I assure hon. Members that I am amply armed to do so. I cannot do so partly because there is insufficient time and I do not want to be rescued again by the courtesy of the Opposition Chief Whip from forfeiting a Supply Day because I had overrun time; partly because many of the points—although not as many as I had expected—fell somewhat outside the fairly narrow range of the Opposition's Motion; and partly because many were in the nature of supplementary questions to Questions already put in the House and which could properly be filled in at Question Time or on Adjournment debates of which we have had some interesting examples in the fairly recent past. What I want to do today is to make a case in answer to the
  684
  debate, which is something one cannot do at Question Time.
  I propose to confine myself mainly to the fairly narrow limits of the Motion, but I wish first to make one or two important exceptions to deal with points of detail which have been raised. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and one or two others have referred to the Rotodyne. I have almost nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend in answer to a Question on 26th February, but I should like to sum it up in this one sentence—the reason why the Rotodyne was cancelled was that neither B.E.A. nor the R.A.F. was prepared to order it B.E.A. on the grounds of its economics.
  I know that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is very interested in the subject of noise, and strong objections to the Rotodyne were raised by the London County Council when it was thought that it would operate from what I must now call a helicopter station in Central London. I can assure hon. Members that the Westland group will not have any difficulties as a result of this cancellation and the effect on employment will not be significant. I can also assure hon. Members that there is no truth in the story that it was first cancelled and then restored to the programme and then cancelled again, nor in the story that B.E.A. has now changed its mind and wants it.
  Mr. Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) was entirely wrong when in the defence debate the other day he said that when he was Minister he had cancelled the project and was astounded to see that three years later it had been resuscitated?
  Mr. Woodhouse: It is true that it was taken out of the defence budget, but it was never cancelled as a civil project. It is just possible that my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) slightly misremembered what happened in 1956.
  I turn, secondly, to the Vigilant. It is true that we could sign contracts for the Vigilant tomorrow if there were no such things as the Public Accounts Committee or the Estimates Committee; but there are. There are also certain snags connected with the fuse of the Vigilant. I

  685
  would say that these snags had nothing whatever to do with my Ministry, but hon. Members can seek information elsewhere about them if they like. We hope that these will be cleared up in a short time and that it will than be possible to get down to a firm order. It is better to wait until the snags are cleared up than to order speculatively this extremely important weapon before it is absolutely in the clear.
  I want to say a word about the light cargo aircraft, and the choice between those two horrible aircraft, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) called them, from which description I heartily dissent. They are the Avro 748 and the Herald. There was practiceally nothing to choose between them on technical merit. On balance, they were just about even. One had it in some respects and the other had it in others. On costs it is impossible to make a perfect comparison which could be done only at the contract stage. Only one of them is going to contract stage. Our view is that, taking the requirements as a whole and considering all the implications, in the financial context the difference in cost between the two would not be very much, and for that reason the principle laid down by my right hon. Friend's predecessor in 1960 naturally prevailed. When all the factors were so nearly equal, if it was a political decision in those circumstances to prefer the aircraft which would serve best to promote the long-term health of the industry, the opposite decision would also have been a political one and, in our view, a foolish one.
  Mr. Burden: Did not Handley Page submit a fixed price When it tendered?
  Mr. Woodhouse: That question would be better tabled for answer at Question Time. I cannot answer it at the moment.
  The Government's critics seem to have proceeded from the conclusion that the wrong decision was made and then to seek the facts to justify their conclusion. The Government proceeded from an examination of the facts to the conclusion, and I do not see how the conclusion could have been different.
  I want to deal with the proposal to abolish the Ministry of Aviation, if I have correctly understood one or two of the points which have been made. It would be perfectly feasible to abolish
  686
  the Ministry of Aviation and leave all the Services to make their own arrangements with the industry, place their own orders, and get on with it on their own. They would then need a specialised staff for the purpose. They would inherit them in a series of chunks from the Ministry of Aviation, where they would indeed find first-class staff who could not be replaced in any other quarter on the market. They would in the process abolish one Minister, one Parliamentary Secretary and one or two senior civil servants, and probably create three new Parliamentary Secretaries running three new offices.
  The Services would then find that they had overlapping interests in joint requirements. They would want to know how to co-ordinate these. The industry would not co-ordinate them for the Services. The industry's interests would be to get more orders. So the Services would form a liaison staff to co-ordinate them. They would then have the same experience with the civil operators—the Corporations and the independents—and they would need another liaison staff to co-ordinate that aspect. They would find the same thing in the context of inter-dependence with out Allies and they would need another liaison staff to co-ordinate that. In the end, some bright person would decide that it would be a good idea to bring all these staffs together in one building and perhaps call it the Ministry of Aviation, only it would be about 50 per cent. larger than it was when it was dissolved.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: My hon. Friend is treating this matter in a very light-hearted way. Those of us who offered criticism—I hope constructive criticism—suggested that the Ministry of Defence might deal with this matter. My hon. Friend has completely ignored this aspect.
  Mr. Woodhouse: No, I was coming to that. The Minister of Defence would certainly not welcome taking on an additional responsibility of this kind. If a war were to break out it would be quite impossible for the Minister of Defence to manage such a dual responsibility. Dealing with the possibility of war is the primary responsibility of the Minister of Defence.
  It was also suggested that we should farm out more of the research and

  687
  development work from the Ministry to the industry. I remind the House that at present we place contracts for research and development with industry to the extent of about six times the value of the contracts we carry out in our own establishments. We have from time to time discussed with the industry whether it would be possible for it to take over more of the research and development work, but no practical ways of doing it have emerged.
  The fact is that much fundamental research work is cheaper because it is done centrally for the whole industry. If it were done by industry on its own, it would naturally be done in small packages, much of it would tend to be duplicated, and problems of patents and protection of technical secrets would arise which would pose difficulties which are averted by having it done centrally. I have no doubt that this is what the industry prefers.
  I want now to refer briefly to the comparisons which have been made between our industry and that of other countries, particularly France and the United States.
  Mr. Gough: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) in saying that my hon. Friend has been much too specious and light-hearted in dealing with the suggestion to abolish the Ministry of Aviation. He said nothng about the question of airfields and relieving his Ministry. I suggested this because I was hoping to help my right hon. Friend relieve himself of duties which are not compatible with his main responsibility.
  Mr. Woodhouse: I do not doubt that my hon. Friend intended to be helpful. I wish to make it clear that we have arrived at this arrangement after a good deal of trial and experiment. We very much doubt whether it would produce economies to dismantle the present arrangement in any of its aspects.
  I turn now to the comparisons which have been made with other countries, particularly France. It is certainly true that the French industry has been doing very well. We do not grudge the French that. We want to co-operate with them. We should not want to cooperate with them if they were not
  688
  successful. There is no evidence in any statistics known to us to support the reports which have appeared in the Press that the French aircraft industry has already overtaken ours in its export figures.
  As for the rest of Europe, it is a fact that our industry is more than twice as large as the whole of the rest of Western Europe's put together. Size of course is not the only condition of success, but it has a very important advantage as is obvious from the points made about the industry in the United States. The advantage which the United States has is not only that of having an industry twice as large as ours in manpower and very much larger in capital resources, but also in that it has the six largest airlines in the world and consequently a vast domestic proving ground for its equipment and a better chance of demonstrating the worth of that equipment to the world. I say this to suggest that it would not be right to argue that anything which the United States does is necessarily the proper course for us to imitate.
  Mr. Edelman: As the hon. Member, I believe, made an elusive reference to something I said in the course of the debate, may I intervene? He said, and it is perfectly true, that there are no statistics to show that the French industry has overtaken Britain's in exports, but is it not true that the French aircraft industry with 83,000 workers in 1961 had exports of £115 million compared with our industry of 300,000 workers and exports of £149 million? Does that not suggest that there is a difference in the productivity of the French industry? Does it not also indicate that a great deal of money has been invested in the British industry which has probably been fuddled out in the form of dividends at the other end unproductively?
  Mr. Woodhouse: No, I think it suggests that a country which by skill and good fortune gets a good aircraft or two, as the French have done, forges ahead. That is what we have done in the past and shall do again.
  I had reached the point of comparison with the United States and was suggesting that it was not always an appropriate course for us simply to imitate what is done in the United States. I have in mind the reference made by the hon. Member for Dudley to Project

  689
  "Horizon" which I have read and which has been closely studied in my Ministry. We look upon it as an extremely valuable assemblage of what without disrespect I would call recognised general truths, but it is no substitute for aircraft orders, and that is what the industry wants in the United States just as much as in this country.
  I turn to the general criticisms which have been made of the industry and the Ministry. Before launching into them I have a preliminary comment to make about them. It is that many if not most of the criticisms which have been made have been mutually inconsistent. They have blamed us for wasting public money on obsolete and unnecessary equipment and also for causing unemployment in running down the industry by not spending more. They have accused us of lagging behind the United States in building up relationships with European firms and also with making agreements which give away our secrets to foreigners. We are blamed for cancelling promising projects because they do not meet immediate requirements like the Rotodyne and with forcing customers to take what we decide they want, and not what they think they want.
  We have been blamed for wasting money by cancellations at an advanced stage through trying to do too many things, and we have also been blamed for losing our best brains to the United States and workers from the industry to Europe by refusing to venture into new fields. We have been blamed for handicapping the industry by restricting the independent operators and also for crippling the Corporations by giving the independents a free hand. We have been blamed for always getting our equipment late and, therefore, when it is obsolete and also for culpably exceeding our annual estimates by getting equipment too early.
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that his Ministry is capable of making all these mistakes at the same time?
  Mr. Woodhouse: The point I was seeking to make is not to evade any of these criticisms by leaving them to cancel each other out. The purpose is to emphasise two points. The first is that there is a very real difficulty in recon-
  690
  ciling diverse interests in aviation. It is perfectly easy to satisfy one requirement or interest if we are prepared to let the others go by default, but that way leads to ruin. What can be done is to strike a balance between needs and requirements which are in themselves perfectly legitimate but incompatible. It is a balance which is bound to leave some people dissatisfied, but a balance which has to be struck by any Government. Others might strike a different balance, but they will still have to strike some balance.
  My second point is that the Opposition in order to oppose does not need to strike any balance at all. It can, so long as it is in opposition, go on making its own case and criticism and cheering the incompatible but constructive criticisms which my hon. Friends on this side of the House make. It can even pursue, like the Liberals at by-elections, both kinds of criticism simultaneously. It can use any stick with which to beat the Government, but it can only do so in the long run at the expense of the industry, because these criticisms are not, although hon. Members say so, merely criticisms of Government policy, but are also damaging to the industry itself.
  I want to refer to one or two of these before I conclude, and I will refer first to the criticisms of the consequences of the policy of mergers and the closure of factories and run-down of employment to which it has led. This process of contraction was implicit in the policy announced by my right hon. Friend's predecessor two years ago, and that contraction was naturally bound to come at what I might call the periphery, interpreting that term either geographically as meaning the outlying factories remote from the centre of each firm in the industry, or alternatively peripheral in the nature of the functions which particular factories perform. For instance, the Gloster-Whitworth factory to which the hon. Member for Gloucester has referred in the debate, is making aircraft, and is also making fire engines and slot machines, and, therefore this, naturally, would be one of the first to go in the process of contraction. The fact is, as the House knows, that over the last few years the number of men and women

  691
  employed in the industry has actually gone up, and it is not surprising that the new policy has taken two years to work itself through.
  It is true that there is some question of the basis of the statistics. We have talked on Ministry of Labour figures of a little over 300,000 men in the industry. It is possible that these figures include men at some factories not engaged on aircraft work, but they also probably exclude men at other factories which are not mainly engaged on aircraft work but where there are a few workers who contribute to the aircraft industry, so that, on balance, I do not believe that the figure is very far out.
  In the five main groups, the total figure is pretty accurately known to be a little over 180,000, and of these about 17,600 are the design staffs—about 6 per cent. of the whole. The indications are that there will be a decline, beginning with design staffs and going on to production staffs, but it will not be an uncontrolled decline, and it will not be a decline dictated by the Government. The decisions will be taken by the companies concerned in the light of the fullest information that we can give them about intended Government orders and requirements in the future, with their own assessments of the civil and overseas markets.
  The same thing applies to the closure of particular factories. For the last two years, the five main groups have shed, or are in the process of shedding, about two and half million square feet out of 30 million square feet—about 8 per cent.—but half a million square feet are coming back into the aircraft industry through the take-over of Beagles from de Havillands at Christchurch. I am glad to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christ-church (Mr. Cordle) that there has been no delay due to any default on the part of the Ministry of Aviation in promoting that take-over. We are anxious for it to go forward as quickly as possible.
  I should like to say a brief word on the subject of exports, on which many hon. Members have spoken, including the hon. Member for Loughborough, who referred to the need for easier credit facilities. Selling aircraft abroad is, of course, the business of the industry and
  692
  not of the Government, but the Export Credits Guarantee Department is already giving substantial assistance to our manufacturers. We do not want to engage in a credit race because there would be no advantage in doing so, but E.C.G.D. is always prepared to match in respect of particular aircraft types the terms of backing known to have been given by Government agencies to foreign manufacturers in respect of aircraft which are competitive.
  Of course, a foreign manufacturer is always free to offer any credit terms he chooses if he takes the risk himself or can get private backing, but we know of no case in which orders have been lost to a British manufacturer solely or mainly because of the credit terms offered, although we will certainly look at any case that is brought to our attention.
  Mr. Cronin: I agree entirely that the E.C.G.D. will match the credit given by any official Government organisation. The gravamen of our case, however, is that the Americans are outselling us because they get credit from their finance institutions which we cannot get from our finance institutions. In that way, we lose a large number of orders.
  Mr. Woodhouse: This is a matter for the finance institutions and not for the Government. I can speak only for what is done on behalf of the Government by the E.C.G.D.
  The figures of sales abroad have been quoted a good deal during the debate, and I do not intend to go over them again. I want to look a little bit at the future prospects. In the immediate present, the principal airframe groups have firm orders already on their books for between 80 and 90 transport aircraft in the home civil market, for nearly 100 in the export market and for nearly 100 to the Royal Air Force. I exclude from those figures options and letters of intent, and also engines, which are doing much better still, but I include the Viscount sale to China, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), whom I assure that the contract is firm and will be honoured.
  As my right hon. Friend has said, during the next twelve months eight completely new aircraft will fly in this

  693
  country for the first time. Looking further ahead, there are many developments in which, as many hon. Members have pointed out, we are leading the world. My right hon. Friend referred to micro-miniaturisation and blind landings, which eventually will make the fog at London Airport a major national assett. I should like to refer to vertical take-off and, in particular, to the Rolls Royce plastic lift engine which is being developed for vertical take-off aircraft. Research in variable geometry has also been referred to by my right hon. Friend. I shall return in a moment to the supersonic jet.
  I insist that this is not a depressed industry. It is not in decline, it is not in a crisis, but there is real danger of talking ourselves into a crisis and it is a danger to which many people are unwittingly contributing, including some sections of the Press—with honourable exceptions, particularly our technical Press, which is the finest in the world—some Members of Parliament and some members of the industry itself.
  I do not claim that the Ministry of Aviation is faultless, but it is at least innocent of this complaint of damaging the industry by persistently trumpeting failures and misrepresenting successes. Hon. Members opposite claim that they are criticising only the Government and their political heads, but how can it be called merely criticising the Government to call our bombers obsolete and inefficient, the Belfast, the Avro 748 and the Herald as horrible aircraft and to attack our missiles? These are attacks on the whole industry, because the foreign buyer does not say to himself" This or that is a bad aircraft which I will not buy". He says to himself that British aircraft are bad aircraft and he will not buy them.
  That is the consequence of the attacks which are called attacks on the Government but which are not so seen by anybody who works in the aircraft industry, by those who work in the establishments of the Ministry of Aviation or by the foreign customers, who are interested not only in the facts but what they believe to be the facts and who are more likely to take us at our valuation if it is bad rather than good.
  My right hon. Friend has already referred to the unfortunate remarks of the
  694
  hon. Member for Dudley on this subject in the debate on the Air Estimates. I do not want to go any further into that point, but I must recall one thing the hon. Member for Dudley said in the same debate when he was talking about the sales of aircraft abroad. He said:
  "When the Government announced these figures, true to form they found one figure which was up their street and, accordingly, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that he was glad to note that in 1961 sales were up in value over 1960…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 1022.]
  The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to pour scorn on the figures. I would draw attention to the hon. Member's suggestion about figures having been chosen to suit the case. They were, in fact, selected for us by the form of the question put by the hon. Member for Govan who manages to combine being a very patriotic Soot with being a strong supporter of the British aviation industry. I would ask the hon. Member for Dudley, if he were here, what he thought should have been the answer to that question. Should they have been false figures to suit his case? If the hon. Member for Dudley wanted the figures to be bad in order to damage the Government then, in fact, he would have been damaging the aircraft industry.
  I turn now to the supersonic airliner. This is a project which may or may not eventually come to fruition as a joint Anglo-French venture. Our part in this, in any case, will not be a secondary or contributory part but a parallel one, and I am not referring only to the engine but also to the airframe. That is not the impression given by much of the propaganda one reads not only in the foreign press but also in our own.
  No one can blame the French for wanting to make it appear that the supersonic airliner is a development of their Caravelle—what they call a "Super-Caravelle". But I am sorry to hear this idea echoed in this debate and in our own Press, though I was glad to see a more accurate account in the Financial Times today. Some hon. Members may have seen at the Paris Air Show last year a model of the so-called "Super-Caravelle". I could understand anyone from our establishment at Bedford exclaiming, like Henry V at Agincourt:
  "I was not angry since I came to France until this instant".

  695
  because the model was extremely similar to or was a replica of one designed at Bedford in 1958. As I say, no one would blame the French for wishing to steal our thunder. But I do not see why hon. Members or the British Press should wish to help them to do this.
  There is nothing difficult about defining our policy for the aviation industry. It is to lead it back to a state of viability and competitiveness and, once again, to have an industry which will be renowned throughout the world and the pride of everyone who works in it, which is what we as a nation deserve to have. What we in the Ministry are doing, will be doing and, indeed, intend to continue to do is to achieve what has already been amply outlined by my right hon. Friend, although it does not depend only on us.
  It will not be achieved until the whole industry and the whole British aviation—and I am using these terms in the widest sense—is pulling together in the
  national interest. This will not be achieved so long as some critics—there are not many but it does not take many to damage our good name—in Parliament, in the Press and even in sections of the industry persistently denigrate our efforts, products and prospects and help our competitors under the transparent guise of attacking the Government.
  We do not resent criticism, but let it be informed and constructive criticism and, if I may use an old-fashioned expression, let it be pro-British criticism. Much of what we have heard today—and I hope this is the last time that I shall make this comment—has not fulfilled those three criteria, and I ask the House to support my right hon. Friend's Amendment to the Motion.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 268.

  Division No. 134.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Alnsley, William

  Flnch, Harold

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Albu, Austen

  Fltch, Alan

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Awbery, Stan

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Kelley, Richard

  Baird, John

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Beaney, Alan

  Forman, J. C.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Lawson, George

  Bence, Cyril

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Ledger, Ron

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Benson, Sir George

  George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Blackburn, F.

  Ginsburg, David

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Blyton, William

  Gooch, E. G.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Boardman, H.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bottomley, A.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Loughlin, Charles

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Lubbock, E.

  Bowles, Frank

  Grey, Charles

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Boyden, James

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  MacColl, James

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mclnnes, James

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Gunter, Ray

  McLeavy, Frank

  Callaghan, James

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

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

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hannan, William

  Manuel, Archie C.

  Cronin, John

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mapp, Charles

  Crosland, Anthony

  Hayman, F. H.

  Marsh, Richard

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Healey, Denis

  Mason, Roy

  Darling, George

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Mellish, R. J.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Millan, Bruce

  Delargy, Hugh

  Holman, Percy

  Milne, Edward

  Dempsey, James

  Holt, Arthur

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Diamond, John

  Houghton, Douglas

  Monslow, Walter

  Dodds, Norman

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Moody, A. S.

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hoy, James H.

  Morris, John

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Mort, D. L.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hunter, A. E.

  Mulley, Frederick

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Neal, Harold

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Jeger, George

  Oram, A. E.

  Evans, Albert

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Fernyhough, E.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Owen, Will

  Paget, R. T.

  Ross, William

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Parker, John

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Parkin, B. T.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Timmone, John

  Paton, John

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Warbey, William

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Weitzman, David

  Peart, Frederick

  Small, William

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Pentland, Norman

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke. S.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Snow, Julian

  Wigg, George

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Steele, Thomas

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Probert, Arthur

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, W T. (Warrington)

  Randall, Harry

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

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

  Rankin, John

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Swain, Thomas

  Woof, Robert

  Reid, William

  Swingler, Stephen

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Symonds, J. B.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Rhodes, H.

  Taverne, D.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Mr. McCann.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Curran, Charles

  Holland, Philip

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hollingworth, John

  Allason, James

  Dance, James

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hopkins, Alan

  Arbuthnot, John

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  de Ferrantl, Basil

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Balniel, Lord

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Barber, Anthony

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Barlow, Sir John

  Doughty, Charles

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Barter, John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Batsford, Brian

  du Cann, Edward

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Eden, John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bell, Ronald

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  James, David

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Emery, Peter

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bidgood, John C.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Biffen, John

  Farr, John

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Bishop, F. P.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Bossom, Clive

  Forrest, George

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Box, Donald

  Foster, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt, Hon. J,

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Brewis, John

  Freeth, Denzil

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Gammans, Lady

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gardner, Edward

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Brooman-White, R.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Longbottom, Charles

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Bryan, Paul

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Bullard, Denys

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Gough, Frederick

  McAdden, Stephen

  Burden, F, A.

  Gower, Raymond

  MacArthur, Ian

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  McLaren, Martin

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray A Nairn)

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maddan, Martin

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesf'd)

  Maltland, Sir John

  Cole, Norman

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Collard, Richard

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Cooke, Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Marshall, Douglas

  Cooper, A. E.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Marten, Neil

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Cordle, John

  Hendry, Forbes

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mawby, Ray

  Coulson, Michael

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

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

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

  Critchley, Julian

  Hirst, Geoffroy

  Mills, Stratton

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hobson, Sir John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Morrison, John

  Robeon Brown, Sir William

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Neave, Airey

  Roots, William

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Orr, Capt. L. p. S.

  Russell, Ronald

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  St. Clair, M.

  Turner, Colin

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Peel, John

  Sharples, Richard

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Percival, Ian

  Shaw, M.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Peyton, John

  Shepherd, William

  Walder, David

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswlck)

  Walker, Peter

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Smithers, Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Pitman, Sir James

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Wall, Patrick

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Pott, Percivall

  Speir, Rupert

  Webster, David

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Whitelaw, William

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Stodart, J. A.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Wise, A. R.

  Pym, Francis

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Talbot, John E.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Ramsden, James

  Tapsell, Peter

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Woollam, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

  Renton, David

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Teeling, Sir William

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Temple, John M.

  Mr. F inlay.

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 201.

  Division No. 135.]

  AYES

  [10.12 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gammans, Lady

  Aitken, W. T.

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Gardner, Edward

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Allason James

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Cole, Norman

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Arbuthnot, John

  Collard, Richard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Cooke, Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Balniel, Lord

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gough, Frederick

  Barber, Anthony

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Gower, Raymond

  Barlow, Sir John

  Cordle, John

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Barter, John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Batsford, Brian

  Coulson, Michael

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Critchley, Julian

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Bell, Ronald

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Curran, Charles

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Dance, James

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Bidgood, John C.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Biffen, John

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bishop, F. P.

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Bossom, Clive

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Box, Donald

  Doughty, Charles

  Hiley, Joseph

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  du Cann, Edward

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

  Brewis, John

  Eden, John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Bromley-Devonport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshaiton)

  Hobson, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Emery, Peter

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Brooman-White, R.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Holland, Philip

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hollingworth, John

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Bryan, Paul

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Bullard, Denys

  Farr, John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Finlay, Graeme

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Burden, F. A.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hulbert, sir Norman

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Forrest, George

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Foster, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Freeth, Denzil

  James, David

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Peel, John

  Stodart, J. A.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Percival, Ian

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Peyton, John

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Talbot, John E,

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pitman, Sir James

  Tapsell, Peter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Pott, Percivall

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'str, Moss Side)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

  Teeling, Sir William

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Temple, John M.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Longbottom, Charles

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Pym, Francis

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon, Peter

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ramsden, James

  Thornton- Kemsley, sir Colin

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

  Ree-Davies, W. R.

  Turner, Colin

  MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)

  Renton, David

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Maddan, Martin

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'Jebone)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Walder, David

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Roots, William

  Walker, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Wall, Patrick

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Russell, Ronald

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Mawby, Ray

  St. Clair, M.

  Webster, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Mills, Stratton

  Seymour, Leslie

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Sharples, Richard

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Morrison, John

  Shaw, M.

  Wise, A. R.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Shepherd, William

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Neave, Alrey

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Smithers, Peter

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Woollam, John

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Speir, Rupert

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren.

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Albu, Austen

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hilton, A. V.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Holman, Percy

  Awberry, Stan

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Holt, Arthur

  Baird, John

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Beaney, Alan

  Evans, Albert

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hoy, James H.

  Bence, Cyril

  Finch, Harold

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fitch, Alan

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Benson, Sir George

  Fletcher, Eric

  Hunter, A. E.

  Blackburn, F.

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Blyton, William

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Boardman, H.

  Forman, J. C.

  Jeger, George

  Bottomley, A.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)

  Bowles, Frank

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Boyden, James

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Ginsburg, David

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Gooch, E. G.

  Kelley, Richard

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Callaghan, James

  Gourlay, Harry

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Lawson, George

  Cliffe, Michael

  Grey, Charles

  Ledger, Ron

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Cronin, John

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Darling, George

  Gunter, Ray

  Lipton, Marcus

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Lubbock, E.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hannan, William

  MacColl, James

  Dempsey, James

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mclnnes, James

  Diamond, John

  Hayman, F. H.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Dodds, Norman

  Healey, Denis

  Mackle, John (Enfield, East)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Henderon, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Driberg, Tom

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Swingler, Stephen

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

  Prentice, R. E.

  Symonds, J. B.

  Manuel, Archie C.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Taverne, D.

  Mapp, Charles

  Probert, Arthur

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Marsh, Richard

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Mason, Roy

  Randall, Harry

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Rankin, John

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Reld, William

  Thornton, Ernest

  Millan, Bruce

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Milne, Edward

  Rhodes, H.

  Timmons, John

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Monslow, Walter

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Warbey, William

  Moody, A. S.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Weitzman, David

  Morris, John

  Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Mort, D. L.

  Ross, William

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Wigg, George

  Mulley, Frederick

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Neal, Harold

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Oram, A. E.

  Small, William

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Owen, Will

  Snow, Julian

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

  Paget, R. T.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Woof, Robert

  Parker, John

  Steele, Thomas

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Parkin, B. T.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Zilliacus, K.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

  Peart, Frederick

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Pentland, Norman

  Swain, Thomas

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Mr. McCann.

  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House commends the aircraft and associated electronic industries, both for their performance in overseas markets and their formidable contribution to our defensive strength, and supports the steps being taken by Her Majesty's Government to promote the competitive efficiency of these industries in the difficult conditions which confront them.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on the Vehicles (Excise) Bill [Lords] and the Telegraph Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]
  VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  TELEGRAPH BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment: read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  NORTHERN IRELAND (FINANCE)
  Payments in Aid of Agricultural Schemes (Extension) Order, 1962, dated 27th February 1962 [copy laid before the House, 6th March] approved.—[Mr. Fletcher-Cooke.]

  APPROVED SCHOOL, WEST HATCH
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. Edward du Cann: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss tonight a matter which is not only of deep concern to a growing number of my constituents, but which must be of interest to everyone who is concerned at the growing power of the Executive and anxious that that power should not in any way be abused.
  The history of the matter is this. In August, 1960, officials of the Home Office approached the Somerset County Council with a proposal that an approved school be established in the County of Somerset. In October, 1960, the county council agreed in principle. This was an entirely voluntary action on its part. The children's committee of the Somerset County Council therefore looked for a site of about 30 acres in the county, sited within 12 miles of the county town of Taunton. It decided that it would not purchase agricultural land for the purpose, nor use a compulsory purchase order.
  As a matter of law, the county council could give itself planning permission for the construction of the approved school, although there are limitations upon this power. But some years ago the county council—in my opinion, quite rightly—decided that the usual procedures would be adopted in planning matters as if any of its plans were a purely private matter.
  On 2nd September, 1961, towards the end of the holiday season, a small advertisement was inserted by the county council in a local newspaper announcing the proposal to build an approved school in the parish of West Hatch, and stating that objections to this proposal should be lodged within fourteen days. As I understand it, no other notice was given to any local parish council, nor, indeed, to its Member for Parliament, though I should have supposed that anybody would have realised at once that the building of an approved school was
  706
  bound to be a matter which would give rise to substantial local concern.
  In West Hatch they were alert. The chairman of the parish council noticed the advertisement and the parish council lodged an immediate protest. In Stoke St. Mary, a neighbouring parish, the advertisement was not noticed, and no protest was lodged at that time.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to reply to this debate. The first question I ask him is whether he thinks that this is the appropriate way to deal with a matter of this sort, merely to insert in a newspaper a notice which may or may not be observed by the local inhabitants.
  At any rate, the local inhabitants, rightly or wrongly, got the impression that the matter was being put forward with great haste and in some secrecy. A parish meeting was called in West Hatch which county council representatives were good enough to attend, and I give them every credit for that. There was much discussion of the matter. Among other things, at that meeting it was plainly stated by one county council representative at least that if the West Central Planning Committee of the county council refused planning permission the county council would look for another site.
  The position subsequently was this. Both the local parish councils had lodged an objection. The rural district council had refused planning permission. As their Member of Parliament, the matter being brought to my notice, I considered it with all the care I could, and I made my view plain to the county council that the site of West Hatch was not suitable. The application then was referred in the normal course to the West Central Planning Committee. It was, so so to speak, sub judice. However, the Minister at that time then announced that there was to be a public inquiry. This was on 1st November. I immediately wrote to the Minister of Housing and Local Government to inquire his reasons for holding that inquiry and to complain.
  I have had substantial correspondence with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, which I admit has been written on my side in very strong terms indeed. I should like to quote from

  707
  some of the letters. When I wrote on 10th November, I asked the Minister why he thought that an inquiry was necessary. I asked him, more particularly, why an inquiry was called for before the West Central Planning Committee had considered this proposal for the building of the approved school. I wrote:
  "The position put bluntly, is that your decision was announced at a most unfortunate moment. A strong impression has been created locally that the Minister is interfering in an unfair way to over-ride local opinion."
  The Parliamentary Secretary, in a very courteous latter on 5th December, replied, stating among other things:
  "The reason why the application was called in by the Minister on 1st November was that it was plain… that there was no chance of this proposal being approved without a local inquiry.… We were not aware of any suggestion that the County Council would drop their proposal whatever the views of the West Central Planning Committee."
  I took strong objection to that first sentence and wrote again to the Minister as follows:
  "You say 'there was no chance of this proposal being approved without a local inquiry'. I do really think this is a most unfortunate phrase because local opinion will no doubt take the view (indeed I have already heard it expressed) that the Ministry is assisting the County Council to push this scheme through irrespective of the wishes of the local inhabitants".
  The Parliamentary Secretary replied at much greater length and in a very clear letter set out the procedure to be adopted in cases of this kind, as set down in Statutory Instrument 2,069/1951 with accompanying Memorandum. He said:
  "The circular states: 'Development carried out by a local planning authority within their own area will, in future, be deemed to have permission, subject to the understanding that they will themselves bring important and controversial proposals to the Minister's attention'.
  The accompanying memorandum advises local planning authorities that before doing so they should consult with certain interested bodies, and take an early opportunity for early consultation with the Ministry in various classes of case, which include those 'which, for one reason or another, excite public interest and controversy and for which the Minister is therefore likely to be asked to answer in Parliament'.
  As you know, the local planning authority undertook consultations"—
  I do not believe that that is fully true—
  708
  "and advertised the proposal, and concluded rightly that this was a case to which that advice applied The Minister in such cases has absolute discretion, and he decided to call it in."
  Hence the reason for the inquiry. The Parliamentary Secretary has assured me in continued correspondence that it was not the intention of the Ministry to force the proposal through.
  My hon. Friend tells me that, and, of course, I accept it. But a number of important questions remain. I am advised that an inspector was specially brought back from retirement to hold this inquiry. In my experience, inquiries take a great deal of time to arrange. This one was held in very great haste, being taken out of the queue. I think it appropriate to ask my hon. Friend why the inquiry was held so quickly, what representations he received from the county council, and, more particularly, what representations he received from the Home Office in the matter.
  In the meantime, the West Central Planning Committee had rejected this proposal, so the effect of the inquiry, therefore, was to circumvent the understanding reached between the people of West Hatch and the county council. It is not, therefore, surprising, that local opinion believes that there has been some sort of collusion between the county council, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Home Office, for, however innocently the Ministry may have acted in setting up the inquiry, the effect of it has been to provide the county council with an appeal procedure, and certainly the inquiry could not have been designed in any way to protect local opinions, for they had already been made plain. Had it not been for the inquiry, they would presumably have been effective.
  At all events, the inquiry was held in Taunton over a period of two days, and my hon. Friend was courteous enough to send me a copy of the inspector's report. The Minister concurred in that report, but I think I am entitled to ask whether it was the Minister himself, or the Parliamentary Secretary, or whether it was the decision of some unnamed civil servant who had agreed to what the inspector said, although the decision was made ostensibly in the Minister's name.

  709
  There are several points about the report. The inspector said that the site could be developed without impairing the visual amenities. This, incidentally, is an area defined as being of great landscape value. What would have been the reaction if somebody had tried to build houses or a factory on the site? I cannot believe that his statement is correct. The inspector also said the project was unlikely to be detrimental to the present rural character of the area. That is not true. In an area where only 400 people live, suddenly to impose a new community of about 150 people must alter the character of the area fundamentally.
  I suggest that those points made by the inspector, which were absolutely accepted by the Minister, simply do not bear examination. During the course of the inquiry, the inspector—I am sure he is an able man who did his job—remarked that he was simply there to decide whether the site was suitable or not—as though this were an academic planning exercise and nothing to do with people's lives and how they are to spend their time in the area in which they live.
  It is perhaps not surprising that, while he acknowledges some risk to the personal safety of the local inhabitants, he gives very little weight to the point. I am entitled to ask what weight the Minister gave to this in considering the matter. These are very scattered parishes. The houses are lonely, isolated. There are no lights, no village policemen. Most of the houses are not on the telephone, so the occupants could not call for help if needed.
  If the approved school is situated there, all the houses will be subject to forcible entry by day or night, and it is not surprising that there is great anxiety for the physical safety of old and young. The children have to walk down a lane to school. An approved school is not a school at which there will be mere boys. It will have persons up to the age of 19½. I could quote examples of crimes which have been committed by inmates of approved schools in other neighbourhoods, but I will not do so.
  Suffice it to say that I think that local anxiety of this kind is absolutely justified. As sure as HANSARD will record my words, it is certain, if we have this approved school, that there will be cases
  710
  of assault and of breaking and entering. There will be cases of theft and other things, and the Home Office admits this. It is not simply an academic question of planning.
  The inspector said also:
  "Any area in rural Somerset would be open to the same kind of objection".
  Yet he heard no evidence on this point. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary: does he not agree that this is an impertinent observation to make? Surely, it must be right, in a matter like this, for the Ministry or the inspector to say to the county council, the Home Office, or whoever is sponsoring the scheme, "You jolly well find somewhere in Somerset which will not be open to the objections to which this site is open". Apparently, no inquiries have been made. The view is taken that this site is easy, it is all arranged—so "Pooh" to the views of the local inhabitants.
  The inspector's report is even more remarkable for the things it does not say. It says nothing about depreciation of local property. It says nothing about the cost of the project. At a time when the Government are appealing for economy, it will cost about £300,000, with £16,000 more required to build new roads in this little part of the world. Additional money must be found for drainage schemes. If I come to the House to plead for £15,000 or £16,000 to straighten out the bad roads in Norton Fitzwarren or Bishops Lydeard, or if I ask for £2,000 to be spent in putting an old school in order in one of the villages in my constituency, I receive a negative answer. Yet £300,000 plus the other expenditure is accepted for this purpose. It is a most surprising state of affairs. I ask my hon. Friend: was the Minister satisfied, before he approved this proposal, that no cheaper scheme was possible? I refuse to believe it.
  I come now to the suitability of West Hatch as a site. There are thick woods nearby where escapers can lie up. I know this country. These things are so. There is no community life such as I am told is necessary to a school of this kind. However one examines it—and I have no time to go into the matter in further detail—it is plain that this site is not the most suitable which could be found.

  711
  The feature which I find most objectionable of all is this. Local opinion is unanimously against the proposal. That is incontrovertible, yet the bureaucrats propose to by-pass the elected representatives of the people and to ignore their clearly expressed view. They say, in effect, "We know best. Our high and mighty plans must stand." What kind of attitude is that in modern democratic England? Shakespeare knew people of this kind well when he talked about the" insolence of office." This, apparently, is a situation at which a Conservative Administration connives, but it is a situation which we in the West Country are not willing to tolerate. I say frankly to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—for whom, as he knows, I have every respect and affection—that I was not elected to the House of Commons in order to agree that it is the gentlemen in Whitehall who know best. Civil servants, like Members of Parliament, are the servants of the people, not dictators, yet in this case they are acting like dictators—"You shall have this school, come what may."
  I will quote some of the language used by the county council. In paragraph 50 of the report, it is said:
  "The objections raised against this proposal were not planning objections."
  What does that mean? It means that these ideas suit people in office, and personal views which are put in are of no account. In paragraph 52 it is said:
  "The Home Office expert, the county council's children's officer and the planning officers are convinced of the appropriateness of the site. Only the uninformed opinion of local residents found fault with it."
  That is not only untrue, but, in my opinion, it is damned impertinent. It is the sort of language one would expect to read in a report issued by a member of the Communist Party dealing with recalcitrant people in an area in which he was interested, not the sort of thing one expects to read in modern England. What a way to talk about the
  "village Hampden that with dauntless breast The little tyrants of his fields withstood".
  My sympathies are all with the local inhabitants.
  All this is history. The matter is past. The Minister has made his decision. It
  712
  is final. Whether it is a good decision or a bad one—I think it is a bad one—it is final. There is no appeal. What remains as a possibility? I suggest either that the Home Office should withdraw this proposal or that the county council should say to the Home Office, "You cannot now go ahead, for we recognise that there is a mistake and we want to keep our hands clean." I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to confess tonight that he has made a mistake and will at the very least say that he will look into the matter with the Home Office with a vew to changing the plans, because I believe that this is a fundamentally bad decision which should never have been made.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) feels very strongly on this subject. He has expressed himself in very forcible language on more than one occasion. I would have hoped that after our long correspondence he would have been satisfied that the procedure followed in this case was entirely correct. He is less than fair to the Somerset County Council, which has treated its own development as an application for private development. It put in its suggestions to the rural district council and originally got a favourable reaction. It advertised. As a result of its advertisements it received objections.
  As I explained in three letters, the procedure followed that laid down in the Town and Country Planning (Development by Local Planning Authorities) Regulations, 1951, and a circular which accompanied those regulations, which my hon. Friend has quoted accurately. In this case the Somerset County Council, as local planning authority, rightly concluded that this was exactly the sort of case to which the circular applied.
  In such cases the Minister has absolute discretion whether or not he calls in a proposal. I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the purpose of calling in an application. It is not designed to stifle local opposition. Far from it. It

  713
  is one way of ensuring that local opposition is fully expressed at a pubic inquiry. What the Minister was deciding in calling in the application was that approval could not be given without a public inquiry. The chairman of the West Hatch Parish Council had already requested in a letter to the county council that a public inquiry should be held. This procedure does not, and has not in this case, prevented anyone from raising objections to the proposal. On the contrary, it has been made clear all along that there can be no approval until everyone has had a chance of expressing their point of view. None of this has prejudiced the Taunton Rural District Council, which, as it was fully entitled to do, changed its mind and eventually came out against the proposal after as it said, it had got fuller information about it.
  It is true that the Somerset West Central Area Committee, which is, after all, a committee of the local planning authority, not knowing about the "call-in", recommended refusal. There is no reason to suppose that the county council would have taken a different view as a result of the recommendations of its area committee. It could at any time have taken notice of that. This is the county council's proposal for development, and it was perfectly entitled to abandon it at any stage. As I explained to my hon. Friend in a letter I sent to him on 22nd December, there was nothing to stop the council doing that.
  My hon. Friend dealt also with the haste in fixing the inquiry and asked if there were representations from anybody to us to hurry it on. I assure him that there were none. There were no representations from the Home Office and none from the county council. The date of the inquiry has no bearing on the issue. We arranged the inquiry as soon as possible in view of the desirability of reaching an early decision one way or another, as I explained to my hon. Friend in my letter of 22nd December. The search for the site had taken a long time. My hon. Friend has explained that the search started in August, 1960. The need was urgent and the county and the Home Office had to face the possibility that, if they lost at the inquiry, they would have to search for another site somewhere else. No
  714
  one complained that he did not have time to prepare his case. No one asked for an adjournment. No one has been prejudiced by the date of the inquiry.
  Now I come to the merits of the proposals and the objections to them. These were fully canvassed in a local inquiry which took two days. The whole issue is quite clearly and objectively set out in the inspector's report. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's strictures about the tone of the report. When we discussed the Franks proposals it was stated that if the inspector's report were to be published this would inhibit him in the advice he gave to the Minister. I think the inspector did a good job. He put his views quite clearly, as he ought, and after that the decision rests wholly on the Minister.
  It is no use blaming the inspector for the use of the term "uninformed". That was the term used by the county council, as is made clear in paragraph 52. My hon. Friend said that the inspector gave very little weight to the questions of security. I should have thought that paragraph 80 is clear:
  "In my opinion the only objection which can be raised with any justification against the proposal arises from the effect which the proposed open school is likely to have on living conditions in this, at present, quiet and peaceful rural area. It is not possible to avoid the conclusion that fears as to what conditions the school is likely to bring to the area are very real and generally held and objection to the proposal is widespread as a result. It is evident that although the risk of unpleasant or frightening incidents at lonely dwellings or in the lanes of the area might be slight, the risk is present and must affect the peace of mind of local residents."
  He put that very fairly and clearly. Naturally regard was had to that when the time came to make a decision, but against those fears was the evidence of the Home Office. It gave a great deal of information arising from past experience in regard to approved schools. For example, it was pointed out that there was no incident that could be recalled of an absconder committing a sexual offence. It was pointed out that mental defectives were put in hospital. The general conclusion was that a slight risk could not be denied, but there was no factor that would make an approved school more objectionable at West Hatch than at any other place that could be imagined in the surroundings of Taunton.

  715
  It is a little unfair to say that it was impudent to say that there were no other possibilities. The inspector gave the best view he could of the evidence. I can only say that no one mentioned any alternative site within the vicinity of Taunton. It was always accepted that there was a need for an approved school in Somerset and that it should be within a radius of ten or twelve miles of Taunton, although preferably within four or five miles.
  Mr. du Cann: Not by the local people.
  Mr. Rippon: I think the nearest approach to the suggestion of an alternative site was made by the parish council, which said that compulsory purchase should not be ruled out and the radius should be extended to ten miles from Taunton. The working party had been considering sites within a radius of ten or twelve miles. It searched for a year and had the assistance of fifty estate agents.
  There were also objections on the ground of amenity. This was fully considered by the inspector in his report, at paragraph 79. He found that given proper screening and treatment, this would not be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. Of course, these things are matters of opinion, but that at least was his view. He also dealt with technical objections, drainage and transport, fully and fairly.
  Concerning cost, the figure of £300,000 is given in the report at paragraph 45. The other costs of road access and drainage are comparatively small in relation to a project of this kind.
  In the last resort, all these things are matters of opinion and judgment. I can only assure my hon. Friend that we have
  716
  done our best in what is, admittedly, a difficult case to weigh the evidence and come to a decision. That has been done after carefully weighing all the arguments put forward by the objectors at what, I think, was a full and adequate inquiry.
  Mr. du Cann: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will comment on this fact. When talking about offences, he referred only to sexual offences. What about other offences? There will certainly be those, as was made clear in the Home Office evidence. Is my hon. Friend really saying that there is no cheaper site than this in the whole of Somerset? That cannot be true.
  Mr. Rippon: There was plenty of opportunity to argue whether there should be a cheaper site, but that was not a factor in the planning application. If my hon. Friend wants to raise the question of cost, he should address that matter to the Home Office.
  Concerning the evidence of the Home Office, I quoted only a small part of it, but there are several paragraphs of the inspector's report dealing with this aspect and pointing out that pupils who abscond from approved schools are usually only too anxious to get to their homes and if they commit crimes, they commit them when they get home. If my hon. Friend considers the evidence as a whole, he must accept that past experience shows that the—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Exchange Equalisation Account (U.S. Securities)
  Exchange Equalisation Account (U.S. Securities)
  Tobacco Duty
  Tobacco Duty
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
  Take-Over Bids
  Take-Over Bids
  Courtaulds (Redeemable Stock Issue)
  Courtaulds (Redeemable Stock Issue)
  National Economic Development Council
  National Economic Development Council
  Production
  Production
  Inland Revenue Offices, Cardiff (Office Cleaners)
  Inland Revenue Offices, Cardiff (Office Cleaners)
  £5 Notes
  £5 Notes
  Universities (Teaching Staff)
  Universities (Teaching Staff)
  Goya Painting (Committee's Report)
  Goya Painting (Committee's Report)
  University Building, Scotland
  University Building, Scotland
  Universities (Information)
  Universities (Information)
  Post-War Credits (Personal Case)
  Post-War Credits (Personal Case)
  University Grants
  University Grants
  University Staffs (Salaries)
  University Staffs (Salaries)
  Medical Schools
  Medical Schools
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  British Forces, Germany (Stationing Costs)
  British Forces, Germany (Stationing Costs)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Dangerous Substances (Transportation)
  Dangerous Substances (Transportation)
  Approved Schools
  Approved Schools
  Fire Protection
  Fire Protection
  Animals (Medical Experiments)
  Animals (Medical Experiments)
  Civil Prisoners (Parole)
  Civil Prisoners (Parole)
  Transport of Dangerous Substances (Marking of Vehicles)
  Transport of Dangerous Substances (Marking of Vehicles)
  Metropolitan Police Force (West Indians)
  Metropolitan Police Force (West Indians)
  Jury Service
  Jury Service
  Litter Act, 1958 (Prosecutions)
  Litter Act, 1958 (Prosecutions)
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Official Secrets Act (Convicted Persons)
  Official Secrets Act (Convicted Persons)
  Naturalisation (Increased Fees)
  Naturalisation (Increased Fees)
  Wild Birds (Trapping)
  Wild Birds (Trapping)
  GENERAL COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX
  GENERAL COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Financial Aid
  Financial Aid
  Marlborough House
  Marlborough House
KENYA
  Association of Settlement Board Farmers (Representations)
  Association of Settlement Board Farmers (Representations)
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
EAST AFRICAN TERRITORIES
  Non-Designated Civil Servants
  Non-Designated Civil Servants
UGANDA
  Refugees from Ruanda-Urundi
  Refugees from Ruanda-Urundi
  Lost Counties (Commission's Report)
  Lost Counties (Commission's Report)
BASUTOLAND
  Refugees
  Refugees
EDUCATION
  Local Authority Welfare Officers (Training Courses)
  Local Authority Welfare Officers (Training Courses)
  Barnby Dun Primary School (Temporary Buildings)
  Barnby Dun Primary School (Temporary Buildings)
  Teachers (Married Women)
  Teachers (Married Women)
  Special Schools (Places)
  Special Schools (Places)
  Wales
  Wales
  Local Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Education Authorities (Expenditure)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potato Marketing Scheme
  Potato Marketing Scheme
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Clackmannanshire (New Industry)
  Clackmannanshire (New Industry)
  Exports (Fiscal Incentives)
  Exports (Fiscal Incentives)
  East-West Trade
  East-West Trade
HOSPITALS
  Redundant Officers (Compensation Arrangements)
  Redundant Officers (Compensation Arrangements)
  Librarians
  Librarians
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Underground Gas Storage
  Underground Gas Storage
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Revaluation for Rates
  Revaluation for Rates
SCIENCE
  Post-Graduate Training Awards (Ashby Report)
  Post-Graduate Training Awards (Ashby Report)
  N.A.T.O. (COUNCIL DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS)
  N.A.T.O. (COUNCIL DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS)
SCOTLAND
  Overspill Receiving Areas
  Overspill Receiving Areas
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Overseas Students in Britain
  Overseas Students in Britain
ROADS
  Trunk Road System
  Trunk Road System

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

THE EASTER ACT, 1928
3.5 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: 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 prepared to implement the terms of the Easter Act, 1928, and, if not, whether they will take steps to ascertain the views of the Churches on the subject.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government would not feel justified in initiating action to bring the Act into force. They would, however, welcome and be very ready to consider, any expression of views by the Churches.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, would it be proper to ask whether he would consider with his right honourable friend the possibility of inquiring of, say, the representative of the United States whether that country might be interested in this problem?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think it would be hardly proper to make inquiries of a representative of a particular country. I made it quite clear in my Answer that we believe it is up to the Churches concerned.
LORD FISHER OF LAMBETH: My Lords, might I just say that, so far as the Church of England is concerned, Archbishop Davidson long ago made careful inquiries, and said that the Church of England would not wish to raise any objection to the fixing of Easter, if that was thought desirable in the general interest? I do not think
628
there has been any change of opinion in the Church of England since then.
EARL BATHURST: I think I should point out to your Lordships, and to the noble Prelate, whom we are so pleased to see in his new place to-day, that the Church of England, as I understand it, also has no wish to take the initiative in this matter.
LORD FISHER OF LAMBETH: That, my Lords, I think is perfectly true, simply because it would not be proper for the Church to take the initiative in this matter, for there is no reason why it should desire it. We have always understood that it has been desired for commercial reasons and to help the business of the country. Then those people must decide whether to take the initiative.
EARL BATHURST: I note what the noble Lord has said—and I beg his pardon, for I understand that I should refer to him as the reverend and noble Lord.

BRITISH MOTOR CORPORATION'S DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE
3.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: 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 why the Oxfordshire County Council was not consulted before an industrial development certificate was issued to the British Motor Corporation for a site in the neighbourhood of Oxford; what was the nature of any consultations between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and whether any expectations were held out to the Corporation.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, the Board of Trade do not consult local authorities about applications for industrial development certificates. The purposes of the Board's control over the location of new industrial development are different from those of local planning, and the grant of an industrial development certificate does not in any way prejudice the freedom of a local authority

629
in dealing with the subsequent application for planning permission. It would be wrong, therefore, for the Board's decisions on industrial development certificate applications to be influenced by local planning considerations. There was consultation between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on the broad industrial location aspects of the application. The Board did not hold out to the Corporation any expectations that planning permission would be granted.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer and his assurances that there was no understanding with the Board of Trade. The noble Lord will be aware, I think, that on behalf of the Oxfordshire County Council it was stated at the local planning inquiry that they were of the firm opinion that the industrial development certificate had been issued following prior agreement between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. If that is the case, were not the Oxfordshire County Council under a total misapprehension when they stated at the inquiry that they felt that by the issue of the industrial development certificate they were obliged to give planning permission for a site within a very short distance of Oxford?
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords. I think I can answer that very simply. There was no such agreement, and the Council were under a misapprehension if they stated that they were obliged to give planning permission.

THE PROBATION SERVICE
3.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service (Cmnd. 1650).]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the Government welcome the Report and share the Committee's appreciation of the part that the probation service has
630
to play in the penal system. The Committee's recommendations, however, require careful study and the Government are not yet in a position to make any statement of their conclusions on them. In particular, the Committee has proposed a major reassessment of the salaries of the service which will have to be examined in the light not only of the considerations set out in the Committee's report, but also of those set out in Cmnd. Paper 1626— that is on the economic situation. The recommendations on salaries are, as a first step, being referred to the appropriate negotiating bodies.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive me for saying that we find that reply somewhat uninspiring, while of course we join in welcoming the Report. Does the noble Earl realise that we on this side consider that this fine service has been undervalued for many years, and does he realise that we shall press for an early and urgent debate as soon as possible?
EARL BATHURST: I know full well all that is behind what the noble Earl has said, and I have no doubt that should the noble Earl wish a debate on this subject, it would be arranged through the usual channels.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, could the noble Earl give the House some idea as to when the Government, who have welcomed this Report, can give us the benefit, of their conclusions on it? Would it be a matter of a year, two years, or the normal period of gestation, five years?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I trust that the period of gestation will be a lot shorter than five years; but I am certain that the noble Lord appreciates that there are other problems, as well as those of salaries which arise. For instance, there are the recommendations of the Aarvold Committee on Magistrates' Courts and the proposed redistribution of the London boroughs. Moreover, the Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders are still considering after-care matters.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, realising all that, could the noble Earl give us some idea as to how long it is going to take?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I do not think I could possibly give the noble Lord an idea, but I will tell him—and I am sure that the noble Lord will realise it—that, as I said in my Answer, we do attach importance to this Report.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, could the noble Earl say what is the bearing of the London boroughs on this point of probation? Is it another complication which the Government, without knowing it, have slid into? Could he tell us what is the bearing? It is no use asking the Leader of the House, because he does not know.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think that I made that fairly clear a little while ago to the noble Lord's friend, Lady Wootton of Abinger. It is all tied up with where and by whom the services of the existing probation officers in the London area should be run. Quite obviously, by 1965 or whatever the date may be when the areas are changed, different people may have to do those jobs and, presumably, different numbers of them.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, may I remind the noble Earl that the period of gestation on the Streatfeild Committee's Report was exceedingly brief, and was only a matter of months, if not, indeed, weeks. I would ask why the period should be any longer in this case when the urgency appears to be just as great, or greater.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I should not like to say that the subject matter of the Streatfeild Report was a simpler type of animal: I do not think that would be right. But the Report certainly did come out very quickly. I am afraid that I cannot say how long it will take to produce the young stock from this animal.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether an earlier decision will be announced by the Government, with regard to the recommendations in respect of salaries and the expansion of the Service? Otherwise, it will not be a question of gestation— the Probation Service will simply fade away altogether.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think that is a repeat of the previous
632
question. I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord on that point.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, may I assure the noble Earl that we on these Benches are much relieved that he is not regarding Her Majesty's judges as a simpler type of animal than the probation officers.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, would the noble Lord give some indication as to whether the view indicated in the Report, that there should be adequate training on the part of probation officers prior to taking up appointment, is accepted? Also, if that view be accepted, may I ask whether early steps will be taken to indicate basic minimum standards before entry into the Probation Service?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, this is a most important section of the Report. As I have already indicated to your Lordships, we have welcomed that Report and I see no reason why, broadly speaking, that particular section should not be welcomed as well.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, in view of the favourable reply, that aspect of the Report could have early implementation?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I should need notice of that question, and I will write to the noble Lord.

EFFECTS OF DISTAVAL ON EXPECTANT MOTHERS
3.16 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 their attention has been drawn to the presence of congenital fœtal abnormalities, following the medication of the expectant mother with Distaval, and whether this substance is still available to the public.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of reports of an association between the

633
taking of Distaval in early pregnancy and the occurrence of severe abnormalities in newborn babies. The firm concerned withdrew the drug completely at the end of November, 1961, as soon as German reports of such a possibility came to notice, and before any similar reports had arisen in the United Kingdom.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that medical authorities have only just been able to associate the taking of this drug by women in the early periods of pregnancy and the malformations in infants to which they have given birth? Does the noble Lord not think that this is another case where the pharmaceutical industry has been given complete freedom to put on the market drugs which have not had an adequate clinical trial? Also, has not the time come when the Minister should tell the pharmaceutical industry that in no circumstances must it continue this practice?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not think I could agree with what the noble Baroness has said in the latter part of her supplementary question. It is perfectly true that this apparent association has only recently come to light, but it is quite clear to me that until this drug was withdrawn, and during the time it was in use, its availability was welcomed by the medical profession. In an article in the Lancet of February 10, the writer said that:
" It is disturbing that such an apparently innocuous drug as thalidamide with no known toxic dose may disturb the growth of limb buds and other tissues at a certain phase of development."
The drug was developed by German scientists, and in this country by the Distillers' Company, and there is no doubt that their research and development teams consist of first-class scientists. I am advised that the initial experimental work was done meticulously, and that the preliminary clinical trials were carried out by doctors who were wholly independent of the pharmaceutical firm which developed the drug.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that doctors who prescribe this know little
634
about the research, because they are not in that field; they are simply guided by the high-pressure salesmen who are sent round by the pharmaceutical industry? Doctors throughout the country to-day are prescribing proprietary drugs Which have not had adequate clinical trials. I have said before that the public must be protected from the pharmaceutical industry, which appears to be quite ruthless in this matter.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I cannot agree that in this case there seem to have been inadequate clinical trials. It is the case that new drugs and potent drugs have brought great benefit in the medical treatment of people. Unhappily, risks of the sort we have been discussing this afternoon may sometimes be part of the cost of pharmaceutical progress. I have said that the most that can be done is to exercise the greatest caution in launching these new preparations, and there is nothing to suggest that the firm concerned did not do precisely that in this case.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Very unsatisfactory!

KENT QUARTER SESSIONS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ROYAL RUSSELL SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
EDUCATION BILL
Read 3a, (according to Order), and passed.

SMOKING AND HEALTH
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN rose to call attention to the effects of smoking on health and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. To-day we debate a solemn subject. What we are to talk about is literally a matter of life and death— and death in its most odious and painful form. I trust that your Lordships will not think it presumptuous of me, a layman, to initiate this debate, but it is something which affects us all— men and women, old and young, particularly the young— and I thought it might be best for someone with no special knowledge and quite removed from the disputes which, alas!, still persist, to give a short and, I hope, unbiased introduction to the weighty things which we are to hear from the experts. It is with great pleasure that I note that we are today to hear speeches from no fewer than five distinguished doctors. It is no exaggeration, I think, to say that they are, or that they represent, the best medical brains in the country.
My Lords, I have said that I am a layman, and I do not propose to enter into controversy on medical matters. Nor, I think, do I need to do so. The evidence is before your Lordships; and you will have read the Report from the Royal College of Physicians. May I quote a few of their major findings?
"Cigarette smoking is the most likely cause of the recent world-wide increase in deaths from lung cancer".
"20,000 people died in 1960 from lung cancer and each year 1,000 more"
"Heavy smokers may have 30 times the death-rate of non-smokers".
"If smoking ceased, the deaths from lung cancer should fall to perhaps one-fifth or even one-tenth among men".
"Various independent authorities, the Ministry of Health, the Medical Research Council, the Dutch Health Department, the United States Health Service, the World Health Organisation, have all examined the evidence of the relationship between lung cancer and smoking and have all agreed that it is established".
That is what the Committee reported. It is good enough for me. It is also, apparently, good enough for Her Majesty's Government, for the Minister
636
of Health has said in another place [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 655 (No. 73) col. 888]:
"The Government certainly accept that the report demonstrates authoritatively and crushingly the connection between smoking and lung cancer and the more general hazards to health of smoking".
My Lords, in the face of this evidence, who except a blind or a prejudiced person will dare to say that the case against cigarette smoking is not proved beyond reasonable doubt? I should not like to have the conscience of such a person. Doctors may be wrong in individual diagnoses or treatments— they often are— but is anyone seriously going to suggest that the whole medical profession throughout the world has gone mad and has reached conclusions as erroneous as they are irresponsible? Are we to hear this afternoon a lot of sophistries and quibbles aimed at undermining the power and the logic of this most authoritative Report? Are we going to burke this most straightforward and simplest of issues? It is, of course, not so easy. We are attacking a strong and, until now, an impregnable citadel. The vested interests are vast, and they are not by any means evil interests. There is, first of all, the State— and by the State I do not mean any particular Government. The most benevolent and humane of Administrations would find itself hard put to it to do without the revenue that smoking brings in. The figure for 1960 was about £ 825 million— and this, by one of those ironic paradoxes, was almost the exact cost of the National Health Service. In other words, we killed many people in order to heal many more.
Then there are the shareholders. My Lords, whatever our politics, let us not despise the shareholders. They are mostly small people, and they rightly put their money where they think it will bring in the most. A heavy drop in the value of tobacco shares would hit them hard. Last of all, but very far from least, there are the employees, the people who work in the industry— some 40,000 of them. What would happen to them if cigarette smoking were suddenly to be forbidden or to become taboo? Could they, overnight, find new jobs? Are they to be victimised for something, which is not their fault? No, my Lords; it is not so easy.
Then there is the moral issue. Suicide is no longer a crime in this country and, although I should deplore it on religious grounds, I would not question the inalienable right of any adult to do away with himself or herself if he or she thought fit. But the operative word here, my Lords, is "adult". For in this matter we are dealing not so much with grown-up people as with children. For most of us, the die is already cast: if we have been heavy smokers we shall or shall not die of cancer, though the chances of our dying will be less if we give it up now. It is the children who matter; and they can still be saved. According to a tobacco manufacturers' report, 40 per cent. Of their regular customers have acquired the smoking habit before the age of sixteen. Do these young people realise what they are laying up for themselves? Has anyone talked to them about it? And, without the direst and most awful warnings, can any child be expected to take seriously a threat, a risk, which is so remote?
The Government have, I repeat, accepted the Report of the Royal College, particularly in regard to children, and the Minister of Education has said that he will circulate local authorities and provide them with publicity material. That is fine, so far as it goes, and I should like to congratulate the Government for coming out so forthrightly and openly in this matter. But is that all we and they are going to do? Surely the need for a major campaign against cigarette smoking is evident and urgent. A circular and a few pamphlets will have about as much effect as a wet sponge. What is wanted is something to impress, to jolt—and, yes! to frighten: for example, a horror film to be shown in every school in the country; compulsory lectures for school children, blinking no facts, omitting no details and portraying cancer in all its grim reality; and above all, intensive and continuing Government-inspired publicity, in the Press and on the hoardings, on the wireless and on television.
My Lords, it is no good being tactful or mealy-mouthed about this business. Because the thought of cancer is such an appalling thing, we tend not to men-
638
tion it; we tend to treat it as a dirty word, to sweep it under the carpet. I believe that what we should do is to shout it from the housetops, to blazon it on the hoardings, to say it and to print it, till every man, woman and child in the country is aware of what it is, what it means, and understand how it is likely to be caused.
Some people, of course, will say that publicity is not enough, and that the Government should go still further: that they should make cigarette smoking illegal, or tax cigarettes until hardly anyone can afford to buy them. I am not sure about this. Prohibition introduced worse evils into the United States than the liquor which it forbade; and rationing by the purse, even of something bad, is distasteful to me. One practical thing, however, which we can ask the Government to do is to forbid the sale of cigarettes in slot machines. If a boy or girl, of any age, has half-a-crown, there is nothing to prevent him or her from buying cigarettes and "cocking a snook" at the law.
So much for Government action. Other noble Lords will no doubt have other practical suggestions to make. But one thing, at least, of which we want to be assured this afternoon is that this time the Government really mean business. But, of course, the Government are only one of the instruments. Much— indeed, probably more—can be done by non-official bodies and individuals. The fact that neither The Queen nor the Duke of Edinburgh smokes is a prime example. Then I think particularly of the youth movements; the leaders of the Boy Scouts, the Church Lads' Brigade, the youth clubs, and Services, too. Will not some of our distinguished ex-military men give public warning to the Services of the dangers? I am sure that they would be listened to. And, perhaps most important of all, there is the great and noble army of teachers and clergy. With them, I would suggest, there lies a very special duty and responsibility.
Now, my Lords, for the others—the interested parties: the tobacco companies; the shareholders; the newspapers and the advertisers. For all of these it is largely a matter of conscience. They have to decide what they feel they ought to do; and because they are interested parties, their loyalties must necessarily

639
be divided. But I suggest that they ask themselves same straightforward questions, and answer them honestly. First, the tobacco companies. Do they feel— can they feel— that they are doing right in encouraging and stimulating the sale of a product which, far all practical purposes, has been shown to kill? Is it not their duty, in common humanity, to try to divert their sales, at any rate to young people, from the lethal cigarette to the more innocent 'pipe? Should they not devote far more money than they propose from their enormous resources to research into smoking and its relation to cancer? Above all, will they stop being insincere and openly admit that their criticism of the Report is based on prejudice?
Next I appeal to the shareholders and to those who may be contemplating buying shares. To them I would also say: Do you think it right that you should make money out of killing people? If they say, "How about armaments' shares, for example?", I would answer that in this country we build arms for defence and not for aggression.
Now the newspapers and the Independent Television Authority. To them I would particularly appeal. It has been said, I know, that tobacco advertising is directed exclusively to persuading people to smoke one brand more than another. My Lords, I do not believe this. I believe that the purpose and the effect is to make people and especially young people smoke more. Why else this concentration on romantic couples strolling along beaches and kissing in woods? Did your Lordships know that the tobacco retailers are organising an exhibition in Manchester in September, the purpose of which, according to the tobacconists' retail magazine, is
"to project the image of smoking, and to make Christmas 1962 a Smoker's Christmas "?
A charming thought, my Lords! I devoutly hope that this exhibition will not take place.
No, my Lords, the tobacco makers want us to smoke more, and that is all there is to it. Will the newspapers and the Independent Television Authority therefore pay great attention to the advertisements which are put before them, particularly those which are aimed at young people? Will they further
640
openly agree to print all reasonable advertisements from the anti-smoking bodies? One of these organisations told me recently that an advertisement was refused by a newspaper. That is quite wrong and does no credit to the Press. In general, I would say that the newspapers have done well in giving full publicity to the Report of the Royal College. Let them continue the good work. Let them not make it just a "nine-day wonder".
Last of all, I appeal to noble Lords who are going to speak to us this afternoon. It may be that some of them are going to attack the Report or put up a diesel smoke screen". It may be that some of them will be so bold as to say that a lot of fuss is being made about very little. I ask them to look into their hearts and to consider that what they say may affect the lives of, and cause the deaths of, many thousands. Ours is a truly deep responsibility.
My Lords, I hope that I have not wearied you with these far-flung appeals and exhortations. Yet in the last resort, of course, it is mostly a matter of the public conscience, of asking people to do certain things and not to do others. Again, in the last resort it will be popular opinion, not that of the Governments or of the vested interests, which will decide. Meanwhile, let us not cloud the issues with clever arguments, or seek to delay what is right with obstructive tactics and manœ uvres. Cancer is with us, my Lords, and though for many years we have been told that a cure is just around the corner, the "prime mystery" (as Lord Cohen of Birkenhead called it) remains. Let us face it squarely, without fear, if possible, and certainly without favour. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.38 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for having initiated this debate on what is an important aspect of preventive medicine. He has enabled the House, and indeed the whole country, to focus attention on a Report which I believe, when medical history comes to be written, will be regarded as a milestone in social medicine. I am sure that the whole House would also like to thank the Royal College of Physicians, and particularly the Committee of

641
eminent men, who gave of their time, their energy and their knowledge, to preparing this Report. I hope that everybody in this House who has not yet read the Report will look at it. They will see there what I regard as a fine example of a scientific Report designed to be read by the lay public. It is simple, concise, easy to understand, and presented in such an attractive manner that I understand it has become a "bestseller", and I believe that at the moment it is very difficult to obtain a copy.
I should like to thank the Royal College of Physicians for the effort they have made in this important field of preventive medicine. I think that every fairminded person, whether smoker or non-smoker, having read the Report would decide that it would not be rejected by an independent jury. There are certain individuals who write for the Press irrational articles of a critical kind, for reasons best known to themselves. But I think it is significant that the most violent objection has come from the tobacco industry, which has a pecuniary interest in perpetuating the smoking habit.
Of course, this Report has not revealed an entirely new field. We have been talking for many years about the high mortality rate from lung cancer and its association with tobacco smoking. Evidence of the harmful effect of cigarette smoking has been accumulating gradually over the last twenty years, I would say, and we ought to regard this Report as a final indictment. The noble Earl has told the House precisely what the figures are. Briefly, it is estimated that one out of eight heavy, life-long smokers develops lung cancer, while non-smokers have a one in 300 chance of developing the disease.
I have said that for many years this matter has been under consideration by the medical profession. Eight years ago, in 1954, the Minister of Health accepted the view of the Standing Advisory Committee on Cancer and Radiotherapy that there was a strong presumption that smoking could cause cancer of the lung. Three years later, in 1957, the Minister agreed that the advice of the Medical Research Council that smoking played a major part in the increase of deaths from lung cancer should be known to all those who had responsibilities for health education. Despite these authori-
642
tative warnings, little has been done, except, as the noble Earl has said, the publication of a few pamphlets and posters and the sending of lecturers to schools.
The effectiveness of this effort—or perhaps I should say the ineffectiveness of this effort— can be judged from the fact that, while local authorities bought about £ 3,000 worth of material from the Central Council for Health Education in the years 1956 to 1959, in the same years the tobacco industry spent £27 million upon advertising their goods. In 1960 local authorities spent £ 200 with the Central Council, while tobacco interests spent £ 11 million upon advertising. How can we hope to educate our youth while we have this powerful enemy, with its great wealth, cancelling out the effect of the posters and lectures and the efforts of the teachers in our schools?
The tobacco industry is not without powerful friends in many quarters. One striking poster, showing the smoke issuing from a cigarette spelling the word "cancer", was boycotted by the British Poster Advertising Association. Two years ago, in 1960, the Minister of Health said:
" There is good evidence that people in Britain are widely aware of the risks involved in smoking. The health education measures are largely directed to the young and ought to ensure that this awareness is maintained and intensified."
Despite these pious hopes, which have been expressed over many years, cigarette smoking has continued to increase, particularly among schoolchildren.
Again, on the publication of this Report, the Minister has stated that he is asking health authorities to use all their channels of health education to publicise it. In the Printed Paper Office just now, I picked up one of the circulars which have been issued by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education. But this kind of work has been done for years, with little effect. I say that this is not enough. The public is waiting for a strong lead from the Government. Any failure to take action now will be interpreted as a lack of confidence in this Report. If this authoritative document is not accepted by experts and by Government Departments, and if authoritative action is not taken, people will ask themselves

643
why they, as people who are not supposed to have any knowledge of these scientific matters, should observe the warnings and recommendations. I believe that there has been a conspiracy of silence for too long.
I was impressed by the delightful, short statement of the physicians in the Report, in which they sum up the position as follows:
" At present both social custom and commercial pressure outbid the voice of caution and the balance must be redressed."
To-day a number of speakers come to your Lordships' House to ask us to help to redress the balance. Of course, statisticians employed by the tobacco interests have sought to discredit evidence based solely on statistics, and I am sure that noble Lords who wish to discredit this Report will mention this point this afternoon. Undoubtedly, there is a strong statistical association between smoking, especially cigarette smoking, and lung cancer, and I would remind your Lordships that it is supported by laboratory and pathological evidence.
May I give your Lordships three instances? Substances known to be capable of producing cancer have been detected in tobacco smoke. Secondly, cancer has been produced in the skin of animals exposed to repeated applications of tobacco tar. Furthermore, microscopic examination of the bronchial epithelium, the lining of the membrane, of smokers reveals changes of a kind which may precede the development of cancer. Surely all this is scientific evidence, which has been produced by some of the finest brains in our research laboratories. Can anybody afford to disregard this evidence?
The terms of reference of the Committee include other illnesses related to smoking. Let me remind your Lordships that in recent years investigations have revealed association between the smoking habit and death from coronary diseases. Although association with smoking is clear, nevertheless, there are other factors, such as mental strain, sedentary occupations and over-eating, particularly over-eating of fatty substances, which may increase liability to coronary thrombosis. Therefore, it is not possible to assert, as it is in a case
644
of lung cancer, that the association between coronary diseases and smoking is causal.
Let me say something about the incidence of chronic bronchitis in the community, which is also mentioned in this Report. While cases of cancer of the lung and coronary diseases are universally recognised, the association of smoking with chronic bronchitis and, indeed (although I say this very gently) the association of smoking with a chronic cough are not regarded seriously enough. But I think it must be obvious, not only to the medical fraternity but also to lay people, that, with age, the chronic cough insidiously changes into something else.
For some years I was the Member for Warrington, where the mortality rate for chronic bronchitis was one of the highest in the country. I recognise that the pollution of the air in Warrington was very high, but at the same time, smoking is very heavy in the industrial towns. This distressing disease provides one of the major causes of disablement and death, particularly among middle-aged and elderly men. Another factor which should be borne in mind by the Government and the Ministry of Labour is that bronchitis is the cause of 10 per cent. of the loss of working time in this country.
The fact— and it is a melancholy fact— is that the expectation of life of men of 50 is little better to-day than it was 50 years ago. I would remind your Lordships that I am taking a figure of 50, not from birth, because the expectation of life from birth has increased; but the expectation of life of a man of 50 is little better to-day than it was 50 years ago. The main reason for this is the increasing mortality from heart and chest diseases.
I think it is generally agreed that the smoking addict who has conditioned himself to 20, 30, or 40 cigarettes a day presents a problem not only to himself and his family, but to his doctor; and it is a problem which often proves insoluble. Therefore, I feel that our primary object should be to advise and help young people not to acquire this dangerous habit. We were all young once, and we cannot expect youth to heed the warnings of adults who tell them that if they continue smoking they

645
might develop a malignant disease or coronary thrombisis, because we all know that the lure of the forbidden has always exercised a fascination on the young. The average boy or girl is more concerned with the present and the impact that his personality makes on his friends. The tobacco advertiser is fully aware of this and places great emphasis on smoking as a mark of manliness in the boy and of sex appeal in the girl.
For this reason, I think the advice given in the Guardian in a letter by an education officer is sound. He said:
"The eventual aim must be to make smoking unfashionable for young people. Only when to smoke cigarettes means to be 'not with it' can we expect to see any dramatic results. Star footballers, cricketers, young pop singers and other contemporary heroes will have to make their rejection of cigarettes known loudly and continuously."
I should like to add one other category to this list— namely, the non-smoking girls, who should seek to project the image of the young men they admire. We must remember that to-day boys are in the majority, and the consumption of cigarettes, in my opinion, would fall in a spectacular manner if a girl made non-smoking a condition of "going steady" with her boy friend. After all. I am speaking to a male audience who in their time have known something of love and I am glad to know that in that love there was a sympathetic acceptance of that approach.
May I deal quite briefly with the recommendations in the Report? The Report advises that education should be undertaken among school children with great energy and imagination. What I would do if I were head of a school would be to pick out the masters who are non-smokers; who are the most popular; who are good sports and, we hope, good at lessons as well, and ask them to direct the propaganda. If these people were not available, then I would ask the boys in the top form and give them the responsibility for teaching the young ones.
It is recommended that there should be restriction of the advertising of tobacco, which means that the Minister of Health must face up to the powerful and ruthless tobacco lobby in the interests of public health. I say, more in sorrow than in anger, that the cigarette manufacturers to-day must know that they are guilty men, although they har-
646
bout a curious notion that they can absolve themselves from this guilt by devoting some of their ill-gotten gains to research. My Lords, this is a little like the housebreaker making a contribution to the police orphanage. If the tobacco industry were quite sincere in this matter, then the correct scientific approach would be to stop the manufacture and sale of cigarettes until such time as they have succeeded in producing a safe product. Indeed, if I may refer to the Question that I put down for today, I said— and I am sure all thinking people here agree with me— that the pharmaceutical industry should not distribute drugs unless they have had a proper clinical trial, because the people of the country should be protected. In precisely the same way, if the tobacco industry believes that these cigarettes contain a carcinogenic, then they should say, "We will withdraw them until we can market another product."
The next recommendation is that there should be wider restriction of smoking in public places. I am glad to learn that the London County Council and other local authorities are considering how to implement this recommendation. This is important, because it will serve to emphasise the anti-social nature of smoking among people who have a right to object to a polluted atmosphere. I hope that the Ministries will be bold and imaginative and will lose no time.
It is suggested that there should be higher taxation on tobacco. I am a little dubious about this. If we are to accept the fact that the tobacco addict must satisfy his craving for nicotine at all costs, I feel that higher taxation may in the poorest homes result in the necessities of the rest of the family being sacrificed for the smoker. That, of course, would be tragic.
The next recommendation I think is excellent. It is recommended that the amount of nicotine, tar and volatile irritants contained in each cigarette should be printed on the packet. I attach great importance to this, because if it is made clear that each cigarette represents a dose of harmful substance, then this must induce some serious speculation in the smoker. It is suggested also that there should be antismoking clinics to which doctors could send patients. I am not sure that men

647
would consent to visit these clinics publicly, because it might indicate that they were lacking in willpower. I think that in conjunction with these measures there should be advertisements in the newspapers stating that these clinics were available and that men could visit them without any undue publicity.
Finally, if these methods fail, then the time must come when the Government should take stronger action. Let us recall that cholera, typhoid, smallpox and tuberculosis have been checked in the first place only by strong central action. It is the Government of the country who have the power and the duty to guide and protect the people, and they must not be diverted by the clamour of commercial interests.
4.0 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, when I first saw the Motion which the noble Earl had put down on the Order Paper, my mind was taken back to a warm July afternoon in Paris in 1950, when I was taking the Chair at a Session of one of the meetings of the big Cancer Congress that was being held at the Sorbonne at that time. As I say, it was a hot July afternoon. We had been given a very good lunch, and there were not many people present at the meeting, but the speaker was Dr. Wynder from New York. It was there, I think, that he first read a paper which suggested that there was some connection between cancer of the lung and cigarette smoking. Although one felt a bit drowsy at first, those of us who were there soon began to wake up and realise that something important was being said. Since then there have been a number of surveys which have confirmed what Dr. Wynder put forward rather tentatively, and finally the Report which has led to this debate. The Report of the Royal College of Physicians has summed up the situation extremely well; and when the Committee say that deaths from cancer of the lung are thirty times as many among those who smoke as among those who do not, then we come into the realm of things which are really significant.
I quite agree that the evidence at present is almost entirely statistical, but I do not think one need take any great exception to it for that reason. Not so long ago, in 1853, Dr. John Snow, by
648
taking away the handle of a pump in Broad Street, did a great deal to check the cholera epidemic; and showed that cholera was caused by drinking contaminated water. That was a long time before the bacteria which caused cholera had been discovered. The report he wrote then is a masterly example of statistical figures assembled very properly, with a good bit of deductive logic which has never been proved wrong. Therefore, I do not think we can despise the evidence because it is purely statistical.
Another matter which I think is very important is to get proper proof that cancer of the lung is increasing to the extent that it is said to be. It is mentioned in the Report of the Royal College that, whereas the standardised death rate for cancer for all sites— that is, standardised for the age and sex distribution of the population in 1951— has been falling for quite a long time, the standardised death rate of lung cancer is showing a sharp and steady rise. The more evidence one acquires, the more one finds that it is among those people who are heavy smokers that this great increase occurs. I agree entirely that it is extremely difficult to find proof of a purely pathological or clinical nature, partly because the animals upon whom experiments are done do not readily develop spontaneous lung tumours, and partly because (apart from the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, quoted, a certain amount of cancer of the skin has been developed) no cancer of the lung, so far as I know, has been introduced by treating mice and other experimental animals with cigarette smoke. I think it is because we do not go about it in the right sort of way, and we may not be able to get that evidence until animals can be taught to smoke in the same way as human beings, which I think would be an extremely difficult thing to accomplish.
An argument which is raised in opposition to this statistical evidence is that a large number of people who are really heavy smokers do not develop lung cancer. I do not think this is a very significant observation. If a certain number do, then you have to get a great deal of evidence to show that that kind of argument is a really significant one.

649
It has been suggested that some curious congenital condition, or some defect in people's lungs, makes them more prone to diseases of the lung: and that the mortality from tuberculosis of the lung has fallen at the same rate as mortality from lung cancer has gone up. Again, I do not think that is a valid argument, because there appears to be no connection between the two. Although some people have said for a long time that there was some curious link between pulmonary tuberculosis and lung cancer, I do not think there is a great deal of evidence for that.
One question which I think is a serious one is of atmospheric pollution, which probably serves to produce lung cancer. One has to agree that this is almost certainly another cause, but it is a cause which is nowhere near as great as that of cigarette smoking. When one compares mortality among non-smokers on, say, Merseyside, with the mortality among non-smokers in the rural part of North Wales, there is a significant difference, but it is not nearly as big as the difference in mortality between those who smoke and those who do not. Among males of 35 to 74, the death rate is about twice as great on Merseyside as in the rural parts of Wales. When one takes adult non-smokers who emigrate from this country to countries with a rather purer atmosphere, like New Zealand and South Africa, it is found that the incidence of lung cancer is greater among those people who come from our own country. Indeed, one finds in many countries where, so far as one can see, the pattern of smoking is about the same, that there is quite a big difference in the incidence of the disease.
There was one occasion, which the noble and learned Viscount may possibly remember, when he gave an extremely charming tea party in his flat to Marshal Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev. I sat on the sofa talking to Marshal Bulganin, and was surprised to find that I was talking to him about lung cancer in the Soviet Union. He told me that although the people in Russia were heavy smokers of cigarettes, he did not think there had been that large increase in lung cancer which we had experienced over here. Therefore, possibly there may be something in the
650
atmospheric pollution which, combined with cigarette smoking, sets off something really lethal in a country like this, where the figures are, I think, higher than in most countries in the civilised world.
I think most of your Lordships would agree that the amount of pollution in the atmosphere is not as bad as it was 50 or 60 years ago. There are not so many fires burnt for domestic heating, and one certainly does not get those thick "peasoup" fogs which I remember so well when I was a child living in this part of the world. On the other hand, there has been a considerable increase in the amount of fumes from petrol engines, and a certain blame has been attached to the diesel engine. There one has to be very careful, and I think my noble friend Lord Colwyn may have something to say about that later on. But it is a fact that when one has found the cause of a cancer, and this is known for quite a number of occupational and industrial cancers, one has usually to allow a very long exposure before the actual cancer develops. I have no figures to give your Lordships, but I should have thought that the great increase in diesel fumes has dated from since the war rather than before the war. It is a comparatively short time for an agent that might be held to be carcinogenic in its origin.
I accept, as indeed the noble Earl and the noble Baroness accept, what is said in this Report: that heavy cigarette smoking leads to lung cancer. What can we do about it? In the first place, I do not want to suggest that anything should be done in panic, or too quickly, because one of the things that is more frightening than cancer itself is the fear of cancer. One has seen too many people 'who have this dreadful complaint called cancer-phobia and who have nothing wrong with them at all. It is a dreadful thing to say, but it would almost be better if they were suffering from cancer rather than from cancerphobia. One thing we have to be extremely careful about is to do nothing to encourage that.
There are certain simple things which could be done now and which would cause no trouble at all. This, I believe is one of the few countries in the civilized

651
world where people are allowed to smoke in cinemas and certain theatres. Certainly people cannot do so in the United States, and certainly not in France and a great many other European countries. I can see no reason at all, therefore, why it should not be firmly stopped here; although whether it would be done by the Government or local authorities I am not quite sure.
Moreover, I can see no reason why people should smoke in public transport. There are double-decker buses in London in which no smoking is allowed down below, but people can smoke on the top deck. I should have thought a great deal of good could be done by stopping this. I am not quite sure, but I believe it has been done in trams in the city of Glasgow, and that has passed off without any great trouble or difficulty. The same applies to underground railways. It is bad enough, in all conscience, if you have to go underground and breathe the fumes you get down there. I do not see why it should be made worse by people puffing pipes and cigarettes. You cannot smoke on the Underground either in Paris or in New York. I also think that smoking should be prohibited in shops, particularly those which sell food. That has been done in Continental countries to quite a big extent, with no particular trouble, rioting or difficulty, and I think that in this country the big firm of Marks and Spencers do not allow people to smoke in their shops.
I should like to refer to the rather insidious advertising in illustrated papers by fashion houses, both for men and women. Frequently one sees a male or female model, wearing attractive clothes, with a cigarette in one hand. That, I am sure, encourages people to smoke. There are probably various other places, too, where one can see these advertisements. Then one comes to the tobacco advertisements themselves. There we are in great difficulty and I am not quite sure what the Government can or should do. It is very difficult to interfere too much in what people care to advertise, but one would like to make an appeal to the tobacco companies, and I believe that this need not necessarily fall on stony ground, because they have done a great deal of work to find out about this association between lung canner and tobacco. They have spent a great deal
652
of money on research of all kinds, and I think they might, in view of this debate and of the great interest shown, cut down some of their advertisements, because although these are said to be merely to advertise one brand against another, I agree with the noble Baroness that they are shown for another purpose altogether—to encourage young people to smoke. One would like to see that kind of thing stopped.
Finally, there are two points I want to make. People talk of the soothing effect which tobacco can have on those who are worried and nervous. I do not believe the effect comes from the tobacco at all; I believe it comes because they have something to do. It is because they like something to play with or something to hold in their hand. It is not the tobacco smoke which has the soothing effect, it is having something to do when feeling nervous and worried. That is an important point for the general public to know. Much has to be done by teaching, education and example.
There was a time when, travelling round the country, one used to see terrible exhibitions showing hobnailed livers and the dreadful effects that drinking had on people. A lot of drink was consumed by a great many people who became very sick from it. People do not drink as much now, partly because of better education and partly because drink costs more than it did. But I am not at all sure that education has not done more to get people drinking at the right time, and not at the wrong time. If people want to smoke, I should like to see them do so at certain times of the day, and not regularly from the time they rise in the morning until they go to bed at night. I am sure that if that change were to occur, the incidence of that particular form of cancer would drop over a period of years. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion put down by the noble Earl this afternoon.
4.18 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, at the outset I must declare an interest. Since 1919, with the exception of the war years, I have been concerned with the manufacture and sale of tobacco. Throughout that period, and for seven years before it— for I started to smoke when I was 19—I have been

653
a fairly heavy smoker. I recognise, therefore, that whatever I say on the subject before your Lordships to-day may be represented as more than a little tinged by some prejudice or bias in favour of smoking. On the other hand, I feel that my experience enables me to speak on this subject with some knowledge and I shall endeavour to be as factual and objective as it is possible to be.
I felt glad when the noble Earl put down this Motion. I felt glad on two counts. First, because I hoped that it might give an opportunity for an objective review of this problem, which is of great public interest, and also because I saw that it could give me an opportunity for refuting conclusively, and, I hope, convincingly to your Lordships, some of the baser allegations that have been made against the reputation of an industry which I, for one, have been proud to serve. I propose to relate my remarks to the basic and fundamental problem of the alleged causal connection between smoking and lung cancer. As for what the noble Earl referred to as the commercial aspects— that is to say, advertising, marking of packets and so forth— my noble friend, Lord Ampthill will deal with them when he speaks.
I should like, in the first place, to say something about the attitude of the manufacturers towards this basic problem and to describe what they have done and are doing; and then, in the second place, to state and comment on some of the facts on those facets of this basic problem of which the manufacturers have knowledge.
From the time (and this is now some twelve years ago) that some medical statisticians of this country published the prima facie evidence which might point to the causal connection between smoking and lung cancer the manufacturers have endeavoured to keep in the closest touch with the statistical inquiries and with the medical, physical and chemical research on the subject. It was some three years later, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, reminded us, that the Standing Advisory Committee on Cancer and Radiotherapy reviewed the evidence of the statistical association as assessed by the panel set up by the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of
654
Health. That Committee endorsed the conclusion of the panel that there was a strong presumption that the connection was causal.
There were, however, then, as there still are, a number of facts that seem inconsistent with that theory. It was, moreover, at that time very clear, not only that there was no scientific proof of a causal connection, but also that the amount of research that had been done was very limited. Manufacturers felt, as indeed at that time did some medical authorities, that although the statistical association might be considered strong, until science could show how or why smoking could cause lung cancer the causal connection could not be considered proved. And their first and natural reaction was to set out to help in finding the truth so that if there was in tobacco or tobacco smoke anything that could cause the disease it could be eliminated.
The manufacturers then did two things— this is in 1953– 54. First, after consultation with the Minister of Health, they placed at the disposal of the Medical Research Council a sum of £250,000 to assist research, in any way which that Council might deem appropriate, into the cause or causes of lung cancer. Secondly, they intensified their own research work on the physical and chemical side. They informed the Medical Research Council of what they were doing, and they made it clear that they were anxious to follow up within their own field any lines of research which the Medical Research Council might consider could usefully be pursued.
Although research into the whole problem was going on in many countries, progress seemed slow. It had been limited, I believe, to some extent by lack of knowledge as to which are the most fruitful lines to follow. To some extent in this country it has been limited by a lack of people who were both qualifield and available to undertake it. In 1956 the manufacturers set up the Tobacco Manufacturers' Standing Committee. That Committee had as its first advisers in the statistical and scientific fields two men of great eminence in their respective spheres, Sir Ronald Fisher and the late Sir Alfred Egerton.
The function of that Committee was two-fold: first, to give financial assist-

655
ance to medical research into the effects of smoking on physical and mental well-being and to subvent the follow-up on the medical side of any lines which the research undertaken in the manufacturers own laboratories showed to be likely to throw light on the cancer problem; secondly, to keep in touch with all the research work, statistical or medical, going on in various parts of the world in relation to smoking and health. The Committee have in the last five years accumulated a great deal of information. I will deal with some aspects of this with particular reference to the conclusions of the recent Report prepared by the Royal College of Physicians when I come to the second part of my remarks.
I trust that no one will infer from what I have been saying that availability of money for research is all that matters. In our present state of incomplete knowledge it is very important. I think it is true that neither medical nor chemical research into this question has been, at least in the last decade, restricted by lack of funds. It is also true that, apart from the financial assistance which they have given to medical research, the manufacturers themselves in their own laboratories have conducted a very large part of the chemical research that has been done on this subject in this country; and in all this they have worked in the closest cooperation with the medical authorities, and all their research work in this field has been available to the Medical Research Council and its appropriate committees. In short, my Lords, the manufacturers have consistently done everything in their power directly and indirectly to assist in establishing the facts of this highly complex and baffling problem.
I now come to the second part of my remarks. There are, I think, certain facts which should not be overlooked if the conclusions of the Royal College of Physicians' Report are to be seen in true perspective. In bringing these facts to your Lordships' attention I need hardly say that the last thing I would wish to do is to try to minimise the gravity of the problem or fail to recognise the distressing seriousness of the disease itself. Within the limits of a
656
reasonable demand on your Lordships' time and patience it is not possible to cover the whole ground, but I will try to deal with at least some of the most important aspects. May I say here, so that I should not appear to be sailing under false colours, that I am neither a professional statistician nor a scientist, but I have read and studied over the years a great deal of the evidence on this problem on both sides?
It would be crude to the point of cynicism in this context to say that man must die of something and if medical science were to find, and there were freely available, the means of prevention and cure of every disease save one, then man would die either of that or of old age. Yet that contains an element of truth that bears on this problem. Since it has been said that the most reasonable interpretation of the statistical evidence is that the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, and probably particularly so in the case of heavy cigarette smokers, is one of direct cause and effect, we ought to look at the figures. To some extent, as is brought out in the Report, the increase in lung cancer deaths has been accentuated over the years by improvement in diagnosis. This, however, would not greatly affect the comparative figures over the last ten years.
It is noteworthy that the average annual deaths in England and Wales in the last three years of men aged 45 to 64, for which statistics are available, compared with the corresponding three years ten years earlier, show this for the three principal respiratory diseases— cancer of the lung, bronchitis and tuberculosis: first, no significant increase in total, despite a rising population and greater longevity; secondly, bronchitis remaining practically the same; and, thirdly, a large increase in lung cancer being matched by a corresponding decrease in tuberculosis. The same is broadly true if the figures are taken for men and women together in the same age groups. The sharp decline in tuberculosis mortality is, as the Report says, largely attributable to modern treatment. Yet it has been shown that some people who otherwise might have died from T.B. are dying of lung cancer. In this connection it is relevant to note that, although there is a good deal of

657
medical evidence to show that tuberculosis scars may in some cases increase the susceptibility to lung cancer, statistical evidence on this is as yet far from complete.
I now come to a somewhat different point. The Report admits that most smokers suffer no serious impairment of health or shortening of life as a result of the habit. But there are as yet no certain means by which the minority who are more likely to be affected can be identified. The evidence quoted in the Report suggests that, in so far as smoking may cause lung cancer, it is primarily, at any rate, excessive cigarette smoking that is the cause. Yet the very great majority of heavy cigarette smokers do not contract the disease. I would, incidentally, venture to suggest that the Report does not adequately examine the theory that in some of the cases of heavy cigarette smokers who contract the disease "chain smoking" may be symptomatic of the susceptibility rather than itself a direct cause.
Apart from that, however, there remains this important factor of individual susceptibility to the disease. Some years ago Sir Heneage Ogilvie produced some interesting theories on the ageing of tissues or cells. A good deal of work is being done on the question of susceptibility, but much more remains to be done. I suppose that every now and again we hear or read a phrase which has a peculiar ring of truth, even though it is cloaked in some fantastic guise. When I was preparing my notes for this speech to-day I recalled an article written by Sir Heneage Ogilvie which I had read some years ago and which had impressed me at the time. I found it in the Lancet of July 6, 1957, and I should like, if I may, to read a short quotation from it.
After talking about the "ageing" of tissues or cells— for example, how at a certain stage the respiratory epithelium tires in its ceaseless war against inhaled bacteria—and then asking what it is that suddenly turns a patch of "cancer in situ" which has long been dormant into a malignant tumour, Sir Heneage went on to say:
" Like most general surgeons, I have treated and watched many cases of cancer. Some were relatives; many were friends; others, coming as patients, died my friends. I have
658
slowly come to frame in my mind an aphorism that can never be stated as such, because no statistics can be advanced to support it: 'The happy man never gets cancer '."
He went on to say—
" Very often—indeed so often as to suggest that if the true cause could be discovered the problem of cancer treatment might be solved—the signal for renewed growth seems to have been some unhappy event."
Then there is the question which has already been touched on this afternoon, of atmospheric pollution— whether, along with cigarette smoking, that may contribute to the cause of the disease, or whether, indeed, atmospheric pollution may not be the major reason for the increase. If individual intake could be accurately measured, there seems strong presumptive evidence that a statistical association could be established between atmospheric pollution and lung cancer. The striking differences in the incidence of lung cancer and bronchitis between urban and rural areas, and between one country and another, reflect in varying degrees the effects of air pollution. To take only one example, Dr. Stocks's research has shown a 7 to 1 variation in male lung cancer mortality rates between certain urban and rural localities in Northern England and Wales. I think that was the investigation to which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred.
Another inquiry, covering the whole country, has shown a range of variation between town and country of 4· 2 to 1, but in this case "country" included some people who spent most of their time in towns, so there may be little disparity between the results of these two inquiries. There is no comparable difference between the amount individually smoked by those men who live and work in towns and those who live and work in the country. Much more research is clearly needed into the constituents and effects of air pollution. The Report has recognised the importance and complexity of this factor, but has deferred its examination into it until a later date. That may be inevitable; yet if one is to be objective I am afraid that the conclusion must surely be that the present assessment of the problem is incomplete.
There have been a great many statistical inquiries. I am not qualified to offer expert criticisms of them; nor

659
would I in any way impugn the ability or sincerity of those who made them. Yet an objective appraisal cannot ignore the fact that eminent statisticians on both sides of the Atlantic have disagreed about the conclusions to be drawn from them. Sir Ronald Fisher in a publication in 1959, said that the change (he was referring to the increase in lung cancer) gives not the least evidence of being due to increasing consumption of tobacco. In 1961, he expressed the view that genotypic factors, combined with changes during the present century in the nature and extent of air pollution and in the relative exposure of men and women to air pollution adequately account for the incidence of lung cancer.
Dr. Joseph Berkson, of the Mayo Clinic, and Professor of Statistics at the University of Minnesota, has expressed the view that, on the present evidence, it is unlikely that either smoking or air pollution contributes to lung cancer. In Dr. Berkson's view there is no valid evidence of physiological mechanism by which either factor would induce lung cancer, and all experimental work has failed to confirm the theory. The only evidence is statistical in nature, and this evidence contains too many conflicts and has left too many unanswered questions to be accepted as conclusive evidence of a causal relationship.
There have been many references recently to diesel fumes. The result of a small-scale investigation published in 1957 of the incidence of lung cancer among certain employees of London Transport, seemed to acquit diesel fumes. Perhaps they are not a prime cause, but they must be a factor in air pollution, and there can be no question that the relevance of air pollution to this problem urgently requires more examination.
Since the Royal College of Physicians' Report was published there has appeared the result of an investigation into smoking habits in Southern Ireland. I must not weary the House with detailed figures, but, in summary, this is the result. The consumption of cigarettes per head of the population aged sixteen and over per day in Southern Ireland is almost exactly the same as in England and Wales, although a higher proportion of the population in Southern Ireland
660
is rural. In 1959 (which is the last year for which statistics are available) the mortality rate per 100,000 for respiratory cancer in men was 33 in Southern Ireland as compared with 87 in England and Wales. That would appear to be striking confirmation of the theory that air pollution in this country is an important factor.
To come back to the general argument, it is, of course, natural that some people should feel that, since a statistical association is not of itself proof, to take that as the basis for incriminating cigarette smoking in general, or heavy cigarette smoking in particular, as one of the causes of the increase in lung cancer might conceivably be un-warranted. It could also divert research effort from other possible causes, and thereby delay the discovery of the truth. It could cause increasing alarm, or even instil fear. But I must make it clear that the manufacturers have never stressed that point; nor have they sought to defend excessive smoking, for no one can claim that excess in any form is good. What the manufacturers have said is that the case, as presented by the Report of 1957 and this latest Report, leaves too many important questions unanswered; that, while there is no lack of publicity for, and awareness of the public to, the possible risks, the thing that matters most from every point of view is that there should be more and more research to establish scientifically whether and, if so, how and why, smoking can cause lung cancer.
They have suggested that perhaps the three most fruitful lines of further research— though by no means the only ones— are, first, further investigation into the chemistry and biological effects of tobacco smoke; secondly, research into the circumstances which cause individual susceptibility to cancer generally or to lung cancer, in particular; and thirdly, research into the harmful constituents of air pollution in this country. The first is perhaps a logical extension of work of which the greater part has been, and is being, carried out already in the manufacturers' own laboratories; but, as I have said, they are ready and anxious to follow up any lines that may be suggested by medical authorities as worth pursuing. The Report refers to the fact that tobacco smoke is extremely complex

661
in composition. Some 300 compounds have been identified in it. Included in this are 16 different substances capable of initiating cancer in experimental animals, but most of them have been found in infinitesimal amounts in smoke; nor has any experiment so far resulted in exposure to tobacco smoke producing lung cancer in animals. Against this background manufacturers are setting up laboratories at Harrogate, where large-scale bio-assay work will be undertaken under the direction of a pathologist with long experience of cancer research.
The second suggestion is founded on the theory that since only a minority of heavy smokers develop cancer, it would be a constructive approach to seek means of identifying the individuals who constitute this minority. There, is, I believe, a growing body of evidence to suggest that certain personal and environmental characteristics are to be found more frequently in lung cancer patients than others— in a word, individual susceptibility. This research could, I feel, be abundantly worth while.
As regards the third suggestion, that of atmospheric pollution, I am aware that this is an extremely complicated subject, but it is none the less highly important and very relevant to the whole problem. I can assure the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who, in his capacity of Lord President of the Council, is responsible for the Medical Research Council, that if there is any further stimulus and aid to further research on these or other fruitful lines which can be given to that body, the manufacturers would welcome it and would themselves co-operate to the utmost.
Before I leave the subject of further research, I should like to touch very briefly and objectively on the benefits of smoking. The Report says that they appear to be psychological and social and are hard to express in quantitative terms. It concludes that the pleasures of smoking must be now be weighed against its dangers. Perhaps it might have been fairer to say that the pleasures and benefits of smoking must he weighed against the possible risks. There can be no doubt that many smokers feel that they find benefit as well as pleasure from it. It certainly can ease tension; some find it an aid to concentration and think it has a stimulating effect on the brain; and to those who indulge in it, it is a
662
pleasurable and sociable habit. The pharmacological effects have so far been the subject of little scientific study, but the observations of Professor Burn, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology at Oxford, show the need for further research on what I may call the positive side of this problem as well as on the negative side.
There will, I think, be many who are not convinced by the argument in the Report, although they are impressed with the weight of medical opinion behind it. Let us look at the conclusion of the Report, paragraph 41 part of which was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. It says:
"The strong statistical association between smoking, especially of cigarettes, and lung cancer is most simply explained on a causal basis. This is supported by compatible, though not conclusive, laboratory and pathological evidence—namely (a) the presence of several substances known to be capable of producing cancer in tobacco smoke; (b) the production of cancer of the skin in animals by repeated application of tobacco tar; and (c) the finding, in the bronchial epithelium of smokers, of microscopic changes of the kind which may precede the development of cancer."
Taking that point by point, I have shown, first, that there are eminent statisticians who do not agree that the causal connection is proved by the statistical evidence; second, that no substance known to be capable of producing cancer has been shown to be present in tobacco smoke in quantities sufficient to cause cancer of the lung in human beings; third, that despite a great deal of experimentation no amount of exposure to tobacco smoke has caused cancer of the lung in animals; and fourth, that of the microscopic changes found in the bronchial epithelium of smokers it apparently can be said only that they are "of the kind which may precede the development of cancer". That statement seems to imply that it is in the bronchial epithelium of smokers that these changes occur. Yet research by Professor Cunningham of the Royal College of Surgeons, among others, has shown, I believe, that it is by no means uncommon to find no abnormal changes at all in the bronchial epithelium of individuals who have smoked heavily and who also have been exposed to polluted air for many years.
To anyone who has read only the R.C.P. Report, I think the case for the assumption of the causal connection

663
could appear very convincing. May I here give a personal view? This is an opinion; it is not an argument, but I should be less than frank if I did not say it. I sincerely and honestly believe that the case is not proven. I admit I am influenced by my own experience—and I do not mean by that merely the pleasure I personally derive from smoking—and I am influenced by having attempted over many years to study and assess the evidence as far as I could. Until we know how or why smoking may cause lung cancer in certain cases—and they clearly cannot be more than a small minority of smokers—or until the real or major cause is found elsewhere, I think the case for further and intensified research is unanswerable. Were this not my personal conviction, I could not support the attitude of the manufacturers as I do.
In conclusion, my Lords, clearly no one can say to-day that smoking cannot be, in certain circumstances, a contributory cause of lung cancer. That could be established only if it were proved that the real cause lay elsewhere. From the time, however, that various medical authorities began to accept the probability that the statistical association pointed to a causal connection, manufacturers have done everything in their power to assist the establishment of scientific proof one way or the other, so that if in tobacco or tobacco smoke there were found any substance in quantities sufficient to cause cancer of the lung in human beings, steps could be taken to eliminate it. No such substance has so far been found. Moreover, the statistical evidence is questioned by many authoritative people who are as disinterested as those who accept it. It is in these circumstances that manufacturers have stated the case as they see it for still more research.
4.48 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I, too, must declare an interest in this debate. I come from Merseyside, an area in which there is the maximum incidence of cancer of the lung in this country. I have been associated with a hospital in Liverpool for over forty years, and each year I have seen in the wards and in the autopsy room of our hospital the increasing inci-
664
dence of cancer of the lung, until now hardly a day goes by without one having to condemn to death one of the patients who enters our wards because of this disease. Nearly one hundred years ago in Battersea Park Disraeli declared that the health of the nation is the surest foundation upon which its power and happiness as a State depend. Those who subscribe to Disraeli's doctrine will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for having initiated this debate and having once again alerted the Government and the public of this country to the grave and increasingly alarming hazards of smoking.
We have had this afternoon a remarkable tribute to the Report of the Royal College of Physicians. It has been said in the Press by the Tobacco Manufacturers' Standing Committee that it contains nothing new. That is true. But what it has succeeded in doing is marshalling the facts with such cogency, such power and authority, that for the first time the Government in this country have accepted that conclusion, which it regards as an" authoritative and crushing conclusion", that cancer of the lung and smoking are causally connected. Therefore, I do not propose to deal in detail with evidence which is in the College's report.
The College has rightly criticised the Government for not having taken earlier action; and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, have referred to advice given to, the Government earlier. I would add just one line of history to theirs. In 1955, the Standing Medical Advisory Committee of the Minister urged
"that appropriate action should be taken constantly to inform the public of this connection, and of the risks involved in heavy smoking."
Each of these public announcements, whether by the Medical Advisory Committee, the Standing Committee on Cancer and Radiotherapy, or the Medical Research Council in 1957, has had a temporary effect on the sale of cigarettes and on the price of tobacco shares. But, regrettably, it has been very short-lived, because there has been no adequate follow-up with the pressure which should have been exerted. However, the Minister has stated the Government's present

665
attitude and it is much more promising. We look forward with keen anticipation to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will tell us of the Government's intentions. I think it is significant that the Minister of Health has accepted these conclusions so avidly, for the Guardian said a week ago of the Minister of Health that his
" whole attitude was positive, and that of a man who might even go to breathtaking or"
significant words—
"breathgiving lengths of action."
I can but hope that the Minister of Health's attitude has inspired and urged the other members of the Government to a similar attitude of mind.
As I said, my Lords, I do not propose to reiterate the arguments. And let me say at once that any attempt to rebut or refute the arguments of the Tobacco Manufacturers by vituperation or abuse is quite useless. They must be rebutted by rational argument; by presenting the results of investigations which have been carried out; by examining their own statements— the statements of the Tobacco Manufacturers' Standing Committee—on the scientific aspects of the College of Physicians' Report, which have been reiterated cogently and clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, this afternoon; and also (although I do not propose to discuss this aspect) by examining the arguments which have been put by the Tobacco Advisory Committee, and which tend to rebut the commercial recommendations on the commercial aspects of the College of Physicians' Report. But if the tobacco manufacturers wish to avoid an accusation of undue self-interest, they should not claim that
"manufacturers have approached the problem of smoking and health, since they first became a matter for concern, with a full recognition of their responsibility to the public",
because that is not so.
Let us test their protestations by the statement of their own case, as made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, and the statements which have been made by others in the past week, not necessarily on their behalf, but certainly supporting their interests. First, may I say this? The theory of genetic susceptibility, which has been propounded by Sir Ronald
666
Fisher, is not accepted by any other statistician in this country. Secondly, it is a theory which moulds itself to the circumstances. When it was shown, for example, that giving up smoking tobacco lessened the risk of cancer of the lung, what happened? The explanation was given that there was a genetic propensity, not only to smoking, but also to the ability to give up smoking. So the whole of the argument became one of those vague scientific generalisations, which no scientist of note would accept.
The noble Lord mentioned Sir Heneage Ogilvie's impression that a happy man never gets cancer. Sheer unadulterated nonsense, my Lords! Anyone who has seen thousands of patients suffering from cancer, as I and my noble friends in medicine have, knows perfectly well that happy men can get cancer. Sometimes the happiest of men is struck in a moment as it were, overnight, and found to have a grave cancer. How many of us have known men of courage, men of great courage? I recall, particularly, the head of a great Oxford college, and the head of a great provincial university, who, knowing that they had cancer, remained happy men. That, my Lords, was courage. There is the rebuttal of what Sir Heneage Ogilvie, in his generalisations, has asserted.
Lastly, my Lords, on this point, may I say this? Dr. Berkson, of the Mayo Clinic, who was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, is refuted and rejected by almost all, if not all, of his medical colleagues in the Mayo Clinic; and I think rightly. There is no proposition in this world for which it is impossible to find someone scientifically trained, particularly if he happens to be a member of an organisation whose commercial interests are involved, to support a particular point of view. So I hope that we shall not accept the ad hominem and ad verecundiam type of argument which has been propounded by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve.
Now, my Lords, let us test the Tobacco Manufacturers' protestations. They assert that only a minority of even heavy smokers contract lung cancer or chronic bronchitis. But, it has already been said this afternoon that 1 in 8 of heavy smokers

667
—that is, smokers of 25 cigarettes or more a day—develop lung cancer; whereas, the chances against a non-smoker developing it are some 200 or 300 to 1. In 1960, 22,000 people died in this country of lung cancer, and the number will increase unless we do something about this. Have the tobacco manufacturers, in their recognition of their public responsibility, ever announced such figures? It has, indeed, been left to others.
My Lords, the second point, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, was that the Royal College of Physicians had presented only a partial argument. It should have presented the argument for atmospheric pollution as a factor in the causation of cancer. As President of the National Society for Clean Air I have an interest in the abolition of atmospheric pollution. I have often stated publicly the evil effects of the belching of millions of tons of smoke, from domestic fires and factories, and of dusts and the like into the atmosphere. I would run parallel to all that Lord Sinclair of Cleeve might have said about the evil effects of atmospheric pollution, except on one point; and that is that it in any way rivals, as a pathogenic agent, cigarette smoking in lung cancer.
The facts are clear, and they are indisputable. It is true that the incidence of lung cancer is greater in industrial urban areas than in rural areas. It is true that, at the centre of a large industrial area, the incidence of lung cancer is at its greatest. But the independent role of cigarette smoking is made clear by a multitude of facts in addition to those mentioned in the Royal College of Physicians' Report— which is, indeed, sufficient for most people to accept.
First, the incidence of lung cancer in an industrial area shows the same discrepancy as between the non-smoker and the heavy smoker. Secondly, as the Chief Medical Officer pointed out in his 1960 Report, in the Island of Jersey, where atmospheric pollution is perhaps less than anywhere around our islands, smoking is at its heaviest and the incidence of lung cancer is even higher than in this country. In Iceland, where no one can indict the atmosphere and where
668
cigarettes were introduced only during the Second World War, we are now beginning to see, as the Report showed last December, the development of cancer of the lung. In Israel to-day (I happen to know something of what goes on in Israel) the incidence of lung cancer is not unlike that in this country, except among the Yemenite Jews, who smoke through a water-filtered pipe. They do not use cigarettes; and in the last three years there has not been a single case of cancer of the lung amongst Yemenite Jews.
My Lords, such evidence as is available (and, as the President of the National Society for Clean Air, I have gone into this with great care) would suggest that a ratio of between 6 and 8 to 1 is the kind of significance which cigarette smoking has to atmospheric pollution. But, my Lords, is it not idle to argue that, unless we can remove all the causative factors of disease, we should do nothing to remove one? After all, with a bridge which is breaking under the strain of six tons when it can hold only five-and-a-half, you do not worry about removing the whole load; you remove such vehicles as will bring it down below its maximum strain.
A point which the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, emphasised on several occasions is that no specific carcinogen has been isolated from tobacco smoke. My Lords, I concede him that: no specific carcinogen has yet been isolated, although there are potentialities in many. But as the noble,Baroness, Lady Summerskill, pointed out, we should not have controlled smallpox in this country; we should not have controlled cholera or typhoid; we should not have controlled a very large number of diseases, if we had waited until the specific, necessary ætiological factor had been unmasked. Indeed, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who mentioned John Snow. And although it is nice to feel that, like King Alfred's cakes and King Canute's waves, he still believes in John Snow's Broad Street pump handle (and, although there may be some truth in that, it is very doubtful whether the handle was ever removed), what is true is that John Snow showed statistically

669
what Edward Chadwick had shown nearly 120 years ago: that there were factors in life—poverty, under-nutrition, overcrowding, dirt and so forth—all of which made a significant contribution to the development of disease. They did this by statistical measures— and, indeed, by statistics which were far less satisfactory than are the statistics presented to us in the Royal College of Physicians' Report.
A parallel argument is the one I have mentioned: that the College's Report has issued a general condemnation of cigarette smoking, and that this is not a constructive approach to the problem. But, my Lords, is saving thousands of lives a year not a constructive approach to the problem? I need hardly stay for an answer. Now, with the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Clceve— and, indeed, with all others— I believe that there is clearly a need for further research. I doubt whether money is the determining, inhibiting factor. There is a need for further research into the chemical and biological aspects of the problem, into the epidemiological and personal aspects and into the genetic factors, which may indeed ultimately tell us why some people who smoke cigarettes to excess develop cancer and others do not.
We are beginning to understand some of the interesting features of our genetic make-up. For example, it has been shown that if you are blood group "O", you are about 50 per cent. more likely to develop duodenal ulcer than if you are any of the other blood groups. Again, if also you happen to fail to secrete the blood group substance in your saliva, you are about 250 per cent. more susceptible to the development of duodenal ulcer, and so forth. In other words, these genetic markers might ultimately prove the determining factor as to whether we shall be able to tell our patients, "You may smoke with immunity". But, until we can do that, what is the prudent step? It is to advise nobody to smoke to excess.
My Lords, I said that there had been other supporters of the tobacco manufacturers in the last week: Mr. Chapman Pincher, in the Daily Express on Saturday last, and, in this week's Sunday Express, Mr. Colm Brogan. Now Mr.
670
Chapman Pincher is a distinguished scientific correspondent, and I fear that his scientific objectivity must have been extraordinarily hard-pressed last Friday, or whenever it was that he was writing his article. He told us what in fact has been said by Lord Sinclair of Cleeve this afternoon: that the incidence of cancer of the lung is rising in inverse proportion to the fall in tuberculosis. That has happened, it is true, in the last few years, but nobody who knows the facts attributes the statistical correlation to cause and effect. Tuberculosis has fallen because in 1949 we discovered chemical agents, drugs, which control the tubercle bacillae— streptomycin, isoniazid, PA5 and the rest. These are the drugs which have been responsible for the fall in tuberculosis.
Mr. Chapman Pincher suggests that we are getting better at the diagnosis of cancer of the lung, and that is why it has increased. But, my Lords, we are no better at diagnosing cancer of the lung in the heavy smoker than in the non-smoker; yet we find in the heavy smoker 15 to 30 times the incidence of cancer of the lung than in the nonsmoker. We are no better in diagnosing cancer of the lung in the age group 35 to 55 than we are after that age; yet we find a significantly increased incidence in that age. Indeed, as your Lordships know, the techniques of the diagnosis of cancer of the lung have become extremely exact: X-rays; bronchoscopy— that is, the insertion of an instrument to look down into the lung itself; exfoliative cytology— that is, examining the sputum for cancer cells; and thoracotomy, actually opening the thorax, if there be need to establish the diagnosis.
Again, Mr. Chapman Pincher suggests that the studies are really at fault, because they deal only with doctors, who normally have less than the average life span. That might be a suitable argument to the Royal Commission on the Remuneration of Doctors, but it is perhaps not wholly relevant to the present argument. Take simply one study—and it is an important study—that by Doll and Bradford Hill on the occurrence of cancer of the lung in doctors who confessed several years ago to the quantity of their smoking. Subsequently their death certificates were examined. Since

671
Doll and Bradford Hill started this investigation 2,000 male doctors and over 100 female doctors have died. Their deaths through cancer of the lung have been compared as between the smokers and the non-smokers, and again we find that deaths of smokers of 25 cigarettes per day in that period were twenty times those of the non-smokers.
Another argument which Mr. Chapman Pincher puts forward is that, if you stop smoking, you gain weight. He alleges (and I quote his words) that
"a 35-year-old man who is 1½ stone overweight has a life expectation of eight years less than normal "—
and I insert that that is, of 27 years, compared with 35. He also alleges that:
"a 45-year-old woman who is 3½ stone overweight halves her life expectation "—
and I insert that that is of 15 years, instead of 30 years. But, my Lords, these increases bear little relation to the overweight which occurs after giving up smoking. Of course many people put on weight. On average it is about half a stone, but gradually they lose this weight. It can be easily controlled by a little care, even in the rare instances in which there is significant overweight. Mr. Chapman Pincher goes on to make this, for a scientist, remarkable assertion:
"Of ten fat men "—
but he gives us no definition of "fat", which I think is scientifically deplorable!—
"aged 30, only six survive to the age of 60: whereas of ten slim men "—
and again there is no definition of "slim"—
"aged 30, eight survive to 60".
In other words, the slim man has a 33⅓ per cent. better chance of surviving than the fat man—whatever those terms may mean.
But the figures we have been given this afternoon—the fact that, at 35 years of age, a man who smokes 25 cigarettes has a 1-in-23 chance of succumbing during the next decade (that is, before he is 45), whereas the non-smoker has only a 1-in-90 chance of succumbing before that age—show that the nonsmoker is not 33⅓ per cent. more likely to survive, but over 400 per cent. More
672
likely to survive. These facts have not been challenged. They must undoubtedly be taken into consideration, and I would suggest that for those who value life the choice is self-evident. It is not a risk either of being fat and becoming a non-smoker, or of being a heavy smoker and slim. Members of your Lordships' House who think that, if they look round, they will find their memorial, if they do look round may well find in this House over the days evidence of the truth of the proposition which I have mentioned.
I think I ought to deal with one other point, which is that in experimental animals no one has yet produced evidence of cancer by the inhalation of cigarette smoke. I can but say that smoking might be regarded as a somewhat unnatural procedure for laboratory animals. But is it not true that practically throughout the whole of experimental medicine, particularly in infectious diseases, we have to find the susceptible animal? In 1922, the whole of research on influenzal virus was changed because, by chance, it was found that the ferret— none of the usual laboratory animals, but the ferret—was susceptible to the influenzal virus, and then there was remarkable progress in our studies of influenza. It was with the discovery of the Cynomologus susceptibility of the monkey in poliomyelitis that our real advances in poliomyelitis began. It might be that we shall find a susceptible animal, and then I hope we shall have an 'admission, even by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, that statistical evidence was sound.
One piece of evidence which was put forward by Mr. Chapman Pincher to rebut all this was that, in one cigarette factory, observation over nearly 15 years revealed that of 11,000 cigarette smokers, one-third smoked over 20 cigarettes a day, and the death rate was well below the average. But, my Lords, this happened in a tobacco factory, and one wonders whether the observers in tobacco factories can approach the problem with the Olympian detachment which is necessary for a proper assessment of this problem.
In Sunday's Express Mr. Colm Brogan beseeched Mr. Powell to "call this scare campaign off."But, my Lords, this is not a campaign to frighten people to death; it is a campaign to frighten

673
people into life. So far, since the publication of this Report, one suicide has been reported, due, it is said, to the scare of cancer of the lung—a man of unbalanced mind. Every day since the publication of this Report, 63 human victims have died from cancer of the lung, and so I hope that that will not delay the campaign which I think should be inaugurated.
Mr. Colm Brogan mentioned another factor, that the heavy tea drinker was subject to dire catastrophy, and he quoted Chambers' Encyclopædia of 1867. But he forgot to verify his references, which is one of the great pitfalls of all publicists. Because what was described as the symptoms of what Mr. Calm Brogan says was heavy tea drinking was in fact in a single experiment, in Which the equivalent amount of theme or caffeine in twelve cups of tea was given to one man in one dose. My Lords, twelve cups of tea! After all, that is hardly equivalent to heavy tea drinking.
I must apologise for keeping your Lordships so long but in fact this is a subject in which, as many of your Lordships will know, I have been interested for many years, and about which I have ventured to make certain public pronouncements at different times. I am also Chairman of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee of the Central Health Services Council, which has from time to time made recommendations to Ministers on this topic.
The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, underlined the fact that the evidence is statistical. It is perhaps worth while recalling why cigarettes were indicted in the first place. It was because it was found, in certain industries in which there was exposure to irritative dusts and certain chemicals, that cancer of the lung developed, and when an attempt was made to try to unmask the cause, or one of the causes, or one of the contributing factors, which, if removed, might lessen the incidence of cancer of the lung, attention was drawn to this fact; and then started a series of skilful investigations which have led to the present situation.
Statistics, it has been said, might be made to tell anything. But few people complete the quotation, which is, "Statistics might be made to tell anything, even the truth." Walter Bagehot
674
said that life itself "is a school of probability". Good statistical evidence is as good as any other evidence; but it must be good statistical evidence and supported by a large number of reputable workers. The insurance companies of this country flourish on the basis of statistical evidence of life expectancy. And I have little doubt that the noble Lord's Tobacco Manufacturing Standing Committee and other bodies have not increased the expenditure in the last five years on tobacco advertisements by nearly four times without having had some statistical evidence to support the expenditure of that sum of money.
I know that statistical correlations do not necessarily indicate cause and effect. When I was a young man, the kind of argument one had to counter was that the relative frequency with which a physician visited a patient was statistically correlated to the likelihood of that patient's dying—which is, in fact, quite true, but there is something else to which both factors are more clearly related: again this type of evidence would show that bed is the most dangerous place in the world because more people die in bed than anywhere else. The fact relevant to-day is that the whole corpus of statistical evidence on this problem points to one irresistible conclusion: that excessive cigarette smoking is responsible in a considerable measure for cancer of the lung and that we could lessen the incidence to 10 to 15 per cent. if excessive cigarette smoking were overcome. It seems to me that it is sheer folly to neglect the implications of a statistical correlation, the chances of which being accidental are millions to one. That is the case which I think refutes what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve.
As I say, I have detained your Lordships far too long, otherwise I should have had something to say on the measures which might be taken to overcome this grave sore on the life of the country, but I do not propose to go on much further. All I would say is that I believe that some of the measures proposed in the College of Physicians' Report are sound; others I do not think are sound—certainly not the punitive penal deterrent of a tax on cigarettes, but I will not elaborate that now. I might do so on another occasion.

675
I think that health education has to play a part. As your Lordships know, the Minister of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland have set up a Joint Committee on Health Education, which has now been sitting for several months, under my chairmanship. I hope we shall be able to make positive, useful recommendations, but in the meantime I think we must be grateful to the Minister of Education for the circular which he has sent and to the Ministry of Health, because they will make some contribution.
If we were dealing with a more orthodox public health problem than that of tobacco smoking and cancer of the lung, we should have taken action on half the evidence which has now accumulated. This is not solely a personal problem. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord. Arran, that it is personal to decide what you should do, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the suggestion in the leader in this morning's Daily Express which states that it is anyone's right to go into a public place and offend others by smoking, because all of us who have practised medicine have been careful to exhort our patients to keep away from smoky atmospheres. Anyone susceptible to any bronchial irritation knows the effect which a smoky atmosphere can have.
The public is beginning to realise that in this conflict, on the one hand we have the voice of medicine—and I would remind your Lordships that 50 per cent. of doctors who smoked a few years ago have now given up smoking, and, after all, there are few judges more qualified to judge than they—we have the voice of the doctors, who are inspired by the dictum, salus populi suprema est lex—the good of the people is the supreme law—and, on the other hand, we have the tobacco manufacturers, who, I believe, will have to surrender to public opinion in this conflict.
A week ago there appeared in one of our daily newspapers this paragraph:
"If the Government is at last to launch a campaign designed to inform the public about the risks they run by smoking, the tobacco companies will inevitably find themselves in an unhappy position. Anxious as they may be to protect a means of livelihood, which until recently seemed both respectable and slightly dull, they can hardly argue that the information put about by the Government and Local
676
Authorities is simply untrue, nor can they claim that the spate of highly flavoured advertising into which they have been driven by competition affects only the relative success of particular brands; if it is effective for each brand in particular, it is effective in promoting the sale of cigarettes as a whole."
That is not a quotation from an antismoking pamphlet; it is not a quotation from an anti-smoking newspaper, if such there be; it is a quotation from a leading article of the Financial Times of March 14.
This is a conflict which the public must be helped to resolve. We have the tobacco manufacturers, with their commercial interests, threatened by the advance of medical knowledge. It is not as if they were meeting a normal necessary need of mankind. They offer for sale a potentially dangerous, habit-forming drug which, though it may give pleasure to hundreds of thousands, yet kills tens of thousands. And the giving of money for research is not a sufficient answer to this problem, which needs action. I hope that we shall all join in taking more active measures to ensure that the harmful effects of tobacco, if not eliminated, are at any rate minimised.
I hope that the Government will propose other effective measures. We cannot any longer delude ourselves that nothing in this field is certain. No man who is objective can refrain from asking himself, "Do I stop smoking, or do I continue to smoke conscious of the risk which I run?" I know that there is a sectional interest, but sectional interest must not be allowed to overrule the public good. If there is money to produce the tobacco tax, then there will be money to produce taxation to run our national economy from other sources—I hope health-giving sources. Finally, I would say this. If the financial stability of this country depends in large measure on a product with potentially grave, crippling and killing propensities, then it reflects little credit on us. I end as I began with Disraeli's dictum, that the health of the people is the surest foundation upon which their power and happiness as a State depend.
5.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I think this is the most unbalanced debate to which I have ever had the pleasure of listening in either

677
House of Parliament. So far, we have had three eminent but biased Members of the medical profession "shooting their line", one Earl from the other side who moved the Motion, and one noble friend of mine speaking on behalf of the manufacturers.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Shooting his line.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Yes. I said, one against three of the medical profession. I am not representing either side. I am inundated and almost overwhelmed by the amount of statistical information to which I have listened and by the number of long-sounding words of whose meaning I have not the slightest idea. So I hope I may be permitted to revert to normal English, after being submerged by this weight of information of a very specialised kind. There is one thing of which I can assure your Lordships, and it is that all they have done to me so far is to make it much more urgent that I should, as soon as I am in a position to do so, leave this Chamber and light at least one cigarette, and probably several more. They have certainly driven me to that. Unfortunately, I woke up this morning with a sore throat. But one must not pander to these things, so the first thing I did on getting out of bed was to light a cigarette, just to show my throat that it must not expect any sympathy from me. I may say that I am one of those confirmed believers in the words of the old music hall song, that
"A little of what you fancy does you good."
I really have not a lot of time for this stuff we have to listen to, trying to make us better people. I am not contradicting (I am not in a position to do so) what the Royal College of Physicians say; they know a great deal. But I am not by any means convinced that the conclusions of these eminent doctors have been substantiated by facts. I know some doctors, too. I was in Edinburgh last week-end and I talked to a number of eminent physicians. One of them said to me (and this has been referred to) that improved diagnoses during the course of my lifetime have made a great deal of difference; that they can now diagnose much more efficiently, and so on. I think there may be truth in that, because when I was young cancer of the lung was not, to
678
my knowledge, a fashionable disease; it has just taken over from the slipped disc.
An eminent surgeon in Edinburgh said to me, "If you want to go into statistics"—and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, has just said, that you can produce statistics of all sorts—" if you ever go to the theatre you will find the first six rows of the stalls are largely filled up with ageing gentlemen with bald heads, from which you might deduce statistically that sitting next to the footlights is bad for the scalp." But that in truth is not the fact: it is no doubt due to the fact that they take the trouble to book their seats early, because they are deaf, which is very wise.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): Why are they bald?
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Because they are old and deaf. It has nothing to do with the ladies of the chorus. I agreed with my very commonsensical taxi driver the other day. I was rather surprised, because he was flourishing a very rich-looking, gold-looking cigarette holder of some length and smoked with it as we drove along, while I was just smoking in the ordinary way inside the cab. When we got to the end of the journey I said to him, "Are you quite satisfied that that holder of yours will safeguard your lungs against these evils of which the Royal College of Physicians have been informing us?" He said: "No. It has nothing at all to do with that; it is merely that the holder enables me to smoke down to the bitter end and I do not waste any".
I trust that this Government, for whom I have always had a high respect—and I do not want to lose it—are not going to try to "governess" the nation. I do not object in the least to stopping smoking in places like the theatre, because there is an interval and one can go out and have a smoke. I do not object to prohibiting slot machines, because it is obvious that the young people, the under-sixteens or whatever you call them, can put the money in the slot and buy cigarettes at any hour of the night. I may say that I was first caught smoking a good deal earlier than

679
sixteen by my father, who seemed to object particularly to the fact that I was smoking his cigarettes. I hope the Government will remember the fiasco which occurred under Prohibition in America. I worked there for eighteen months at the height of Prohibition, during 1921–22, and I can assure your Lordships that there were two great dangers from which I suffered as a young man. One was the risk of getting drunk perpetually, because my friends always said: "We had better have another drink, in case we do not get one at the next place"; and the other was that one might be killed in the process, because there was such a lot of wood alcohol and poison going around.
I have talked with a number of these eminent medical gentlemen, because I have always been interested in their profession, and I am told that over-eating kills a good many more people than lung cancer does. If that be the case, why do not the Government take an active interest in over-eating? They might recruit my noble friend Lord Woolton again and institute rationing and see how the public enjoy that. But I hope to goodness they will not do so.
I do not think the case against smoking has been proved, and doctors will no doubt soon change their minds about the reason for lung cancer, just as they changed their minds, over a decade or so ago, about diet. My father was always much more sensible and said: "Always eat what you feel inclined to eat, and do not eat anything else." That is wise advice.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The counsel of perfection!
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Yes; if you can get it, of course. But as to statistics, it is not smoking that affects me or makes me ill; it is the smog and dust. About seven years ago, when I was in the Scottish Office, I was walking up Whitehall from the other place—it was the year when a cattle breeder from the North was putting handkerchiefs or face towels soaked in whisky over his beasts at Earl's Court to help them to breathe, but, strange to relate, I had not any whisky in my handkerchief. I said to my friend, "I cannot breathe." He said to
680
me: "Put your handkerchief over your month." I did that, but it did not seem to help. I then said: "I am going to be sick "—and I was. There is no doubt that I smoke heavily. I would not mind telling your Lordships how many, but it would not interest you; and the Lord President would only think more poorly of me if I told him. But smoking does not make me ill; it is this bad atmosphere.
Whatever people say about statistics, in Southern Ireland, in the rural areas (I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, has just contradicted this by talking about Jersey or some other place, but I am going to talk about the rural area of Southern Ireland) the death rate per 100,000 is 22, against the England and Wales figure of 87. It is almost exactly one quarter. I think that proves a good deal—that it is the bad, polluted, dirty atmosphere, and that is certainly the stuff which gets me down. I will not say any more, because I know the time is getting late. As I say, we have had four very hostile speeches to myself and my hobby or habit of smoking. I see that the noble, most reverend and learned ex-Primate is going to follow me. I do not really know whether I am going to get much support from him. My side have been having a pretty bad afternoon.
5.40 p.m.
LORD FISHER OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I should say that the battle over our bodies has been decisively won already, both by the Report and, as a final shot, by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead. What remains is the much more interesting battle, from my point of view, over the mind. The last speech has very properly introduced us to that side of the problem. I think we all have a sneaking sympathy with the noble Viscount, because he said—I was going to say, "To hell with these experts!". We all have that instinctive feeling that if too many scientific guns are brought up they must be wrong.
Having said that to my noble friend, I must now go on to the battle of the mind and say, first, in a sentence, that there is, of course, a Christian approach to this problem, as to every other problem. It can be put extremely shortly in one sentence: "Be on your

681
guard against greed of every kind." The old translation was "covetousness", but the modern translation is greed of every kind". The Greek word for "greed" is wanting more, over-indulgence, excess and covetousness of every kind. I was very interested to see that no less a person than the Chairman of Barclays Bank has recently restated this New Testament teaching in these words:
" It is a little, not a lot, of what you fancy that does you good."
I imagine that if it could be taken for granted that every citizen would do only a little by way of smoking instead of a lot, no problem would arise at all, but that is an aspect of personal and private morality. But the Medical Report has elevated smoking to a prominent position in the field of public morality and social welfare.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: A new sin.
LORD FISHER OF LAMBETH: A new public sin. I was a schoolmaster for 21 years, and I am very familiar with the problem of what to do with smoking. In boarding schools it was never itself regarded as a moral offence, but in the interests of welfare it was forbidden; and to break the rule was an offence. One had some sympathy with the people who broke it, but the offence remained because it revealed a spirit of lawlessness.
But, if I may confess it, there was always a contradiction in the teaching profession about this matter. Smoking was not a moral offence, and there was no reason why masters should not smoke, off the premises, in their private capacity. Yet at once a real moral dilemma presents itself. It is not satisfactory for a teacher and exemplar of good behaviour to have a double standard of behaviour—one open and official, which is free from all censure; the other, not before the boys; not on school premises; to have another double standard by which he could do in private those things which he was not allowed to do or expected to do in public. This applied not only to smoking but to drinking, betting, swearing, and to every other form of social indulgence. This became acute in some cases, when masters did these things and smoked to excess, and when boys were forbidden to do it at all. Boys were perfectly well aware of
682
this contradiction between the conduct they were supposed to observe and what this or that master did, and thus an element of hypocrisy was introduced. I should say that there was among the boys an element of sympathy for the master who exceeded the normal limits when he was off duty.
I need not repeat the medical evidence. It is obvious, I think, to most people, that there is this connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The Government accept these conclusions—indeed, they could not possibly do anything else. I suppose they could have taken the line that if people like to smoke to excess and so incur disease and hasten their death, that is their concern, and no concern of the Government's. But I wonder whether they could really hold that line. No man can live unto himself alone. What one man does, and does to excess, others will do, and will be encouraged to do, to excess as well. A private mischief always spreads very rapidly until it becomes a public mischief. The Government, therefore, rightly and inevitably, decided that they must do something to reduce this threat to the general health of the community.
What can they do? I am not going to refer to legislation of any kind, because I never think that is a good way of producing what is, in effect, an appeal to moral principle. It means only compulsion, of one kind and another, and punishment. It can only appeal, so far as I can see from the medical evidence, to a moral principle: setting the duty of self-control against greed, over-indulgence and excess—and that for the sake of the good of the community. In this affluent, acquisitive, aggressive and advertising society, many things are combining to compel people to see that, without a new measure of self-control and self-denial in many aspects of life, society cannot be saved, and the secret enemy presenting itself in manifold disguises, growing more attractive every day, is covetousness or greed. At the Guildhall last November, the Prime Minister, speaking of inflation, used these words:
"The indispensable condition for our prosperity is self-control."
That is a grave warning from a grave circumstance, and is far-reaching, since it must obtain in every aspect of our lives.

683
I am sorely tempted to turn aside to show how many aspects there are of life to which this maxim directly applies, but I will not; I will stick to the one subject before us. What form shall the Government appeal for self-control take? The Government know perfectly well that there is no "bite" in a general appeal to people to practise moderation. It does not stir a single sentiment in anybody. There is no challenge in, "You must be careful", and any smoker knows that in brute fact the real choice is between continued bondage to the habit, the complete freedom of giving it up altogether or never forming the habit at all. I am speaking of my own experience—and in this matter our own experience is far more valuable than all the statistics put together. We know that. After being a very heavy pipe smoker for 40 years, by the mercy of Providence I gave it up for a number of reasons—none of them fear of lung cancer because I did not know that was a conceivable fear. There were two reasons, one of which was my own self-respect. I could not tolerate that I should be in complete dependency on a piece of self-indulgence like this; and in fact I was spending on it far more money than I had any right to spend as a mere personal indulgence.
My experience is that of Lord Samuel, published in a letter in The Times to-day, that when you give it up there is a positive freedom and a positive benefit that lasts for the rest of your life. The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, talked about comparing the benefits. I should say that he would better take evidence from people like the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, myself and others. When he says that you cannot relieve tension without smoking, that is not true; you can, and I believe it wholeheartedly. It was not until I gave up smoking altogether that I understood how completely fallacious it was. My brain worked, quite frankly, better and more clearly after I had got rid of smoking than it did before.
What have the Government done? Of course they have gone to the teachers and said to them, "You must teach the children about this." That is always the first move of any reformer, to lay it on the children. This is what the Minister of Education says to the teachers:
684
"A positive effort must be made to discourage smoking among children and to prevent the formation of the smoking habit."
I think everybody will agree. But the Minister cannot conceivably stop there. He goes on to ask that teachers and non-teaching staff as well as visitors to the school will not smoke anywhere in school in front of the children. There you are once again: this double standard. It is all right to do it when you are out of sight of the children, but you must not do it while in sight of them. A double standard of that kind is unhealthy far anybody. "We must not smoke before the children" has to my mind an extraordinarily Victorian and hypocritical sound about it, and, of course, it really stultifies the efforts of the teacher to train children, because if he is going out straight away from the school to over-smoke he is not really going to put his heart into teaching the children to avoid this dangerous and hazardous practice.
We must remember that if he gives up smoking himself altogether in order to fulfil his duty as a teacher he may raise a real barrier between himself and his friends and members of other professions by having a totally different social habit from theirs. That is not unsolvable. There are a good many things in which I have different social habits from some of the people I consort with. One can stand it. But it is putting a great deal on teachers, regarding what has been accepted as a perfectly legitimate indulgence, to say to them that if they are really going to do their duty in answer to the Government's appeal they must give up what ordinary people do easily and to excess.
My Lords, the Minister cannot stop there. His circular goes on to ask for support from the parents; for parents and teachers to make common cause. He says:
"Success in any campaign to reduce smoking among schoolchildren depends upon many factors; chief among them are what kind of example adults are prepared to set."
This is the point I want to make. We must not dodge it. It is not a question of what the Government will do by legislation. If the Government were right in making this appeal to schools and teachers, if the Minister of Health was right, then the only decent thing for the community to do is to back them up, even though it affects its own self-

685
indulgence and self-discipline; and that is the heart of this whole matter. Can any of us make out a very good case for ignoring the whole of this? I do not believe it. Nothing will overcome that except the feeling that when the Government call for self-control in a matter of real national importance there is a need that every thoughtful citizen should back them up.
Is it a quite intolerable demand that every thoughtful citizen should give up smoking altogether? Is it intolerable? Whenever I go to Oxford or to Cambridge I always make the same inquiry. I ask undergraduates there how many of them smoke at the university. In my day we all did. The answer I get is always about the same: 50–50—fifty smoke, fifty do not—for various reasons. If that can happen among the youth at a university, not always notorious for their self-control and self-discipline, is it intolerable that thoughtful citizens should say, Well, I will be in the right half of this division"?
My Lords, I mean this quite seriously. Great spiritual renewals are often started over very trivial things. Somebody sets the tide going in a different direction. The great renewal needed in all aspects of our social life—and the Lord President himself has said this very movingly on many occasions—for our prosperity and salvation as a people, is the substitution of self-control and self-denial for covetousness and self-indulgence; and it spreads into every corner of public and private life, into moneymaking, sex, social habits and personal decisions.
I think it is good that this clear issue, this clear call to self-denial, is presented to our people in what is, in truth, a mere physical indulgence, easy to be dispensed with when one has made up one's mind to do so. But if it is allowed to become a tyranny, a real destroyer of self-respect and a threat to life, it is right, my Lords, that the Government should take this issue seriously. I think it is right that every citizen should take it seriously as well.
5.58 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships, and especially my noble friend the Lord President, will
686
acquit me of discourtesy if I have to leave the House before the debate concludes because I have an engagement which I cannot easily put off. In this debate it is important, I think, that we should declare our interest. My own interest is the same as that of my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn. I am, and have been, a very heavy smoker; I am not connected with the tobacco industry; I am not a shareholder in the tobacco industry; I do
not grow tobacco. But I think that, together with my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn, I have been in the years since my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve joined the industry in 1919, one of his steadiest and most reliable customers.
I do not think that that is anything to boast about. I think I differ from Lord Stuart of Findhorn here, in that I rather wish I had smoked less, though I must confess that when I did stop smoking for a period of three years I felt very much worse. I assure myself— though perhaps my wife would not agree with me; my doctor would not agree with me and certainly Lord Cohen of Birkenhead would not agree with me— that if I had not taken up smoking again I should by now have been dead because of over-weight and the strain that that imposed upon my heart. Nevertheless, I think that I have smoked too much; I think the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, has. Probably it would have been better for both of us if we had smoked less. And if I am critical of this Report of the Royal College it is not because its intention is to make people smoke less; it is because I think its intention will not be realised.
The noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, in what was a very powerful speech, if he will allow me to say so, said how disappointed he had been because when this subject first came up there was a momentary reduction in the consumption of cigarettes, and a momentary reduction in the trade the tobacco companies were doing, but that then it was all forgotten and the old pattern repeated itself. My criticism of this Report is that there is nothing in the Report that will prevent that from happening again. Some of the recommendations are good in intention rather than bad.
I myself believe that there is far too much advertising of cigarettes, but in

687
particular I think that the sort of combination of romance and moonlight on television with these cigarette advertisements is tasteless and ineffective. I feel that the tobacco companies would have nothing to lose, and very much to gain in public esteem, if by some self-denying ordinance they limited the quantity of advertising and controlled its quality. But I do not believe that advertising has as much effect on consumption as either the tobacco companies evidently do or the authors of the Report of the Royal College do. I think the problem is something far more fundamental and far more difficult than that.
Again, I support wholeheartedly the idea that there should be no smoking in cinemas and on public transport. That would make both cinemas and public transport very much more comfortable. But in my view we are deluding ourselves if we suppose that by prohibiting smoking in public places we shall reduce the consumption of tobacco and cigarettes. I do not agree. As we know, in the United States people are not allowed to smoke in cinemas or on buses; and yet the consumption of cigarettes, we are told, is higher in the United States than in this country, where we are allowed to smoke in public places. So I do not think that any great result will be secured from that recommendation if it is adopted—and I should like to see it adopted.
I am very doubtful, too, about these educational proposals. I do not think they will have the effect on young people, on children, that is expected of them. I do not know whether other noble Lords saw an account in the Press to-day of a child of nine who was a chain-smoker. The boy's mother objected very much, not because he was a chain-smoker but because, when he had finished his own cigarettes, he went through hers. If that is the kind of attitude of the parents over quite a wide section of the community, I do not think these measures of education in the schools are likely to have any great effect.
The most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, spoke of the thoughtful citizen, and asked: could he not give up smoking himself? Well, I suppose he could. But I wonder how much good it would do; because I am
688
afraid that the great majority of the citizens are not thoughtful citizens but thoughtless citizens, and those are the ones I think one needs to get hold of.
I should not for a moment dispute the statistical evidence of the Report. I am not a statistician. I know something of the weakness of statistical correlation. Nevertheless, I am reasonably satisfied, to the extent of 80 per cent., at any rate, that there is a direct connection between cigarette smoking and cancer of the lung. What I am not satisfied about is that this Report makes any serious attempt to deal with it, and I fear that it may succeed only in deflecting attention from the real core of the problem.
I have no doubt that my mind on this matter has been coloured by the same experience as Lord Stuart of Findhorn had, that of living for a couple of years in the United States during the Prohibition experiment. And what I should like to impress upon your Lordships is the possibility, at least—and I think it is a probability—that this problem of smoking is not so very different from the problem which faced the prohibitionists in the United States after the First War. Prohibition did not work there, and it will not work here. Of course, the Report does not ask for prohibition, and I think that is its weakness. Because again I would refer, if I may, to what the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth said: that in fact it is no use suggesting to a heavy smoker (and I think this is particularly true of a heavy cigarette smoker) that he should smoke moderately. All you can do is to make him give up. In other words, the logic of this Report is prohibition.
LORD FISHER OF LAMBETH: Voluntary surrender.
LORD COLERAINE: Yes; the noble Lord was talking about voluntary surrender.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: Surely the logic of this Report is to change from cigarettes to the less serious and injurious forms of tobacco, such as pipe and cigar. And even if cigar smoking may bring joy to the heart of Fidel Castro, and diminish our friendship with the United States, yet the Report makes that specific suggestion,

689
and, indeed, bases an enormous amount of its recommendations on that change of habit.
LORD COLERAINE: I realise that that is what the Report says, but again I do not feel that that is the kind of result that you are going to get by exhortation. You may get it from the thoughtful citizen. I do not believe in fact you are going to get it from the population as a whole.
I said a moment or two ago that I thought the Report would do very little good, and might even do harm, by deflecting attention from the core of the problem. Here I should like to say how impressed I was by the moderation and the fairness of the speech of my noble friend, Lord Sinclair of Cleve, and how impressed I was, in particular, by one part of his argument. That was on the importance of research. It seems to me that the real difficulty here is that, roughly speaking, one smoker in fifteen is going to die of cancer of the lung. That means that fourteen people are not going to die of it. I think that by whatever method of reason or persuasion you approach people and try to get them to adopt more rational methods of smoking, they are going to say, "I am sure what you say is right, but I am not the fifteenth man".
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I think I ought to correct the noble Lord. It is 1 in 8, and not 1 in 15.
LORD COLERAINE: I observed that the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, said one in 8 in his speech. I think he said that 1 in 8 who smoked more than 25 cigarettes a day. I believe that the figure for cigarette smokers as a whole is one in 15. But for the sake of my argument it is relatively unimportant whether it be the eighth or the fifteenth man, and I should have thought that the most constructive purpose that could be pursued in this problem is to try to identify that eighth or fifteenth man, according to how one looks at it. That can be done only by research.
This Report, I think, makes this serious omission, that it pays little attention to research. Indeed, the criticism which it makes of the Government in the past is one which, in an
690
other slightly different connection, one could level at the Royal College itself. The Royal College say, "How can you expect people to take seriously what we say about smoking when the Government do not endorse it?" I think that the tobacco manufacturers, and indeed the public, are entitled to ask, "How can you expect anyone to treat research seriously when the Royal College of Physicians does not endorse it in this Report?" I think that is a most serious omission.
If I differ from the recommendations of this Report and from the tenor of the conclusions of the Report, and if I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, it is not because I am not conscious of the reality of the scourge and of the need somehow to bring it under control—like all noble Lords, I was much moved this afternoon by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, to his visits to the wards in the Liverpool hospital—but simply because I take a different view from that of Lord Cohen of Birkenhead and, no doubt, from that of other noble Lords about the possibilities of political action. I do not think you can solve this problem by political action; nor, I think, does the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth. He thinks it can be resolved by renunciation. I believe it can be resolved by research. I am quite certain that, except in the long term, it will not be resolved by the publication of the Report of the Royal College of Physicians.
6.14 p.m.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, I want to speak very briefly indeed about one single aspect of the problem that we have been discussing to-day—namely, the educational aspect. The duty of the teacher is, of course, often mentioned when we are talking about this subject: the duty to prevent young people from smoking by all the means in his power, and not least by example. As one who has been a schoolmaster for 28 years. I should like to look a little more closely at what the teacher can really be expected to accomplish in this way. I am assuming, of course, in what I say that in fact heavy smoking, and particularly heavy cigarette smoking, can be said to shorten life. With all respect to the arguments that can, and will, be

691
produced in numbers on the other side. I do not believe that that is any longer an assumption. It may not have been scientifically proved up to the hilt with every loophole stopped that there is this casual connection; but for ordinary men in the way they act in life, even for ordinary scientists in the way in which they produce their beliefs, I would have said that this thing was proved.
The truth is that we have to look at this matter in a far cruder way than we sometimes do and just say to ourselves, "Here we have something, smoking; it is a form of drug addiction that is in fact shared by many of us." We sometimes defend ourselves by saying that it is a kind of addiction that is silly rather than immoral. Now we know—as of course we do know—that, in addition to being silly, it is dangerous. I am a heavy pipe-smoker and it is quite possible—I do this myself—to weigh the risk against the pleasure and to accept it. But that judgment, that weighing of risk and pleasure, is the judgment of an adult man. Knowing the risk, I simply cannot but feel that the young and immature must be protected and discouraged from the habit.
Exactly how much responsibility has the teacher got in this respect? A good deal is put on him in the pamphlet. He certainly has some. Like so many bad habits there is little doubt that smoking often begins with young people. It is one that schools should discourage, and of course they do discourage it. Schools in fact are about the only places where smoking has been consistently discouraged over the years. I know of no school, except perhaps one or two extremely progressive ones, where smoking is not discouraged—often drastically. But we have to be realistic about this, because I think there are here general questions of even greater importance than the one we are discussing this afternoon. I think it is easy for the community to shuffle off its sense of guilt on to the school and on to the teacher, and to say. "That is his responsibility; he must behave well; he must stop smoking. We can enjoy ourselves and surrender to this mild addiction and, if we are lucky, we can even make money out the habit that we expect him to deplore."
692
If we are taking examples, the most potent of examples is of course the home. Yet I wonder how many schoolmasters when they have remonstrated with a boy for smoking have found that his cigarettes were actually supplied by one or other of his parents. More important than that, I think it is illogical and even dishonest for us to allow the young to be bombarded by every kind of propaganda, whether it is by posters or newspapers or, most important and potent of all, commercial television, and then to demand of the schools that they should counter all this or remedy what is done, and appeal to the teacher to set a good example by stopping smoking himself. Even a newspaper as distinguished for honesty and integrity as the Guardian, and now even more distinguished, fell into this kind of disingenuity the other day when it had a leader exhorting teachers to do their duty and to stop the young smoking, and yet it itself draws part of its income from commercial television advertisements designed to make people smoke more. That sort of disingenuity is a symbol of a great deal that runs right through our society.
The schoolmaster feels a sense of cynical amusement, if not indeed of frustration, when he receives pamphlets and is exhorted to use his power to save people from this habit, while at the same time he knows that a sum of about four-fifths of our annual Government grant to universities is spent on advertisements devoted to confirming them in it.
My point is a very simple one. We must not expect more from formal education than it can perform, particularly when we allow it to end at the age of 15. At the age of 15—and 15 is not a great age—the great majority of our children are turned out into a society often with more spending money than they will ever have again in their lives. They are bombarded with skilful propaganda, backed by market research and aided by all kinds of statistical investigation, that associates smoking with manliness, romance, companionship and success. The schools, try as they will, are fighting a very uphill battle. This is an important point, because there are worse things that they try to fight against than lung cancer, which the teacher feels

693
are wilfully and successfully encouraged by society.
By all means let us do our best in schools, by exhortation, by films, by lectures, by whatever you will, which we will do; but if we are serious about this, we must take other steps as well. I am afraid that some of those steps must be legislative, because I cannot agree with the most reverend and noble Lord that a change of heart in society is likely to occur without some kind of legislative control. Tobacco addiction is manifestly not serious enough to make it necessary to prohibit cigarettes as we prohibit heroin. It will be unrealistic to suggest abolishing cigarette advertisements, although one hopes that one of these days some of the techniques of those and other advertisements will receive a longer and colder look than hitherto. But I think myself it would not be an improper invasion of liberty to insist that all such advertisements contain a plain statement that cigarette smoking is in fact a dangerous habit.
I think it would not be improper to make the price of cigarettes so prohibitive that young people would find it much harder to become really addicted—I should like to discuss this idea with my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead if he does not think that would work. I think it might be useful in preventing addiction. It would then be a matter of a few cigarettes rather than a number, which makes them addicts for life. It would not be an invasion of liberty to make smoking in public places the exception rather than the rule and "Smoking" carriages a good deal rarer than non-smokers. The specific protection of the young would be made more of a reality by abolishing the slot machines—which make nonsense of the law.
I am sure that such methods would encourage those who try to stop smoking in schools, for they would be sure that the community was on their side. Such methods, I think, would show a realisation of something that we too easily forget: that education is not something simply carried on in schools, but is the responsibility of the whole of society; that the battle to inculcate right attitudes and rational behaviour in the schools is apt to be a losing one—and will be a losing one—if it is all too clear that
694
powerful sections of society are pursuing quite different ends, not unsuccessfully.
6.25 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, like several other noble Lords, who have spoken, though I think a minority, this evening. I speak purely as a layman, having no expert qualifications, medical or industrial, nor as one with special responsibility for the young, like the noble Lord who has just sat down. I want to give your Lordships the impressions made on me by this Report, preceded as it has been by much authoritative evidence from previous years, including evidence from other countries, and followed as it has been by the statement of the Ministry of Health last week and by What has been said this evening.
I listened with great interest to the careful, responsible and impressive speech of my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. There are some things upon which I find myself in agreement with him. But I confess that nothing he or anyone else has said, or anything that has been said in the Press, for that matter, changes my main conclusion after reading this Report. What it recommends, the evidence it produces, seems to be sufficiently certain and serious to be a proper guide to personal conduct and to public policy. I do not for a moment contend that excessive smoking is the only cause of cancer. There are doubtless other causes and it may be the effect of smoking itself is chiefly in combination with those other factors. But, after the evidence to which I have referred, that in the present situation the smoking of many cigarettes a day—cigarettes as they are now, whatever may be the possibilities of making them less dangerous in the future, and in the present environment, both psychological and physical—may contribute to that danger, I cannot avoid the conclusion that if we could remove or substantially reduce this one particular habit we should make a substantial contribution towards removing one of the most horrible afflictions of man in our time.
I do not contend that we have absolute proof. I certainly agree with my noble friend that the continuance of research is desirable. I would only say that, pending the results of further knowledge or some further change in the situ-

695
ation, I think we ought to act on the assumption that this is sufficiently certain to be a basis for action. I would add this about research. I think it is highly undesirable that any research into whether or not cigarette smoking is a serious danger should be directly financed by the trade itself. It should be otherwise financed. Not that I doubt the good faith, either of the manufacturers or of those who undertake the research, but it is not a good psychological factor to those who conduct the research that they should know that those who are financing them would greatly prefer to have answer A rather than answer B. And, certainly on publication of the results of the research, its effect is likely to be to some extent discounted if it has not been originally initiated by a disinterested party.
Nor do I contest the probability that there will be certain adverse effects for certain individuals in the sudden cessation of smoking, or of heavy smoking. Perhaps there will in some cases be obesity affecting the heart, perhaps a great increase in nervous tension, and I would not say that it would be to the advantage of every single individual who has long been an addict to heavy smoking that he or she should now give it up.
As regards the general conclusions which I suggested just now, I think the evidence is now sufficient for us to act. I do not think that either the sale or the smoking of cigarettes should be treated as a vice, in the sense in which the smoking of opium is treated, and made a penal offence. I do think, however, that there are some things which can and should be done by us individually, by us in our many public and collective capacities, and also by the Government, too. I will suggest some of these in a few moments, but, by way of preface, I should like to remark that we must not underestimate the extreme difficulty a very great number of people who have been addicts for many years would find in substantially reducing or stopping smoking. The noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, told us that he has been able to do so and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said the same thing in The Times to-day, but they are not quite average people. There are, indeed, many people, less excep-
696
tional than they, who also have been able to give up smoking. But for a very large proportion of longterm addicts, it will be extremely difficult and perhaps impossible.
Non-smokers have often said to me: "Why don't people make a strong effort of will and end this bad habit? In a short time the urge would go." I always thought they were wrong, but I had no conclusive answer until the experience of the last war, when we had a human experiment of a very rare kind and on a very large scale. Millions on the Continent of Europe were forcibly prevented from smoking at all for some years and it might have been expected that by the end of that time the urge would have gone. Yet when cigarettes became available, but in scanty supply there was hardly any other commodity which was so eagerly sought after. You could buy almost anything with a packet of cigarettes. I say that, not to suggest that many people cannot and should not abandon smoking, but to show that it is not as easy as may have been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel.
I should like to add that I think cigarette smoking—and I speak as one who has been an addict at times in my life—partakes of the nature of a vice, as distinct from a luxury, in the sense that most people smoke cigarettes at least as much to avoid the discomfort of not smoking them as for the positive pleasure they get. I myself find that, when I want to take a cigarette, that is what is mainly in my mind. I do not get much positive pleasure, but it is uncomfortable not to smoke one. On the other hand, when I smoke a cigar it is not because I have had a strong urge to do it; it is because I get positive pleasure. Now, it is very much easier to forgo a luxury than to cut clear of a vice, and, in this sense at least, I think that cigarette smoking is a vice.
I remember during a period of economic depression being in Paris and going to buy a packet of cigarettes from an old woman in a kiosk. I remarked: "Well, madam, I hope you are not suffering too much from these bad times", to which, in that epigrammatic wit which you often find in all classes of our French neighbours, she replied at once: "No, Sir, I am not doing so

697
badly. You see, I have the good fortune to have my business based upon one of the principal vices of man, and there could be no surer foundation". I think there is some truth in her remark.
At the same time, there are many people who could certainly stop or greatly reduce their smoking. When to the motive of improving their own chances of good health is added a certain special responsibility, whether as doctors, as teachers, or as parents of adolescents and young people, it is not unreasonable to hope and expect that, with proper advice and proper encouragement by the Government, and in other ways, a great number of people—particularly those who have responsibilities of that kind—will attempt to discipline their own smoking.
One of the most unfortunate facts which has come to light in this Report, as well as from other evidence, is that a large contribution to the increase in the consumption of tobacco comes from what is, relatively, the new addition of women as smokers—it is a phenomenon of the last forty years—and also the more recent, rapid increase of smoking by children. As regards children, it is obvious that that is particularly undesirable. I think, too, that the increase in the consumption of tobacco by women on the scale on which it has developed is specially undesirable. I say that for two reasons. First, I am inclined to think—and I should be glad to hear the opinions of other people on this—that a woman who is a really serious addict finds it, on the whole, more difficult even than a corresponding male addict to give it up. Secondly, women exercise greater influence bath on children and upon social custom and etiquette.
They probably bear a bigger responsibility than men for the development of what I think is the uncivilised habit of sometimes smoking through meals. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who smokes during the course of a meal can really have a connoisseur's appreciation of the quality of the food he is eating. I trust very much that that habit will not become as prevalent in this country as it is in some other countries. I welcome very much some of the institutions and rituals which we have in this country. For example, if you are at a public dinner, you do not smoke
698
until after the Queen's health has been drunk. We also have institutions like colleges where, of course, it is an un-heard-of thing to smoke until after dinner. I hope that those restraints will continue and become more effective when other influences are brought to bear.
What, in these circumstances, do I suggest should be done, my Lords? I will only mention, in order briefly to agree with them, some suggestions which have been made. I agree about the prohibition of smoking in such public place as cinemas and theatres. There is the additional reason there that, apart from any effect upon your own health, you are polluting the atmosphere for other people who are either non-smokers or who, at any rate, do not want to smoke there and then—and you cannot segregate them as you can in a railway train.
As to the very obvious suggestion that you should just put up the rate of taxation to make cigarettes more expensive, which is tentatively suggested, I think, by the Report, on this I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and also, I think, with Lord Cohen of Birkenhead: I am not in favour of it. That is partly because I think we know, after long experience, that it has very little effect upon the total consumption except for a short while after a rise is made, and partly because, as the noble Baroness suggested, it has the effect of diverting expenditure within a family from the nonsmokers to the smokers, with undesirable results.
But I have another reason which has not yet been mentioned. I do not think it is desirable that the finances of this country should be as dependent as they are, still less more dependent, upon a habit which is as deleterious as the Government have now recognised this habit to be. Such a new addition to taxation to help the general revenues of the country would, I think, do much more to corrupt Government than to reform the smoker. When I say "Government", I do not mean the present Government: I mean any Government and the whole system of government and the outlook in Whitehall.
We must remember that it is over £800 million, I think one noble Lord has said, that is derived from the taxation of

699
cigarettes. That means that the people who principally profit financially from the tobacco trade are not those who grow the tobacco—they profit least; they are not even those who profit a great deal more than the growers—namely, those who manufacture the tobacco and sell it as retailers. No. The Treasury is by far the biggest profiteer, and I think that that puts a very heavy responsibility on them. It was perhaps excusable so long as we did not know what we now know as to how little effect on total consumption any extra tax has, and so long as we did not know as much as we now know about the evil effects of cigarette smoking
My Lords, I do not say that we should have no extra taxation. I think it might be desirable to have extra taxation on advertisements of tobacco, so long as that is not added to the general finances of the State but is specifically allotted to dealing with this tobacco problem. I think that the taxation of advertisement may be a good thing if it is kept out of the general finances of the State, but I am very much against merely taxing it and adding that revenue to the general public revenue, for the reasons I have mentioned.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships further, except to appeal to the Leader of the House (from whom I do not expect or ask a substantial addition this evening to the statement of policy that we have already had from his colleague in the other place, the Minister of Health) to tell us that the useful but very limited measures that have been suggested will be only the first step, and that the Government will consider very seriously what further steps are practicable and likely to be useful. I would just return for a moment to this one suggestion of reducing, if not of stopping, advertisements of cigarettes, which must have the effect not only of achieving their first purpose—that of making you smoke, if you smoke at all, this brand rather than that—but of increasing smoking in general. In particular, advertisements may render ineffective any exhortatory measures that the Government may undertake and may even make them seem hypocritical. That is particularly so if we remember, as we must, that, of the £11 million which is spent on advertising now, the greater
700
part is at the expense of the public revenue, because it is, of course, a deductible expense from taxable profits. My Lords, that is all I have to say, but I would ask the noble Viscount who is to reply to assure us that every effort will be made to follow this first step later by other appropriate action.
6.47 p.m.
LORD BRAIN: My Lords, after the comprehensive and eloquent speech of my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, it might have been thought that there was very little more that needed to be said on the medical side of this question. But past experience shows—and, indeed, some of the speeches by noble Lords made since his have shown—that there we some things which do need to be said again and again. Naturally we have been very much preoccupied this afternoon with the tragic toll of lung cancer, but I think it is worth while to go back for a moment to the more general effect of cigarette smoking an health, and this is reflected in the mortality risks far British doctors published in the Report of the Royal College of Physicians.
This shows that between the ages of 35 and 44 the death-rate for heavy cigarette smokers, from all causes, is four times that of non-smokers; between 45 and 54 it is about three times; and at later ages it is about twice the rate for non-smokers. For one who dies, there are many whose illness is made worse or who are partially incapacitated. This applies not only to lung cancer but to duodenal ulcer, to chronic bronchitis and, perhaps to a less extent, to coronary heart disease. So, apart from the specific question of lung cancer, there is a serious general effect on health, a seriously increased risk to life, brought about by heavy cigarette smoking. And, although doctors are able to give the right advice to their patients who suffer from these disorders, I think it is a good thing that the general public as a whole should know that they may be making matters worse by continuing to smoke. Far not all people, I am afraid, always take their doctor's advice.
The question of research has been raised, and the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, felt that the Report of the College should have said more about research. I am sure that the College would agree, and that all doctors would

701
agree, that there is great need for further research. It seems to me that where the noble Lord differs from the College and myself is in the fact that he thinks that further research is necessary before action is taken, and we think that the case is so far proved that no further research is necessary before we take action, however much further research may be needed to elucidate the problem further.
LORD COLERAINE: I would say effective action.
LORD BRAIN: Of course, research into lung cancer is part of the larger question of research into cancer as a whole, which, as we know so well, and as experience shows, is an extremely difficult problem. The one may be expected to throw light on the other. The suggestion has been made that it may be possible to discover by research which individuals are likely to develop lung cancer and which are not. This is certainly possible by some bio-chemical tests, or other investigations may settle this question, and it would clearly be of the greatest value if it could be solved. But I am not sure that the answer will come in that way, because one has to face the possibility that the reason why some people get lung cancer and others do not may be merely because it takes longer to develop in some than in others, and it may be longer than the normal life span of the individual. If that is so, it would not necessarily depend upon any test which could be detected by special investigations.
One difficulty which clearly troubles many people is the fact that some nonsmokers get lung cancer, and many heavy smokers do not; therefore, how can smoking be the cause of cancer? The fact is that in medicine it is very rarely that one disease has one cause. Causation is multiple. Many factors have to be present, and as a result of that, if a group of people are exposed to one causative factor, some of them may develop disease and others do not, because they who do not have not got the additional factors necessary. Let me illustrate that with a common disease which will be familiar to your Lordships, pneumoconiosis. That is the disease which is caused by dust and which is a hazard for coal miners. If you take 100 coal miners and expose
702
them for twenty years to the same concentration of dust, some will get pneumoconiosis and some will not. But I have never heard it argued that pneumoconiosis is not caused by dust, or that we should do nothing to prevent pneumoconiosis until research has shown why some individuals suffer from the disease and others do not.
Now I must say a word about atmospheric pollution. We have heard, it is true, that atmospheric pollution is, or appears to be, a factor in the causation of lung cancer, and that the incidence of lung cancer is very much lower in areas where the air is not polluted. Perhaps I may add one point to the one raised by my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead about Iceland. He told us that there lung cancer has begun to appear about twenty years after cigarettes were introduced. But there is one further significant fact. During that time they have introduced into the town of Reykjavik new methods of dealing with heating, and their air pollution has actually diminished. So there is a country in which a parallel rise in cigarette consumption and lung cancer has occurred at a time when atmospheric pollution has gone down.
I will not spend long in discussing what can be done about all this, but I should like to say that I agree very much with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, that this question ought not to be controlled by taxation. I hesitate very much to accept the idea that we ought to be taxed for our own good. If that principle is one which is introduced, it is very hard to know where to draw the line. If we knew that cigarette smoking inevitably did harm, there might be a case for it, but we know that that is not so. Moreover, it might, and I think it would, cause hardship to many people who, after many years of smoking, should not be expected, or could not be expected, either to give it up or to spend an increasing amount of their money on it. Similarly, I am doubtful about the wisdom of attempting to deal with this question by restricting advertising, again simply for the reason that if one starts to restrict advertising on the ground that the product advertised is bad for one, where is one going to draw the line?
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, may I just remind the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that we have in fact done this? We do not allow advertising of cancer remedies; we do not allow advertising of cures for tuberculosis; we do not allow advertising of a cure for venereal disease, and so forth. This has been done; it is no new feature. And although I should be the last to suggest that we should prevent advertising of all tobacco, I think there is a case for stopping certain types of advertising which not only offend the balance of good taste but in fact lure meretriciously a number of our young people to tobacco smoking.
LORD BRAIN: I appreciate the noble Lord's point of view. I think it is a matter for opinion and judgment, again, as I said, of where to draw the line. But I think we should all agree on the great importance of attempting in every possible way to prevent children and adolescents from smoking. There are many, perhaps obvious, ways of doing that—by education, and by example. But I think we still do not know nearly enough about what the causes of smoking are. I hope that the Government will be prepared to stimulate research into the whole question of the psychological and social causes of smoking in young people. Beyond that, I hope, as do so many other noble Lords, that the Government will be prepared to reiterate their acceptance of the Report and do everything that is possible to carry out the general recommendations of the College Report.
6.57 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I must first of all declare my interest in this matter. I have been a smoker of pipes for nearly 40 years, and during that time have smoked between 2 cwt. and 3 cwt. of tobacco, mostly produced by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. But I have also indulged in herbal mixtures, and have grown my own tobacco, too. I need hardly say that although I do not think that has so far given me lung cancer, my own tobacco certainly made me very sick. I also have a few tobacco shares, but not enough to influence my judgment in this matter.
It seems to me that when we approach this matter we must think of three background factors. We must remember that
704
certain foods, drinks and habits have in this nation always aroused strong passions. There are many people who regard it as their duty on earth to save man from sinful indulgence. That applies to tobacco, alcohol, white bread, tea, and I believe even coffee, at times. The Royal College of Physicians must be beyond suspicion as to their objectivity, but the Report which they have made, based not on their own researches, but on researches made by other people all over the world, has certainly been hailed with enormous satisfaction by all those people who regard it as their duty to save man from the sinful indulgence of tobacco.
Another basic factor is that medical knowledge is extremely imprecise. The certainties and the theories of one generation are flatly contradicted by the next in a most remarkable way. Thirdly—and this point has been mentioned—the great increase in the number of diseases which the medical profession can cure naturally leaves man at much greater hazard to those diseases which so far the medical profession cannot cure. As we see from some of the tables in the Report, pneumonia and tuberculosis of the lungs show sensational drops in mortality. Could it not be that those whose lungs are their weak spot, having survived these diseases, might have tended to fall victim to this other one about which we are talking? When one is considering cases in the past and present, I am told on good authority that twenty or thirty years ago many people who might have had lung cancer almost certainly perished of pneumonia. That was before antibiotics were invented to cure pneumonia.
When we come to the Report itself, it does not pretend to say that smoking causes lung cancer, but cencentrates on proving that lung cancer tends to attack heavy cigarette smokers. It admits that non-smokers get it, too. In fact, in my own small locality, I have heard of three cases of non-smokers who have lung cancer. The Report does not tell one in a very straightforward manner all these facts. They are wrapped up in graphs and percentages, drawn from surveys by various groups of people, and it is difficult to discover which table or graph is drawn from which survey of what people.

705
In one case, the class appears to consist of 500 British doctors; in another, of 187,000 American men; but somewhere else there is some question of 3,000 British doctors. I find it difficult to tell from where the percentages and graphs are derived. It seems to me that it could be misleading to deduce too much from too small samples. In one table it seeks to show that a large number of doctors have given up smoking for fear of lung cancer. It is a little difficult to reconcile Figures 4 and 5 in the Report, but it appears that whereas, in 1951, 200 out of 500 doctors were non-smokers, ten years later the number had risen to 250. The noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, and the Report hail this as proof of the wisdom of doctors in their fear of lung cancer, but I think that there is a much more ready explanation. Between the years 1951 and 1961 the inflation in this country bore most hardly on the income group to which doctors might be expected to belong and I have no doubt that a great many of those 50 doctors who gave up smoking gave up because they decided that they could not afford it any longer.
It would have been nice to be told, in Table 2, the percentages of the total number of deaths in the nation, instead of picking out individual diseases. When we turn to the figures of coronary diseases among, presumably, the same 500 doctors, we get some rather queer results. It would appear (I hope I have this right; I have shown the calculation to somebody else and he has checked it) that if you are a British doctor between the ages of 54 and 74—and a male British doctor, I may add, for the benefit of the noble Lady opposite—to avoid the risk of death from coronary diseases, you must smoke between 15 and 24 cigarettes or between ½ oz. and 1 oz. of tobacco a day. That is a large amount, far more than I have ever smoked. Surely this shows that some of these samples and surveys are of to. o small a span from which to make sound deductions for the whole of the population.
The Report admits that no one has caused lung cancer in an animal through causing it to inhale tobacco smoke, but says that nothing can be deduced from this fact. If the reverse had been
706
true, and somebody had produced lung cancer in an animal through causing it to inhale tobacco smoke, would it also have been said that nothing can be deduced from this? I think that the Report would have been much better to show the figures derived from the mass X-ray of the British people. Like many noble Lords, I have been "done", and millions of people must have been "done".
I was told that one object of the exercise was to discover lung cancer. Why can we not be told how many of these millions have lung cancer, and why cannot these cases be followed up and their smoking habits tabulated? That would have been far more valuable than graphs derived from samples of doctors. With all due deference, I do not regard doctors as the last word in the interpretation of the figures of mortality. I should prefer to go to the life insurance offices, and I understand that none of the big life offices, at any rate, offers any discount to the nonsmoker.
However, one must accept that the figures in these surveys, despite their limitations, show that lung cancer is more common among heavy cigarette smokers. But, of course, everybody has known for years that over-indulgence in anything, is bad, whether it is drugs, food, drink, tobacco or anything else. Tobacco has some good effects. It stops people getting too fat. It stimulates the brain in some, and it soothes the temperament in others and it helps move the bowels—and in a constipated country like this, that is not without merit.
Of coarse, over-indulgence in tobacco must he bad. We have all known that. When I was young, athletes did not smoke, and people used to ask, "Do you inhale?" Now it seems to he taken for granted that anybody who smokes a cigarette does inhale. I do not think that used to be so 40 years ago. As my noble friend Lord Fisher of Lambeth said, for the better-off classes in the public schools, smoking was absolutely prohibited, and the prohibition was enforced by the rod. It did not worry any of us, I must say, how much our masters smoked. We knew that it was bad for the boys and against the rules, and when we got

707
caught, we accepted our punishment with equanimity. We did not have any moral qualms about one law for the masters and another for the boys.
But now, when the better-off classes leave school, they find that they cannot afford to smoke, so many of them do not. None of my children smokes, nor any of my sons-in-law. They cannot really afford to. They have other things to spend their money on. But with the wage-earning classes at day schools, the masters may manage to stop them smoking on the premises, but they cannot possibly stop them once they leave the premises; and as they have too much pocket money they can indulge themselves liberally. Directly they go out to work, they earn the most enormous wages, with very small obligations, so that they have a tremendous capacity for affording smoking.
I think that we ought to do every, thing we can to discourage people from inhaling cigarettes. If they want to smoke cigarettes, let them try to smoke without inhaling—or preferably smoke a pipe. I mean the sort you put in your pocket, and not the "hubble-bubble" which the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, appears to recommend, which is nice but rather impracticable. Moreover, we should encourage them to ration themselves to a given amount of tobacco a week, in order to obey the injunction of my noble friend Lord Fisher of Lambeth. We ought to discourage smoking in public places, in shops, cinemas and buses, because it is apt to be a nuisance to everybody else. I believe that there is more non-smoking in railway trains than there used to be before the war. I believe that this has nothing to do with fear of disease, but is due to the fact that the commuting classes have been hit by the inflation and cannot afford to smoke so much as they used to do. Even so, I think that we might increase the number of nonsmoking carriages.
At the same time, we must do much more research on polluted atmosphere, because there is some queer relationship between diseases of the lung and the atmosphere in some of the industrial parts of England. We must also spare no money or effort on research so that in the course of time we may
708
well achieve the great object of knowing what causes cancer, and then we shall know what we are talking about when we talk of lung cancer.
7.12 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, this Report of the Royal College of Physicians struck me when I read it as a compelling and convincing document. I was delighted that the Minister of Health in his first reply in the House of Commons on the Report was quite definite that the Government accepted its conclusions and were equally convinced by the evidence. Had I been left in any doubt, I confess that those doubts would have been removed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, which, if he will allow me to say so, was one of the ablest speeches that I have ever heard in Parliament. But the main conclusion of the Government announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health was to make the facts revealed by this Report generally known. That seems to me to be a quite admirable step. I think it was the noble Baroness who opened from the Benches opposite who said that that was insufficient, and more was needed. But I do not think we ought to under-estimate what can be brought about by the simple spread of knowledge of the facts.
One of the remarkable facts brought out in the Report itself is the great effect on the smoking habits of doctors that has followed their own experience. In my view, if the facts in this Report become more generally known, we may get an alteration of habit amongst the general public not dissimilar to the results that have already happened among doctors as a result of their professional experience. But the really difficult question, it seems to me, is not in deciding that this Report of the Royal College of Physicians is substantially right or that the Government are completely right in their first step of making the knowledge revealed in the Report more generally known, but what are the further steps that ought to be taken.
One of the suggestions, which I think has commanded the support of all speakers who have mentioned it—and I think it may encourage Her Majesty's Government to adopt it, or to encourage local authorities to adopt it—is pthe

709
restriction on smoking in public places and in public transport. I think that has received support in every quarter of the House from all noble Lords who have spoken. I think we are also all agreed that anything like prohibition would be completely out of the question; and that view, again, is held by the authors of the Report themselves. I thought for a time that the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, thought that there was a quite strong moral case for something like total abstinence from tobacco, if it were voluntarily achieved. I confess that he did not convince me entirely. Of course, I belong to a class of smoker which the noble Lord pronounced to be non-existent. He said that everybody either smoked to excess or not at all. On an average, I smoke one cigarette in three days—which I am told is impossible—and it would not give me the least difficulty to give it up altogether, although I do not think that that would give me that great sense of moral responsibility which it seemed to give to the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, when he indulged in the same experiment.
Nevertheless, on this question of the prohibition of smoking (though nobody suggested it), it does not strike me that it would be so morally disgusting as the prohibition in America was. That seemed to me to be morally quite horrible. A lot of people said at the time that it might be all right and noble in theory, but it would not work in practice. But the exact opposite was the truth. It might conceivably, I suppose, have worked in practice, but in morals it was quite horrible. To give up such a splendid thing as wine because you cannot indulge in it in moderation seems to me morally horrible. I have pointed out before in this House that the tee-totaller shares with the habitual drunkard an inability to take wine in moderation.
We then come to another matter that has been suggested, and that is to do something about advertisements. Here I must say that I share the doubts expressed by many noble Lords, and particularly, I think, by my noble friend Lord Brain, who asked: If you stop the cigarette advertisements, where are you to draw the line? I confess that I see so many half truths or complete lies told
710
in advertisements of every kind that my own remedy, such as it is, is not to ban advertisements, but to try to teach the public to have the same utter disbelief in any advertisement they read that I think is the mark of the educated man. The general growth of scepticism that can be expected to follow education is perhaps the greatest thing we can hope for in this particular matter. For those reasons, I think the Government are quite right to put the spread of knowledge of this Report and the truth it contains in the very forefront of what they are doing; and I would repeat that we should not think that that step in itself may not have great results. I have suggested, as have other noble Lords, one or two other steps that might be taken.
I now come to the point where I find myself, I will not say differing from noble Lords who have already spoken, but at least expressing a sentiment which none of them has expressed. It is this. If, with full knowledge of the facts, an adult chooses to go on with this dangerous habit and thereby shortens his life, that fills me with far less horror than the thought that there are many who have their lives shortened, not because they indulge in any nasty habit, but because other people are permitted to indulge in dangerous habits, or even because the Government themselves indulge in habits injurious to health. I share, of course, the views that have been expressed on the horrors of lung cancer, but, as I say, if an adult, with full knowledge of the facts, runs that risk and dies prematurely, that fills me with far less disgust than the fact that there are hundreds of thousands and even millions of people who are suffering ill-health or sleeplessness from the thoughtless indulgence by others in unnecessary noise.
I very much hope that the Royal College of Physicians will follow their researches into these matters, by researches on the subject of noise, and by expressing themselves very strongly on the result. It so happens that this is a subject on which I suppose I have had most contact with distinguished members of the medical profession. I was the principal legal adviser of the first Lord Harder in his attack on the noise problem in the original Anti-Noise League, and there was a certain amount of legal reform that I was able to bring about. I think I was succeeded in the post of

711
legal adviser by my noble leader for a short time, who, I may say, on my advice was chosen by the Committee of the Anti-Noise League and asked if he would become our legal adviser. I am now talking about a matter very long ago, but he may possibly recall it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, I do.
LORD CONESFORD: Noise is relevant, as we know from recent interventions and questions and debate in this House. It is Her Majesty's Government themselves who are proposing the antisocial atrocity of a helicopter station in Central London, and the local authorities who are resisting it. I hope that if the Government are unable to go as far as some would wish in following up this Report and in preventing lung cancer, they will at least refrain from promoting ill-health by insisting on unnecessary noise.
Let me mention another matter. What about the consumption of sweets by children? I understand that the consumption of sweets is greater per head in this country than anywhere else in the world. I believe that our children have the worst teeth. But perhaps one of the eminent doctors will state whether that is right or wrong. Certainly the badness of our children's teeth at quite an early age is attributed by the medical profession to the excessive consumption of sweets.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, surely nobody ever died of eating too many sweets.
LORD CONESFORD: I have not the slightest idea, nor do I suppose has the noble Earl. I think a good deal of ill health results from having bad teeth. When I was a boy at school, I remember some boys were unable to enter the Navy because their teeth were not good enough. The matter was considered a great disaster, because the Armed Services attached importance to the quality of people's teeth and, I suppose, with some reason. I disagree entirely with the idea that the condition of people s teeth does not matter; and the idea of teenagers having to have false teeth strikes me as disgusting.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I was suggesting it was less bad than dying of lung cancer.
LORD CONESFORD: I think my noble friend is attaching too much importance to dying. If a person dies perhaps in his sixties, because he has indulged, with full knowledge of the facts, in some habit which was bad for him, that seems to me a lesser disaster than that children should go through life with rotten teeth.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I suggest that one of the reasons why children have such rotten teeth is that they no longer have bone pen handles to gnaw at school? They have fountain pens, which they cannot gnaw.
LORD CONESFORD: I leave the reply on that point to the Minister for Science, who will no doubt have a great deal of learning about it. I have merely given the two examples of noise and sweet consumption as matters of which the Government might take notice, as well as this question of smoking, the importance of which I am not denying for one moment but which I think cannot be treated as the only thing which need worry us.
I was very much interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, who dealt with the question of the teachers. I was also struck by the circular and by some remarks I saw in the Press which were attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the present Minister of Education, who said that school teachers must take great care not to smoke in the presence of the children. I do not think they do. Just as, when I was at school, the children took considerable care not to smoke in the presence of the teachers. But the exact advantage which the Minister of Education sees from having the two lots smoking in separate rooms was not entirely obvious to me.
Then the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, asked, "What about example?" If the adults gave up smoking, what a splendid example to the children in the home! I wonder whether he has met the modern child. It seemed to me that, if a child in the home saw that neither of his parents was smoking the only effect would be that he would say that they were both "squares". I do not believe the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, has begun to consider the difficulties of this plan.

713
I want to associate myself with what has been said by my noble friend, Lord Salter, by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, and, I think, by others. It could be a weakness in the Government's position that the finances of the Welfare State are based as largely as they are on the taxation of this industry that we are considering. I have sufficient faith in the present Minister of Health, and in my noble friend who is to reply to the debate, to feed quite confident that this fact will not influence the Government when they come to consider what their duty is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, that if this great source of revenue were denied us there would be others that could be tapped. But, of course, we are very far from any threat of losing that revenue.
If I admired enormously the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, I must say I admired and enjoyed almost equally the speech of my noble friend, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, who expressed with great vigour the reply to the more extreme statements of those who would unduly curb our freedom. In conclusion, I would say that I naturally, as do the Government, fully accept what I think is the admirable Report of the Royal College of Physicians. I think that the Government have taken the right first step and I am glad they took pit so promptly. I think that even that first step, of giving information, will prove a good deal more effective than same people think, because—I gave this example when I think my noble friend the Leader of the House was not in the House—of the alteration of the doctors' own habits in recent years because they had knowledge of the facts that this Report has revealed, and so many other facts. But when the Government are asked to take further extreme measures I hope they will not do so without full consideration of all the consequences involved.
7.32 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, it was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, say that he is capable of smoking one cigarette every three days, because in the light of this Report the noble Lord is undoubtedly, in that particular respect, an unusual person. One of the passages of this Report which particularly interested and appealed to
714
me was the conclusion of paragraph 82, which reads:
"While many if not the majority of people enjoy alcoholic drinks on relatively infrequent occasions, however, there are very few occasional smokers. Most smokers consume a regular daily amount of tobacco. It appears that smoking is generally much more habit-forming than drinking."
I feel sure that this is perfectly true, and that the great mischief associated with tobacco is really the habit-forming nature of it.
There is one aspect of this matter which, perhaps, it is rash, at this stage in a debate of this length, to say has not been mentioned so far; but, at any rate, I think I can say that this has not been emphasised, although perhaps it is so obvious that it need not have been emphasised. It is this: that for every patient dying of lung cancer there is more than one ordeal. There is the ordeal of the dying patients themselves; there is the ordeal of the people who have to look after them. I am not thinking only of near-relatives nursing people who ought, in many cases, to be in their prime of life, sinking slowly and inevitably towards a dreadful death; I am thinking also of the nursing profession. The question I ask myself is: what right has a man to subject not only himself but a young professional hospital nurse to the ordeal of nursing him through a long, distressing and painful disease, knowing that there is nothing that can be done about it, but that he is going to die, when he knew perfectly well that it was brought on by a dangerous habit which surely, with more thought, he could have forsworn?
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, also who made the point (I hope I am paraphrasing this correctly) that it is for grown-up people to decide for themselves whether or not they run this risk. My Lords, it is not only the person himself who suffers this terrible distress if this dreadful disease attacks him: those who have to look after him also suffer. I do not think that point has been very much emphasised to-day in this debate, yet it is one that ought to be kept in mind.
That was not the tenor of the observations that I intended to make this evening. What I intended to speak about was the question of legislation,

715
whether or not further legislation is necessary. On the whole, noble Lords have expressed the view that further legislation is not entirely desirable, but I think that it might be worth while very briefly to look at the existing legislation concerning children and tobacco, and to see whether it is adequate, in the light of present-day thinking on the subject.
Legislation on this matter goes back to the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, Section 7, and the first subsection makes it an offence to sell tobacco to a person apparently under the age of 16, with a proviso that no offence is committed if the seller had no reason to believe that the tobacco was for the child's own use. In my submission that proviso really undoes the whole of the good that the subsection does in the first instance. Surely all that happens is that the conscientious tobacconist asks the child, "Who are these cigarettes for?" The child merely says that it is buying the cigarettes for an older member of the family. The conscientious tobacconist then says to himself that he has no reason to believe that these cigarettes are for the child's own use, and the cigarettes are sold. It may be some use having this section so far as villages are concerned, where the shopkeeper knows his customers; but I believe that in towns children can, with impunity, ride the proviso, as it were, and buy cigarettes over the counter to their heart's content merely by saying that they are buying them for older members of the family.
Then one comes to the next subsection which deals with slot machines. I was very pleased to hear the noble Earl who opened this debate mention slot machines, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn. I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Viscount mention slot machines and speak against them, because there was not so much that he said that was in sympathy with the speech of the noble Earl who opened this debate; and I think the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, also added his name to those who spoke against slot machines.
The position under the Act of 1933 is that if it is proved to the satisfaction of magistrates that a slot machine is
716
used extensively—that is the word used, "extensively "—for selling to children, then the magistrates, if so satisfied, may make an order. But what does "extensively" mean in this connection? If one child buys one packet of cigarettes every day from a particular slot machine, is that machine being used "extensively" to supply children? Or if ten children buy one packet of cigarettes a week from a particular slot machine, is it being "extensively" so used? And is the criterion in this matter the same in Oxford Circus as it is in the outskirts of Chorlton-cum-Hardy? One wonders what this word means in this connection and how the police are going to enforce the law. Are the police, who, we all know, are already understaffed and overworked, to lie in wait near suspicious slot machines, compiling statistics to discover how extensively the machine is being used by children? In my submission this really will not do.
There is only one answer here, and noble Lords have expressed this already: that slot machines in places to which children have access must go. I suppose at this stage I ought to say, as the lady says over the loudspeaker at Waterloo station, that I am sorry for the inconvenience that is going to be caused hereby to many members of the general public. But I am not. In my submission, it is perfectly easy; if grown up people forget to buy their cigarettes over the counter during shopping hours, and if they are so unfortunate that they cannot buy them in the evenings over the counter from cafés, or from theatres, restaurants or public houses, then, in the interests of keeping children away from cigarette slot machines, those people must wait until the next morning. It is very inconvenient if you run out of bread after shopping hours. If you run out of bread on Saturday evening you perhaps have to wait until Monday morning; but people survive this experience. In my submission, there is no question about it here: cigarette slot machines in places to which children have access must go.
There is only one other subsection that I propose to mention and that is the next one, subsection (3), under which if a policeman or a park keeper in uniform sees a child apparently under the age of 16 smoking in a street or other

717
public place it is his duty to confiscate the cigarettes or the tobacco in whatever form it is. I do not know to what extent this is acted upon by the police—I suspect very little. No doubt the police, again understaffed and overworked, have up to now considered that this was not one of the more important of their duties. I should like to see chief constables instructing their forces that this is from to-day one of the important parts of their duty. I believe that if police officers were seen to be dealing severely with children found smoking in public, the whole of the public would be encouraged to deal severely likewise. When I sit in a tube train and see a boy of 10 sit down opposite to me, look me straight in the eye and light a cigarette, I feel that this is a piece of effrontery. I feel there is nothing I can do about it. But if the police were to make a determined effort to stamp out smoking in public by the under-sixteens I believe the whole of the adult population would be encouraged to take part in that campaign.
That is all I have to say. There is one sentence in this Report which has already been quoted once by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. It was some time ago when she had the opportunity of quoting it, and I think it is so good that it bears repetition. It is at the end of paragraph 103:
"At present both social custom and commercial pressure outbid the voice of caution, and the balance must be redressed ".
7.45 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, two schools of thought must necessarily pervade this debate which has been so admirably introduced by my noble friend Lord Arran. One is that the Report of the Royal College of Physicians is another example of the whittling away of the liberty of the individual, and the second is that it is a sensible, workmanlike and easily readable document. I incline to the latter view. As a non-smoker I, of course, lay myself open to charges of prejudice when I criticise smoking habits. But I am the last person to criticise smoking in itself: it is all a question of degree.
One can argue, as my noble friend Lord Conesford did most admirably, that the eating of sweets by children can do harm. And I must confess a partiality for confectionery myself, pro-
718
bably due to the fact that I do not smoke. As regards children and sweet-eating, the answer must, at least to a large extent, lie in the hands of the parents. My own eldest daughter is now six. Like any other normal child she enjoys sweets. When she goes to the dentist, which is fortunately rarely, he gives her a little lecture on the care of the teeth and also on the importance of not eating either too many sweets or sweets of poor quality, and I must say that she is very co-operative. So I think that rather "heavy weather" is sometimes made of the harm that sweets can do to children's teeth. Harm it certainly can do; but, as I say, the remedy is in the hands of parents, and if necessary the teachers, and should be rigorously applied.
Excess of smoking can, of course, do tremendous, and probably fatal, damage; and it does not need even an admirable Report of this kind to convince one of the common sense of abstention. Excess of alcohol can cause cirrhosis of the liver, excess of sweet-eating or other foodstuffs can cause tooth decay and stomach upsets. But this Report, whether it is a good Report or not, has, one hopes, achieved one thing: it has got into the minds of the public. And I notice particularly to-day how much discussion there is of the virtues or otherwise of smoking. I believe that for that reason alone the publication of this Report is extremely worth while.
The question of smoking in public places is something on which I feel very strongly, and I hope that the very sensible recommendations of the London County Council and the Manchester City Council will be applied without delay. There is absolutely no reason why anyone cannot sit through an act of a play or of an opera without smoking. After all, people do not, one hopes, produce a bar of chocolate and start munching it.
LORD TAYLOR: They do!
LORD AUCKLAND: So why should they light up a cigarette? For one thing, it is bad manners, so far as the per. formers are concerned, and it is certainly most inconvenient for any singers, operatic or otherwise, because invariably the smoke drifts towards the stage. It is argued by some that actors on the

719
stage smoke in order to give atmosphere to the drama of a play. To my mind that is a completely irrelevant argument. I hope that the Government will take into serious consideration what the London County Council and, one hopes, other county councils and city councils will in future legislate for.
The Daily Express has been sensitive about the criticism which it has incurred on another matter; but this paper is really asking for criticism when, in its comment column to-day, there appears this deader:
"It cannot be a serious suggestion that cigarette smoke can harm anyone except the smoker."
This leader refers to smoking in cinemas, theatres and public places. I submit that it does harm. If there are 2,000 people in a theatre, 600 of whom are smoking, whether it be cigarettes, cigars or pipes, the atmosphere becomes fouler and fouler; and I think that it is not a denial of liberty that legislation should be brought in to ban this habit. After all, it is done on the Continent and in other parts of the world; in fact, it is already done in a good many theatres here. I do not think that bookings would decrease; in fact I am not sure that they would not increase.
Turning to restaurants, and particularly restaurant kitchens, I think that public health authorities should use greater influence to make sure that smoking is forbidden in these places. It is by no means unknown for one to be served with a plate of fish and chips, or something like that, with a film of cigarette ash around it. It is quite obvious how it got there. As for railway compartments, I see that a Question was asked yesterday in another place regarding the provision of more "non-smoking
" carriages. I hope the Government will take note of that point, and will provide more of these carriages because they add to the comfort of one's journey. I do not say that out of prejudice, because I believe that even fairly heavy smokers like to travel free from cigarette smoke.
I was interested in to-day's Daily Herald, which has a column of opinion concerning those under 25. The question to-day concerned the banning of smoking. Of six youngsters who were
720
asked about their views, only one said categorically that smoking in public places should be allowed; at least two of the other five said categorically that it should be forbidden, and the remainder had qualifications as to how it could be carried out. Surely that proves that young people are not all for the burning of the infernal weed.
With regard to television advertising, those of us who watch I.T.V. know that it has good programmes, but often one has to sit through tedious advertisements for various types of cigarettes. I have in mind what I might call a particularly seductive advertisement for a cigarette known as "Strand". Whether or not it is worth the man's waiting for his girl friend who is late, and whether or not this particular brand of cigarette gives him comfort and soothes his temper, I do not know, but I should greatly doubt it. It seems to me that these advertisements are just plain stupid. Whether or not they help to sell the product, I do not know. What irritates me and a number of other people about these particular advertisements is that in the course of one evening something like six brands of cigarettes are advertised. If they concentrated on perhaps two per evening, that would be reasonable. But why must viewers be subjected to five or six?
Now how do you cure youngsters of smoking? I was twelve when I smoked my one and only cigarette. I had about two puffs; I was violently sick, and I have never touched one since. So perhaps it is not a bad thing for youngsters to have the initial puff. It may well put them off for life—although certainly I think that school children should be rigorously banned from smoking. I was most interested in the remark made by the Minister of Education at a teachers' dinner at Letchworth the other evening, when he said that the deflating of the ego was the answer. If the girl friend were to say to her boy friend, "With all the money you spend on cigarettes over a period of four weeks I might have bought a new dress", he may think twice about continuing smoking. Perhaps he will not. It is worth trying, and I commend it to young people.
This has been a useful debate. Those who criticise this House, whether in Time and Tide or elsewhere, might take

721
note that all sections of the community, the doctors and the tobacco "barons", are not as bad as they are painted; they are honest men. After all, one might argue that television tycoons or whisky distillers also sell products which might be potentially harmful; so I think it is not entirely right to single out the tobacco magnates. But, in all seriousness, I hope that the Government will pay great heed to this well-worded document which the Royal College of Physicians have produced.
8.0 p.m.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I am positively terrified after all the brilliant speeches made by the
"dottori" and "dottorina", and my contribution is going to be very short, as we are running rather late. I know it is very fashionable to-day to attribute lung cancer to cigarette smoking. I would not seek to dispute the integrity of the Report of the Royal College of Physicians, nor do I claim that there is no connection. I would ask your Lordships to consider, however, that there are other prime aggravants, not to say causes, of respiratory cancer. I speak particularly of diesel emission. In my capacity as Chairman of the Diesel Exhaust Fume Abatement Society I have statistics which are frankly, to me, terrifying. The increase in male deaths from respiratory cancer between 1937 and 1960 was 350 per cent. During the same period deaths from respiratory tuberculosis in males fell from 680 per million in 1937 to 106 per million in 1960. It can be assumed that the conquest of T.B. over this period has led to the survival of constitutionally weak-chested men who are more liable than average to chest diseases, including lung cancer.
Taking this into consideration, I think some new fact must have caused such a tremendous increase. A clue here is that respiratory cancer is more prevalent in town dwellers than in countrymen. My good friend, Mr. Arthur Dickson Wright, has said that in his experience the townsman's lungs are black, the countryman's pink. I do not know whether your Lordships read in the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, March 14, the letter from Lady Fergusson Hannay—Doris Leslie, the authoress—whose late husband was my Society's doctor consultant on diesel fumes. The article was headed "Tobacco
722
or Diesel?" Sir Walter died from cancer of the lung and had not smoked for 25 years. My noble friend Lord Amulree earlier in this debate mentioned a mouse. Sir Walter Fergiusson Hannay used to stand in Blackwall Tunnel with a mouse in one pocket trying to smell diesel fumes, and in the other pocket he had a mouse that he was trying to affect by cigarette smoke. A similar case was raised in another place on March 14 by the !honourable Member for Falmouth and Camborine. This involved an Admiralty employee who, though a nonsmoker, died of cancer of the lung. He had been working among diesels for a considerable time.
The emission of factory smoke is waning in the cities as smokeless zones are introduced; yet respiratory cancer is not waning in those areas. Petrol engines were with us for many years before the cancer increases of the last three decades, but diesel engines were not. Since the introduction of the diesel, lung cancer has increased. I appeal to you, therefore, my Lords, to use all your influence to prevent the public from blaming smoking entirely for causing this disease for which it cannot be entirely to blame.
8.4 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Earl for initiating this debate. In the past we have been fascinated by his account of drinking large quantities of whisky in order to test his reactions to motor-car driving. We have also been interested to read his account of how for a time he donned the guise of a "Ban the Bomb" gentleman. Now he comes to us as a "Ban the Smoking" enthusiast. In common with all of you, I admire his enterprise and am grateful to him, speaking as a tobacco manufacturer, for giving us this opportunity of ventilating this subject so thoroughly to-day. Nevertheless, though the noble Earl opened the debate with great moderation, I must just record it as my personal opinion that I think it is a great pity he saw fit to introduce into this debate the choice of our Gracious Majesty the Queen in this matter.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? If Her Majesty has set a fine example, I think it only right that it should be recorded.
LORD AMPTHILL: I rise to intervene in this debate for reasons which will appear in declaring my interest, which I must do. I am a director of a company manufacturing cigarettes, tobacco, snuff and cigars. I have worked for this company for 27 years; I have been a director for 25 years. I am not a tycoon or a "baron". Until two years ago I was a hard-worked factory director, working my shoe leather pretty hard in walking round seven or eight factories every week. I have a further interest to declare in that I have smoked both cigarettes and a pipe since I was 18 or thereabouts, and I will always smoke a cigar when anyone is kind enough to give me one. My father before me smoked cigarettes, cigars and a pipe, and in his day it was possible to obtain in your Lordships' refreshment room very decent cigars at a very reasonable price. This is not possible to-day, thanks to successive, if not invariably successful, Chancellors of the Exchequer.
I may add that, when turning over some old papers quite recently, I found that my grandfather, who had a not undistinguished diplomatic career in the 1870s or thereabouts, invariably rolled his own cigarettes. He is on record as saying that a cigarette helped him considerably in his diplomatic duties, particularly when dealing with difficult customers such as Bismarck. However, despite this smoking background I can fairly claim to be a reasonably moderate smoker. I must say that I smoke more than the noble Lord who sits in front of me, who, I think, said he smoked one in three days. On the other hand, I am not a 25-a-day smoker.
Before I proceed with the few remarks I wish to make, I should like to mention that—I fear, like all too many of your Lordships—I have had some very sad personal experiences with cancer. Several friends and relatives, including one lady particularly near and dear to me, have been carried off in the prime of life with little or no warning. I mention these personal experiences briefly to show that I am conscious of the dangers and horrors of cancer. I can truthfully say that in none of these cases with which I came into personal contact was the victim anything but a very light smoker,
724
if he or she smoked at all, and in any case the disease had not attacked the lungs—though in one case, the saddest of all, it spread to the lungs towards the end. In all these cases the doctors and surgeons told me, or all the immediate relatives concerned, that they did not know what caused cancer, and that there was nothing they could do except possibly to arrest the spread of the disease by operation and/or deep ray therapy. I believe that to be the position to-day. No one has the faintest idea of what causes cancer, with the result that no one knows how to cure it. This Report by the Committee of the Royal College of Physicians bases its findings almost entirely on statistical evidence and not on proven scientific facts.
My noble friend, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve has dealt with the tobacco manufacturers' attitude to the scientific and medical aspects of this Report, and it would be both presumptuous and unnecessary for me to attempt to add anything to his very able and comprehensive review. At any rate, I could not attempt to emulate the way in which he dealt with this subject. I can only echo his words, that the real lesson of this Report is the need for more and more research, and not only into tobacco smoke.
I think my duty to-night is to try to examine some of the conclusions and recommendations in the Royal College of Physicians' Report, which bear upon commercial rather than medical and scientific matters. The Committee say that
"most smokers suffer no serious impairment of health or shortening of life as the result of their habit".
And a little later in their Report they go on to say:
"There can … be no question of prohibiting a habit which most smokers enjoy without injury to their health".
Having made these very reasonable comments, they go on to recommend a number of courses of action to the Government, which are expressly designed to discourage smoking by all who wish to smoke, whether or not they are among the minority who may be susceptible to diseases rightly or wrongly attributed to smoking. In fact, in paragraph 96 the

725
Committee describe their recommendations as
"preventive measures of general application".
But although in paragraph 100 the Report states, too, that
"we cannot identify the substances in tobacco smoke that may be injurious to health ",
nevertheless they recommend that the smoke analysis should be printed on the packet. Most proprietary medicines have a note of their constituent parts printed on the label. How many people read these or, if they do, understand them? If the medicine or the tablet gives relief, they take it; if it does not, they do not. People smoke cigarettes, tobacco or cigars which give them pleasure, and I do not honestly think that they would pay any attention to some formula marked on the packet.
There are other considerations which, in my view, do not make this a very practicable proposition. Surely, it would make sense only if the figures stamped on the packet enabled a smoker or his medical adviser to decide which cigarette brands were the safest. In this context the figures would be meaningless, simply because it is not known at the present time what substances in cigarette smoke, if any, are harmful. The Committee themselves say:
"it is not known what part nicotine plays in the hazards of cigarette smoking ".
What purpose would be served by stamping the nicotine content on the packet?
The Royal College of Physicians' Committee also recommend that packets of tipped cigarettes should carry an indication of the efficiency of the filter. My Lords, the company for which I have the honour to work introduced the very first filter-tipped brand into this country; and my first job with the company was setting up a manufacturing department, so I do know a little about filter tips. But the Committee suggest that we should put an indication of the efficiency of the filter, so that
"the purchaser could distinguish a more from a less efficient filter".
Cigarette smoke consists of a cloud of fine droplets suspended in gas, and the only practical effect of a filter tip is to retain a proportion of the droplets. The harmful substances, if any, might be in the gas; they might be in the droplets. If there are any in the gas, the filter
726
would not trap them. Thus, any statement on the efficiency of a filter tip would be both meaningless and misleading.
In paragraph 118 of their Report the Committee say—in my view quite rightly:
"No claim should be made that any particular brand of cigarette was safer than any other."
Since nobody knows what, if anything, is dangerous in tobacco smoke, it is indeed impossible to claim that one brand is safer than another. Therefore, with all respect, I suggest that the Committee are being inconsistent in recommending a course of action which could only lead to unjustifiable and misleading comparisons being made. For these reasons, as a manufacturer, I am very strongly opposed to the recommendation. Even if it were known beyond doubt that tar and nicotine yields meant anything in the health context, there are really serious practical difficulties in implementing the Committee's recommendation.
As your Lordships know, tobacco is a natural product. It is subject to very wide variation in composition from time to time. Rainfall and sun, to which the crop is exposed during its growth to maturity, both have their effect. You can buy tobacco from field "X" this year and from field "X" next year, but the character of the 'tobacco and the composition will be quite different owing to these varying conditions. Moreover, manufacturers in their buying and subsequent blending operations go to immense trouble to maintain the consistency and character of their brand. This is done for obvious commercial reasons. Nevertheless, it would be well-nigh impossible, certainly very difficult, for any manufacturer to maintain the so-called tar and nicotine yields within the rigid limits implied by the recommendations. There is one other practical point on this recommendation which I think I should bring to your Lordships' notice. It is that it would be very unfair to quote these yields, if they were to be given, as "per gram of cigarette". They would have to be on a "per cigarette" basis, because cigarettes are bought and sold as units and not by weight.
I should now like to turn, if I may, for a very short time, to the Committee's recommendations in respect of adver-

727
tising. They recommend that the Government should conduct an expensive publicity campaign to educate the public, adults and more particularly children, in the hazards of smoking. They also recommend, on the ground that such a campaign would be frustrated by the industry's own advertising, that the Government should prevent or restrict the latter by legislation. Other noble Lords have spoken a lot of sound sense on this subject of advertising, and I propose to cut my remarks rather shorter than I had otherwise intended to do. In the first place, I do not think that the public are short of information on the dangers of smoking. The Chief Medical Officer said in his last Annual Report that the public does not lack information. There have been public announcements in another place, and wide publicity on sound and television broadcasting. I will not waste your Lordships' time by going over the details, though I have them here.
The tobacco companies' commercial advertising has in no way affected what is, in my submission, the considerable volume of information reaching the public, through one means or another, on the strength of its news value. On commercial advertising itself, the Report says:
"Much of this increased expenditure has been devoted to establishing loyalty to particular brands of cigarettes and no advertisements have specifically encouraged heavier smoking."
That statement is perfectly true, but the datum year shown for the increase referred to is 1955, and I should just like to put this to your Lordships: 1955 was the year in which our industry emerged from a long period of shortage of supplies. Tobacco was on quota, cigarettes were on quota and so on; and so, very naturally, advertising was restricted to the minimum. At that particular time I had shortly come back from the war, and before going into the factory chair I was at that moment sitting in the sales chair, so I can speak from personal knowledge that it was not possible to advertise then.
At any rate, in 1955 free competition was restored, and since the industry is a highly competitive one (as the Monopolies Commission found) expenditure on what is called brand promotion in-
728
evitably increased. Then came the advent of commercial television, and the total advertising expenditure in the tobacco industry went up, just as it did in nearly every other industry selling consumer goods. Nevertheless, my Lords, the tobacco industry's total advertising expenditure in the Press and on television is only about one-half of the national average. In 1960, for example, it represented 1½d. in the pound of retail sales, compared with 3d. in the pound for all consumer goods and services. I think that this fact shows beyond dispute that the tobacco industry's expenditure on advertising is not excessive in relation to its actual sales. In any case, the Report itself says:
"It cannot be assumed that the increase in advertising is the only or even the main reason for rising tobacco consumption".
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine (I think it was), said that he was not at all sure that advertising had so much to do with rising consumption as some people thought. That is a doubt I have sometimes shared, I must say. But in the same paragraph of the R.C.P. Report it records that in Czechoslovakia, where there is no direct advertising of tobacco, cigarette consumption per adult rose by 14 per cent. between 1953 and 1958, which was exactly the same rise as in this country—and that I find rather interesting, my Lords
In fact, of course, no manufacturer can afford an excessive expenditure on advertising. Like all costs in a highly competitive industry, there is every reason to keep it as low as possible. For example, take advertising the nationalised industries. I do not think there is a great point in it, but the nationalised industries find advertising necessary. What should we think if somebody came along in the future and forbade the Air Corporations from advertising in order to boost the sale of railway tickets? But should the Government decide to accept the Committee's recommendation to restrict, or prevent, advertising of tobacco goods, I think they would find it very difficult to find any halfway house to total restriction—a restriction which I think the citizens at large might resent.
I agree with the noble Lord (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Brain) who asked: if you put on a total restriction, where will it end? If you put on a

729
partial restriction, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, having regard to, say, matters of taste (my noble friend Lord Auckland talked about seductive goods, and so on; I forget all the other epithets which were used about advertising: I do not know whether he was referring to my company's advertising, or to my noble friend's company's advertising), I think that there would he a great difficulty. What body would decide whether an advertisement for "X" brand was in good taste or bad taste, or was right or not right? Personally, think that it would be much better for all concerned—I expect that all manufacturers will read this debate—that the manufacturers should he trusted to do the right thing. I also think that it is right that all manufacturers, whatever they manufacture, should be forced to come right out in the open and say what they have to sell and why they are trying to sell it. I have tried to imagine what conditions must be like in Czechoslovakia, where direct advertising of tobacco goods is apparently forbidden or restricted. Suppose it happened here. One can imagine the sort of whispering campaign that would go on—"Try X-brand", "So-and-so recommends Y-brand"; and so on. I really think it is better to bring the whole thing out in the open.
Still on the subject of advertising, the Report itself says:
"The tobacco manufacturers have never encouraged smoking by school children and have never in the slightest degree aimed advertising at them".
It says:
"No attempt has ever been made to secure advertising space for tobacco goods in boys' and girls' papers or to advertise cigarettes in the breaks on children's television programmes".
I can assure noble Lords that, though I have not been in the industry as long as my noble friend, I have never heard any suggestion that anything like that should be done. The tobacco manufacturers are well aware of the law which prohibits the sale of tobacco to children under sixteen, whether for their own or for another's consumption, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for reminding us of the details of that law. I found his speech particularly interesting. The manufacturers will be glad, naturally, to assist in any measures to make the law more widely
730
known, because, regrettably, we all know of cases where it has been broken.
Then there is the very difficult question of the slot machines, which has been raised by more than one noble Lord and by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. The manufacturers find this, and always have done, for more than one reason, a very difficult problem. The slot machines have been put in more as a convenience to the consumer, and even more as a convenience to the shopkeeper who does not want to keep his shop open or who has not opened his shop. Nevertheless, I freely admit that slot machines are a difficult problem.
But in the main, my Lords, surely, the question of children is a matter for parental discipline. It is a matter for both fathers and mothers, even more than for schoolmasters. There was a little boy on television the other night who said that he smoked. He said his mum knew but his dad did not. He added that if his dad did know he would get a tanning. Of course, the answer is that his mum ought to have given him a tanning, too. Then, again, I think that many parents—and I find this in all walks of life—give their children far too much pocket money. I am thought to be very mean because of the amount I give my children. My son aged eleven gets lld. a week—ld. for each year of his life—and my little girl of nine gets 9d. a week: but I know that other children get far more than that.
There are shopkeepers, of course, who sell single cigarettes to children under sixteen. Of course they are breaking the law; but they would have less incentive to do it if the parents exercised more control, and also kept their children a hit short of pocket money. My father forbade us to smoke until we were eighteen. I went to sea at 161, and the Navy forbade smoking until one was eighteen. I admit that this rule was broken on guest nights, when the junior midshipmen were allowed to smoke after the Royal toast, but if one was caught at other times, the "sub." of the mess took the necessary action on one's posterior, which of course is what one should do with children who smoke before they are 16. By and large, my brothers and sisters observed our parents' wishes and instructions. Now three of us smoke in

731
moderation; two do not smoke at all, and never have. In my young days the fashionable theory was that if you smoked it stunted your growth. I forget how often I was told that. All I can say is that all my brothers, whether they smoked or not, are the same size as I am.
Another main recommendation of the Committee is that there should be an increase in the tax on cigarettes, with perhaps adjustments of tax on pipe and cigar tobacco. At present the basic duty on tobacco is 64s. 6d. a lb. With the 10 per cent. surcharge, if my arithmetic is correct, the total duty now is 70s. 11½d. per lb. This represents 3s. 4d. tax on a packet of cigarettes sold at 4s. 6d., and is the highest rate in the world. The Royal College of Physicians' Committee is doubtful whether increasing the duty would have any long-term effect on cigarette smoking, and I must say that I share their doubts, unless the tax were put up to an absolutely ridiculously penal figure. What is certain, though, is that it would penalise the many millions of smokers who do derive pleasure and solace from smoking, and who, as the Report so clearly shows, do not develop the diseases in question. I do not think that this is a course which it would profit the Government to take, even if they were prepared to face a further increase in the retail price index.
But actually there are practical difficulties in the way of a differential tax on tobacco used for cigarettes as opposed to that used for pipe tobacco. Some types of flue-cured tobacco are used in both cigarettes and pipe blends. Then what about the tobacco blend for people who roll their own cigarettes? To those who are not familiar with the tobacco industry, I may say that all tobacco is stored in bond, and every day at 4 o'clock in the afternoon you give a cheque to the collector of customs for the tobacco you draw the next morning to bring to your factory. Great difficulties would be created if you were drawing out certain flue-cured tobaccos; you would have postively to identify them as one thing or another.
Finally I must put on record my personal opinion, which is that excessive smoking, like excessive drinking and ex-
732
cessive sweet eating (I could not agree more with what has been said about that), is bad for one. Excess in any of the pleasures of life, among which I personally count tobacco, frequently attacks the weak points of an individual's constitution, and disease of one sort or another will follow. My Lords, I do not believe—if I did I would not be standing here to-night—that moderate smoking, whether it be of cigarette, pipe, or cigar, causes any harm. I have spoken of moderation, so I think I should apologise to your Lordships for the immoderate length at which I have spoken at this very late hour. But as I have already told your Lordships, until recently I was a factory director responsible for a group of factories employing several thousand people among the many thousands, about 40,000, employed in this industry, and I felt that I owed it to these loyal and decent folk, many of whom I have known intimately by their own Christian names for 25 years or more, to come and speak up for this clean, healthy and efficient industry, temporarily, I hope, under a cloud—in my submission, an utterly false cloud, certainly not of its own making. All of us in the tobacco industry are proud of it and its record of service to the community, more particularly in the two great wars of the century.
8.36 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, at this very late hour I do not want to detain you for more than a few moments. I did offer to scratch, but the noble Earl who moved this Motion to-day told me that he thought the two points that I proposed to make had not been made, and therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will inflict them upon the House.
I gather that it is almost obligatory in this debate to start off with what I might describe as a short case history. May I say, therefore, that in my own case I did indulge in the habit at school. Once or twice I was, in the immortal words of Lord James of Rusholme, "drastically discouraged"; I remember the incident very well, my Lords! After I left school I indulged in this practice for a certain number of years until the war. Then I began smoking much too much, and in the middle of the war I had the 'flu, As your Lordships know, immediately after 'flu one does not particularly want

733
to smoke, so I decided to renounce it; and I cured myself of ever reverting to the habit of cigarette smoking by smoking cigars. It was not possible to get many cigars during the war, but one could get very long things called "Trichinopoli cheroots "—I do not know whether your Lordships have seen them. I was in the habit of smoking those things occasionally when I went out, but, of course, not inhaling. I managed to smoke no more cigarettes, and to this day I have never smoked more cigarettes, though I do have the occasional cigar, which I like.
I believe that one thing emerges from the Report, and indeed from this debate; and that is that, on balance, and in the average, cigarette smoking shortens one's expectation of life. Not all lives are shortened, of course, by cigarette smoking. Some people, I think, live to the age of 90 or so while smoking up to, say, 40 cigarettes a day. That is possible. But I do not think there are many such people. Possibly a few would die if they gave up cigarette smoking—I think was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine—but again, I do not think there would be many. The plain fact, I think, is that a considerable number of inveterate cigarette smokers do undoubtedly die of cancer of the lung, bronchitis, heart trouble, and so on. There are certainly more deaths in the ranks of inveterate cigarette smokers than outside them. Therefore, if you want to live for a long time, it is obvious that, among other things, you should stop smoking cigarettes, if you can. It seems to me that this particular point has now been established beyond reasonable doubt.
The real question before us, it seems to me, is: Should the Government take any action in order to reduce the consumption of cigarettes, and thus undoubtedly improve the health of the nation, or should they not? Here, a major question of principle arises. Is it in order for the Government to prevent people from doing something which gives them undoubted pleasure, and which causes no harm to people other than themselves? I do not refer to the practice of smoking in public. I think there is a case for preventing smoking in most public places. But irrespective of that, is it in order for the Government to deprive people of a pleasure which
734
does not, broadly speaking, do any harm to anybody else? If, knowing the risk, many people want to continue the pleasure, have they not a right, to put it bluntly, if they want to, actually to shorten their own lives? Maybe quite a number of cigarette smokers really do not want, consciously or unconsciously, to live till 80 or 90 years of age. If so, must they be forced to do so? To penalise such people would seem, on the face of it, to be an attack on the essential liberty of the individual.
As against this, there is no doubt at all that nicotine is a habit-forming drug and that once the practice of cigarette smoking has been adopted it is very difficult to get rid of it. So no doubt we have large sections of people who do not want to shorten their lives, either consciously or unconsciously, and therefore would gladly give up cigarette smoking if they could, but who simply cannot. This is the point I want to make. It is arguable that such people should be helped to drop the habit and should be told what are the means of doing so. I think that I am right in saying that there is some counter-drug which helps people to do this. If so, could not Government-sponsored advertisements of such facilities be of real help to people who want to be rid of the habit and do not know how to do it? The resultant loss of revenue, if that is considered to be an inhibiting factor, might be compensated by a possible rise in productivity.
There remains the question of children. Obviously, it would be better if children did not smoke at all. They are, of course, not supposed to smoke at school—that is to say, up to fifteen, at any rate. At public and secondary schools this rule applies presumably up to seventeen or eighteen. But there is nothing in law to prevent them from smoking outside school, unless it is the influence of parents. As it is only cigarettes which are alleged to be harmful, it might be argued that from the earliest age it would be the duty of somebody, presumably the parents, to impress this fact on young people, This might be rather difficult in practice. Would young Tommy be beaten if a packet of Gold Flake were found in his drawer but in no way punished if it were full of pipes or cigars? How-

735
ever, in principle, I think that every effort should be made to impress on young people that there are definite dangers in cigarette smoking. Parents and school teachers, even if smokers themselves, should be urged to spread propaganda. Teachers might be circularised about the right arguments to be used in support of their charges against the use of tobacco.
What is the general moral to be drawn? Obviously, adults cannot and should not be forbidden to smoke cigarettes. On the other hand, they might be warned of the effects of so doing. I think that the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, made that point. How could this best be done? It could, of course, be laid down by law, that every package containing cigarettes—the individual sale of which in slot machines or otherwise should be expressly forbidden—should bear a label with the words, "Cigarette smoking may result in less expectation of life", or the same thought more epigramatically expressed. More drastically, cigarettes might he rationed, as they were during the war; or, less drastically, there could be a tax on cigarettes or, alternatively, a tax on advertisements.
All these things could be thought of, but I do not believe that, in practice, anything like this will happen, even if we think it would be desirable—which I do not. I do not think that any positive restriction can be, or indeed should be, imposed. Excessive drinking is as bad as, and no doubt much worse than, excessive smoking. But look what happened in American when they tried to curb that. I myself should prefer that any action taken by the Government should be limited to the two means to which I have referred—namely, officially sponsored advertisements on how to rid oneself of the habit of cigarette smoking and officially inspired propaganda among children to prevent their taking up the habit at all.
8.44 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships very long. In the first place, I am very hungry and, in the second place, I want to hear my noble friend Lord Taylor. Some years ago in the General Assembly of
736
the Church of Scotland, Principal Storey, reputed to be the most eloquent man in the country, got excited about something and made a long speech. He was followed by Principal Pirie, of Aberdeen, a stocky little man, who did not agree with him. He said, "Mr. Moderator and brethren, you have listened to a vara eloquent oration and noo I'll gie ye the facs". We have listened to many Principal Storeys this afternoon and I hope that your Lordships will accept me as a Principal Pirie. I will try to give your Lordships a few facts.
I have started and left off smoking at least five times in my life and I have made certain observations upon this. I started when tobacco was 7s. 10d. a lb., including postage, and I smoked 5 oz. a week. The first thing that happened after I formed the habit was that I went down to my old school and played a very warm game of football. I found myself knocked about by somebody only half my height. I came back and took a very hot bath and then I realised what condition I was in. To my surprise and dislike, the perspiration on my knees and the extremities of all my limbs simply stank of nicotine, as badly as a third-class smoking carriage. I realised from that that when you are a heavy smoker the effect of it permeates the whole of your body. Ever since that time, it has always distressed me to see a woman nursing a baby with a cigarette in her lips. I may be making a mistake, but I cannot find anything that touches on that subject at all in this Report. I think that it ought to be considered because it is very important. The Report wonders what are the inducements to children to smoke cigarettes, and I think that this may have something to do with it.
Leaving the medical details to my noble friend Lord Taylor, I go on with my observations about smoking. From starting smoking and leaving off many times. I have come to the conclusion that it is definitely a drug. If I wanted to start smoking again, that would not deter me. I found that one of the effects of smoking is that it engenders a certain slight melancholia. for which afterwards it becomes the anodyne, the cure. Therefore. it tends to make you persist in smoking. Again. I noticed the tendency always to wish to make recruits. A third tendency I have

737
noticed all my life is that smokers, especially heavy smokers, love smoking in a fresh uncontaminated place, and the drug effect I think is one of the reasons why people are so irritable and often rude if you point out that they are smoking, for example, in a non-smoking railway carriage. I honestly think that people who do not smoke deserve far more protection than they get from the servants of British Transport and others, when they find people smoking in places where smoking is forbidden.
I never smoke cigarettes. Cigarette smoke hurts my eyes frightfully and I dislike it in other ways. I sometimes wonder whether being subjected to cigarette smoke for a long time may not have something to do with inducing cataract. Again, I have always felt, when travelling in a plane, that it is a little unfair that nobody is allowed a pipe or a cigar, while cigarettes are allowed. Sometimes in an aeroplane it is difficult to avoid the effect of cigarette smoke in your eyes.
There are some observations I have to make on the general effects of smoking. In my smoking periods, I find that I do very little work and not such good work. There is a certain irritation that idleness induces in a normally active person and, if you are not smoking, you start in and work on something in which you are interested, but if you have the habit of smoking you sit down and smoke a pipe and that takes the place of work. In that connection, it has always struck me very much that in the Arts, Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare and Rembrandt, and the very greatest names, with the one exception of music, all occurred before the impact of tobacco on Europe 'was very strong. If your Lordships go behind the Palace of Peace at the Hague you will find there a white marble plinth, and on the top of it is a female figure tracing with a gold style the words:
"Countrymen of Rembrandt, your country awaits ".
And the country is still waiting, unless you look on Jan Steen and Vermeer as the equals of Rembrandt.
Another thing for which I have to be grateful to tobacco, and which I put in, is that my first really good lesson in physics came from tobacco. If you go into a railway carriage and watch a
738
man light a pipe, you see the flame draw down to touch the top of the pipe, and you smell What tobacco he is smoking before the flame touches the pipe. That shows the rapidity and the distance the molecules of the objects around us fly through the air. I am grateful to tobacco for that; but I wish that we could get people to refrain from smoking in places where it ought not to occur and where it offends other people.
8.52 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, said that nobody knows what causes cancer. He is quite wrong. We know what causes quite a number of cancers. We do not know all about it, but we do know several things which cause cancer. One of them is aniline dyes, and in aniline dye works many, unfortunately, still die of cancer of the bladder. We know that cancer of the skin occurred in certain operatives working an old-fashioned type of loom in Lancashire; but, thank goodness! that is no longer used. We know that cancer of the skin also occurs in gas workers, due to contamination with tar. And when I was a young medical student we knew perfectly well that cancer of the lip was caused by smoking with a clay pipe. We had no elaborate statistics to prove this; it was common-sense observation, and we all saw this happening. We saw these old men corning up who had been smoking a clay pipe for twenty or thirty years, with an awful cancer of the lip. But when the clay pipe went out, cancer of the lip disappeared. I see my noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead nodding his head. That is, of course, true. There was no wickedness on the part of the manufacturers of clay pipes. It was just jolly bad luck. We think it was due to the heat, and not to the nicotine; because the pipe got very hot. Certainly the modern pipe does not cause cancer of the lip.
I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for introducing this debate in a very reasoned and reasonable way. I was pleased to hear him say that it is not the fault of the people who are involved in this industry; it is jolly bad luck, again, on everybody associated with the tobacco industry that this strange thing should have been discovered. When I was a medical student there was another

739
student called Richard Doll; we were students together. Twelve years ago Dr. Richard Doll, with Professor Bradford Hill, published the first paper showing the relationship between cancer of the lung and smoking. It was not a popular paper in medical circles; in fact, it was treated with contempt and suspicion by consultants and others who did not want to give up smoking. This is not a sort of medical lobby, The noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, looked upon us as a kind of gang of doctors. We are not. We do not want smoking to cause cancer of the lung. It is a horrible discovery, so far as we are concerned, and certainly so far as I personally am concerned.
This paper was ill-received, but I should like to pay tribute to Dr. Doll and Professor Bradford Hill who did the first work leading to the present result. And I would add my tribute to that of my noble friend Lady Summer-skill to the Royal College of Physicians for this excellent Report. Whether it is right or wrong, it is extremely clear and readable and one can understand every word in it. The President, and particularly Dr. C. M. Fletcher, the Secretary, who did the drafting, are to be congratulated. It is indeed a very good job of work.
I want to speak as simply as I can. I am certainly not going to apportion blame here, because
"the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves",
when it comes to smoking—and that applies to all of us. We get exactly what we deserve. So far as cancer of the lung is concerned, I have the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has not known many cases or he would not feel it was such an easy thing to which to condemn oneself. It is a horrible disease, and it is, unfortunately, an extremely inoperable one. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, now sitting on the Woolsack, said that there were two ordeals. I would say that there are three. There is often the ordeal of the surgery, and then there is the subsequent ordeal when the disease recurs. Again, when I was a medical student thirty years ago, it was a very rare disease, and I can remember only one case. I do not know why it was so
740
rare then. We were not failing to diagnose it, because all the cases that die in a voluntary hospital are all postmortemed—they are autopsied. We were not missing cancer of the lung; it just was not occuring, or it was occuring very rarely then. Now it is forty times more common.
It is a staggering occurrence, absolutely unheard of in public health, for a disease of this dreadful severity, and hopelessness, as a rule, suddenly to appear in a matter of a very few years. Each year it is killing five times as many people as are killed on the roads, and most of these are not old people, but people under 65, still with working lives and happy lives before them if it did not occur. Each year a thousand more of us die of it than in the previous year. And this will go on, so far as I can see, if we go on smoking as we are. Each year now 12,000 of us die before we are 65.
Each year we spend millions on trying to find the cause of cancer; and yet we know the commonest cause of cancer, but do not do much about it. Most people who smoke, as has been made clear, do not die of smoking; most people are all right. We have been given the figures. It is 1 in 8, if you are a heavy smoker, and 1 in 12 or 15 if you are a light smoker. That, in a way, is part of the trouble, because most people know the facts about this and they think they will take the risk. They say: "I will go on smoking, because it is a 1 in 8 chance or a 1 in 12 or 15 chance. I like smoking, and it is not worth bothering about." That makes the whole problem of propaganda very difficult.
I am not going to speak of air pollution, because my noble friends Lord Cohen of Birkenhead and Lord Brain really disposed of that quite convincingly. It is important, but it is only marginally important; and this smoking business is doing fearful harm in places where there is no air pollution. We all want to get rid of air pollution, but it does not let us out: as regards the actual situation, cigarettes are the worst danger: that is absolutely clear. Filter tips, so far as I can see, do not do any good, or very little good; and if you get a really effective filter tip, you cannot draw through it. It does help a bit if you smoke half a cigarette and throw the stub away, because you have trapped

741
something or other—nobody knows what it is, but that seems to help a bit. Pipes are not safe. Pipe-smokers get three or four times as much lung cancer as nonsmokers, whereas cigarette smokers get twelve to thirteen times as much. In America, cigars seem to be safe. We have no figures for Britain because there are not enough cigar smokers. That, very briefly, is the story.
Now what on earth are we to do about it? I like smoking. I really enjoy smoking. I like my pipe. I do not smoke cigarettes, but undoubtedly I smoke too much for my own health and safety, and I do it knowingly. I know the risks I take and the awful nature of the disease and death it may cause, and, like millions of us throughout the country, I want to be helped to behave more sensibly. This sounds quite ridiculous, but this, I think, is the true situation. Most of the British public know the facts. When a lady was staying with us one of my little boys, aged twelve, noticed that she was coughing. He said, "By the way, does she suffer from cancer?" We said, "No. What made you say that". He replied, "I noticed that she was coughing a bit, and I thought she had lung cancer." They know all about lung cancer; they cannot help knowing about lung cancer. I know about it. Yet I go on smoking.
Propaganda is the easy answer, but that does not mean that it is wrong. I must tell your Lordships a few facts about it. I am not very optimistic about propaganda. Doctors have known all about the risks for twelve years now, but you will have noticed that 50 per cent. of them still smoke, in spite of knowing all the risks, and in spite of seeing the people die. That just shows the power of tobacco as against a horrible death. So far as we are able to find out, propaganda works best among the mare educated people. We might do something among the more intelligent in all social classes. When it comes to the line of propaganda, I think that my noble friend Lady Summerskill was on the right lines. Up to now, conventional propaganda has been shown to have virtually no effect: people know all about lung cancer, but they like smoking enough to stop them doing anything about it. They face the risk and still go on smoking.
Same colleagues of mine tried some first-class propaganda material in two secondary modern schools. There were
742
posters, pamphlets, lectures and a film which included an, operation for lung cancer—a perfectly horrible affair. At the end of it, the number of boys smoking was 35 per cent. and the number of girls was 10 per cent., exactly the same as at the beginning. There was one further fact. After the propaganda more girls said they intended to smoke when they were grown up than before the propaganda. The girls were perfectly sensible. They had made a perfectly logical deduction: because the propaganda material showed much higher rates for lung cancer in men than in women, the girls thought they were safe.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It was not sensible at all.
LORD TAYLOR: It was a half-truth. It was the sort of misfire which so often occurs with propaganda.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I hope, in all seriousness, that the noble Lord is not suggesting that propaganda of this kind would be useless in all cases.
LORD TAYLOR: I am saying that, unfortunately, it was not very useful on this occasion. I believe that it was tried out for a year in a secondary modern school in Edinburgh, and with precisely the same result—no effect whatsoever. I have been round a number of tobacconists and they all tell exactly the same story. When all this mass of propaganda comes out, as it came out with this Report, with a great volume of propaganda—with most of the media, the B.B.C., I.T.V., and the newspapers really "doing their stuff"; and now we in this House are having a good debate on it—what is the impact? For two days tobacco sales go down, and then the tobacconists all say the same thing: that;It is back to normal, we are pleased to say."
I must say that it is an extremely difficult job to try to do anything by propaganda. But that is not to say we should not try. I am not going to abuse the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, for advertising his product, even though I think it does harm. So long as he is allowed to make it, why should he not advertise it? Any other view would seem to be quite illogical. I think all the people who smoke throughout the

743
country would say, "Why should we pick on cigarettes and allow them to be made and sold, but not advertised"? My noble friend Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, mentioned various advertising matter which is prohibited; but, of course, in the cases he mentioned the sale of the goods is also prohibited. One is not allowed to sell remedies for tuberculosis or venereal disease. Of course, that is perfectly logical and sensible. When one stops the sale, one of course stops the advertising. I personally find it very hard to accept the view that we are right to attack tobacco advertising, though we may attack the form and its direction at young people, and I would certainly ask the tobacco folk to do something about that.
When children who smoke were asked why they started, 40 per cent. said it was because their friends smoked. It is a sort of chain reaction, and it is a chain that has to be broken. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Summerskill, that the way to break it is to make it the wrong thing to do, instead of the right thing to do. Again, 20 per cent. of the children said they did it for fun, curiosity or experience; and 10 per cent. said it was because they felt they wanted to be big. All these figures, as your Lordships know, are far higher in secondary modern schools than in grammar schools, and higher in grammar schools than in public schools. It is the secondary modern children who smoke 20, 30 or 40 a week. When asked why they go on, 40 per cent. of them say they like it. That is just the reason why they all go on—because they like it. Then 20 per cent. said that they went on smoking because their friends smoked, while another 20 per cent. said that it was habit. The rest gave a variety of reasons.
There is no need for advertising to keep people smoking. It is an addiction—and a pleasant one at that; and if you have the money, tragedy, years ahead, can look after itself. That is the ordinary people's attitude to it. But that does not say that the Government should not go on "plugging" the propaganda. I think they have done, and I hope they will use the Social Survey, and every other means they have, to make the propaganda effective. But they have to decide what they are trying to do with
744
this propaganda, and that is a very difficult decision.
The hardest thing of all to do is to try to think straight. To stop these awful deaths we must cut tobacco consumption, and that is the thing that is going to hurt. I reckon we must cut the present tobacco consumption by half if we are to stop these deaths, and that is something quite frightful. The implication of this, in terms of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve and the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and their industries, is a complete revolution. It is like getting rid of the clay pipes. But I do not see much happening unless we do cut consumption to this sort of level. There has been a steady increase of tobacco consumption over the years. It is growing each year, and here is an industry which might reasonably expect to go on growing. But the trend must be the other way to stop this lung cancer. We may not feel like it now, but deaths are going to get worse and worse if we do not. That is all one can say.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would not precisely the same effect be achieved if a major portion of the population turned over from inhaling to either non-inhaling cigarettes or pipe smoking?
LORD TAYLOR: There is nothing in this inhaling. You cannot avoid smoking without inhaling. One breathes partly through one's mouth and partly through one's nose. They intercommunicate, and what is inside goes down. So there is nothing in inhaling. We all do it; we cannot avoid it.
LORD HAWKE: Why is a pipe less dangerous than cigarette smoking?
LORD TAYLOR: We do not know, but probably it is because there is a trap in the pipe and a collection of dottle at the bottom of the pipe (this is guessing), and also, perhaps, because it is different tobacco. I think that if I were a noble Lord in the tobacco industry the thing I should be looking at would be the comparison between the composition of tobacco before the war and its composition now. I do not know what has caused this extraordinary increase associated with tobacco smoking, and that is the thing I should be puzzling Over.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether paper has something to do with the reason why cigarettes are so poisonous?
LORD TAYLOR: I do not know whether it is the paper. It looks much more, I am afraid, that it is tobacco, because if you smoke half a cigarette and use the lower half as a sort of filter and collector of muck it reduces the incidence of lung cancer.
I think we have to cut smoking in half. It is going to hurt all of us like billy-ho to do this. Rationing, I should have thought, is useless; and prohibition is also useless; we just cannot do it. I do not think we are going to stop this lung cancer at the moment by propaganda, for propaganda to succeed must cut tobacco consumption. That is the only object of the exercise. I think there is only one way to do it, and that is by increasing the price so that tobacco becomes a luxury instead of a necessity. I can see no other way to do it. I do not for one moment, however, expect the Government to do this at the moment. I would hope that one day we shall do it when the deaths get to a point which we think cannot be faced any more. It means drastic increases in price if it is going to be effective. We had to do this with gin many years ago when the country was gin-riddled and gin-sodden and it got rid of alcoholism.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It did not.
LORD TAYLOR: The noble Viscount says it did not, but virtually it did. Alcoholism is no problem in this country. In. France it is a terrific problem. Lung cancer, unfortunately, is a tremendous problem, and we must change our whole smoking habits so that we smoke only very occasionally—perhaps not as seldom as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, but as an occasional pleasure and as an occasional treat. We must get out of this continuous smoking if we are not going to die in increasing numbers from lung cancer.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? He is in fact advocating what the Observer advocated: that there should be a swingeing duty on tobacco. Coming from his side
746
of the House, that is a curious doctrine: it is one law for the poor and one fox the rich. Does it not mean that the rich man will be able to indulge his habits as he wishes and the poor man not? Is it not true also that the Government will control cigarette smoking for the poor but have no influence whatsoever on the rich?
LORD TAYLOR: There wil come the point when we shall all cut our smoking drastically, and I think that is What we must do. After all, we do in fact ration spirits by their price, and that is, in my opinion, the only way to ration tobacco—by its price.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord at this point? I am very ignorant. Is not tobacco in the cost-of-living index? The only effect would be a claim for more wages to meet the increased cost of tobacco.
LORD TAYLOR: Of course it would be quite ridiculous to keep it in the cost-of-living index. If one's object is to cut the consumption of tobacco as a socio-medico exercise, the whole thing must come out of the cost-of-living index. I am putting this as a pretty brutal sort of measure in order to achieve the desired result. I do not suppose for one moment that we shall get it. Instead, we are going to get more lung cancer. Let us try to get rid of lung cancer by the cutting of tobacco consumption. Unless we face that fact, and unless we face that fact bravely, I see no point in the exercise at all. I know that is unpleasant for all of us, but I can see nothing else that we can do.
9.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think I must at this somewhat late hour apologise to the House for inflicting a speech on behalf of the Government. I rise myself rather than my noble friend who ordinarily speaks for the Ministry of Health because I anticipated, and I think rightly, that the most important thing that I could do at the end of this debate was to try to discuss what the facts are. I respectfully agree with what my noble friend Lord Salter said, that after the Government's immediate statement and immediate action, and before they have considered what further action is desirable, it is not possible really to announce a great series of measures. But

747
I think we must get our facts right in order to decide on any measures; and I felt very much that, as this is a matter very closely allied to the field of medical research for which I have been responsible now for 4½ years, it was perhaps appropriate that I should say what, at any rate in my judgment, the facts are.
I agree with the noble Baroness who spoke first from the Front Bench opposite that we owe a great debt to the Royal College of Physicians for this document. I think it will have a bigger effect, and is already having a bigger effect, than many other statements about the subject which have been made. Why this is so I am not quite sure, but, unless I am mistaken, the penny is beginning to drop; and if the penny is beginning to drop, we ignore the facts at our peril, whether we use cigarettes or, with respect, we try to sell them. It is not much good ignoring facts once people begin to learn what they are.
I think this House plays a great part in the formation of public opinion. In this world we live in, a world very largely of emotionalism, in these great matters of life and death it is often very difficult not to introduce an element of subjectiveness and emotionalism in these discussions. I share with my noble friend, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, the desire that this subject should be discussed objectively. Whether he was, in fact, objective is a question which I shall ask when I come to consider the facts and the evidence. But I certainly would not go the whole way with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who described the manufacturers of tobacco as guilty men. I would agree, on the whole, with those noble Lords who said that, whatever we want to do, if we want to do anything we must get behind us the great mass of articulate and well-informed public opinion to do anything at all.
As we have all described our smoking habits, perhaps I had better confess mine, because I am going to say some rather rough things about this subject. I had better confess that I am not a smoker myself; I have not chosen to pay this form of taxation for many years. Like the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, I decided one day that I was not going to do it
748
any more, and I never did, having been a fairly heavy smoker before that. But I do not think that I have ever had a "down" on smoking. I do not think that until this particular question arose for discussion it ever crossed my mind that it was any concern of the Government whether I smoked or not. Certainly I think that until this question arose it had appeared to many millions through a long time a harmless and, for some, even a beneficial habit. This is a view with which I do not myself happen to agree, but hitherto it had never occurred to me to interfere.
I think it has been emphasised by more speakers than one that smoking is very largely a question of social attitudes. I think it is worth saying, because it has a direct bearing on what we are discussing, that during the lifetime of most of us there has been a great change in the social attitude towards smoking. In my grandfather's day it was almost proscribed; certainly it was wholly proscribed in public places, in theatres and restaurants, in some—I think most—railway carriages; and in private houses where it was permitted at all it was reserved to a room called the smoking room or even banished to the shrubbery. A few foolhardy men furtively indulging in smoking up the chimney courted discovery and disgrace. Among women it was rejected almost entirely. The cigarette itself was frowned on as foreign or dandyish or even associated in guilt with dangerous immorality.
Since those days, it may be thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, or same other reason, the whole social attitude towards smoking has altered; whether for the better or not is a matter which we must discuss. What is, however, important, I think, is to notice that what has changed in social habit in one direction might quite easily be caused to change in the other direction in a similar period of time, over a period of years, perhaps in a shorter period.
It has been emphasised by speakers on all sides of the House that, of course, in the course of this social revolution a great industry has arisen. I think it is fair to say that it is an industry with high standards of staff relations, as my noble friend Lord Ampthill emphasised, and, apart from the present question

749
which we shall have to examine a little more closely, an industry with irreproachable business ethics. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Conesford, makes very nearly £850 million a year out of tobacco duties. If the manufacturers are guilty men we are all guilty men. Our public revenue is very largely sustained by smoking. It has therefore become a part of our lives. Now it transpires, so it is said in this Report—and this I shall examine—that this habit which is so deeply built into our social and economic system is dangerous, in many cases lethal, in the form of cigarettes, possibly more dangerous than alcohol. And the question we are discussing is: is this so, and, if so, what are we to do about it?
I do not think this is an easy problem. If we admit the facts we cannot wholly shrug off responsibility, as the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, said. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn said it is not the business of the Government to be a governess. We live in a free country and the question of what we do in such circumstances does, whether we like it or not, raise the whole question of paternalism. If tobacco is to be interfered with, why not alcohol, why not betting? My noble friend Lord Conesford says: Why not sweets?—which are alleged to rot the teeth of the young and, I think, to render middle-aged gentlemen like me prone to coronary thrombosis. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, from the Cross Benches asked: where are you to draw the line? Where indeed? And, if you draw it anywhere, what kind of line are you to draw and how far are you to lead, how far are you to precede and how far are you to be guided by public opinion? To what extent are adults to be allowed to go to hell, and by their example to encourage others to go to hell, their own way? Not, apparently, by heroin. But if not by heroin, then why by tobacco?
These are not, I venture to think, easy questions. Those who regard them as easy, I think tend to be a little superficial in their political judgments and I certainly do not propose to answer them tonight. In the meantime, however, the noble Baroness is entitled to say lung cancer rates continue to mount, families are being deprived of their
750
fathers and harmless men are coughing themselves to death. There is one thing I do want to say tonight. I think it is something of supreme importance in this matter, and it is that we cannot afford to trifle with the truth. We cannot afford to yield to the interests of the Revenue. We cannot afford to fear economic consequences to business interests. Men who go into business for profit must be prepared, if necessary, to bear loss. This is one of the advantages of the private enterprise system.
There is one thing I would say to my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve said that there was growing pharmacological evidence of the beneficial effects of tobacco. This may be true, but I must tell him that if my noble friend Lord Auckland and I had his money to advertise the effects of not smoking there would be growing evidence of the benefits of not smoking.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, will the noble Viscount allow me to speak? I do not think I said there was growing pharmacological evidence of the benefits of smoking. I said that the observations of Professor Burn at Oxford (I am speaking from memory; I hope this is right) formed a basis for the opinion that much more research on the pharmacological benefits was desirable.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I certainly did not mean to misrepresent my noble friend. I only say that with half his money I could get a great deal of evidence about the beneficial results of twenty years of not smoking. We have voted with our feet.
I want now to turn to the facts. As we have heard to-day, both from my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve and from my noble friend Lard Ampthilil, and as we already knew, the official attitude of the tobacco industry to this Report at the present moment is one of agnosticism bolstered by scientific doubt. They have sent me, as I have no doubt they have sent others of your Lordships, a rival document to that of the Royal College, more expensively got up, scientifically argued and amply documented, the evident intention of which was to create in the mind of the reader, who if he smokes at all does not wish to be

751
convinced that he is going to die or may have to die from this disease, at least a doubt as to whether cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer after all. In addition, they have given many of us a short and more popular statement to the same effect.
I do not think I am misrepresenting my noble friend or either of the documents if I say—and indeed my noble friend has declared it as his sincere belief—that the intention of the document is certainly to create a belief in the mind of the reader that the evidence is too doubtful to be acted upon. That is the intention of the thing; indeed, my noble friend has declared it as his own belief. My duty I think compels me to scrutinise the wisdom of this aittitude and the validity of the arguments upon which this attitude of agnosticism is based. Clearly the case is too doubtful we can do nothing. But are we really being wise to treat the case as unproven? That is the question to which I want to address myself, for, whatever conclusion we arrive at about policy, we surely cannot afford to deceive ourselves about the facts. I have one duty which seems to me to transcend all others, as a man, as a parent and as a member of the Cabinet. It is a duty to the truth as I see it, as the Government sees it, and, I am bound to say, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, as the overwhelming body of scientific opinion sees it.
Whatever our policy may be, our duty is to the facts—that we should not be deceived about them. I wish to say to the House, with all the emphasis at my command, that it is my serious conviction that this case is proved, that beyond any reasonable doubt whatever cigarette smoking—that is to say, the smoking of cigarettes as they now are made, and especially heavy smoking of cigarettes—is, in popular lanauage, a cause of lung cancer. I reached this conclusion myself ten years ago, on evidence. The whole of my professional life, although not scientific, has been based upon the assessment of evidence, which has nothing at all to do with my membership of the Government or my reliance, as I shall proceed to show that I do rely, upon the advice of my scientific advisers in my present office.
752
It is no good saying, as the representative of the Tobacco Manufacturers' Standing Committee is reported as saying a day or two ago, that this approach is unconstructive. It is no good saying it is unconstructive if it is in fact true. Of course it can be said with absolute truth that not all the people who smoke get lung cancer. Even amongst those who smoke cigarettes heavily no more than one in 8 die of lung cancer. But this is all discussed and allowed for at length in the Royal College's Report. But one chance in 8 of dying of lung cancer is, I must tell my noble friends, a bigger risk than I should myself be prepared to run, if I knew it, or be prepared to allow anybody I loved to take. Of course, it is true, too, as noble Lords have said, that many people who do not smoke at all get lung cancer—about one in 300, I think, is the figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead. But the difference between one in 8 and one in 300 is one which is surely worth grasping with both hands. Those are the facts.
More than 23 investigations and some prospective investigations in about nine different countries have established a causal connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, without, to my mind, any doubt at all. I myself do not know of any impartial organisation whatever which has studied the matter, which has not accepted in general the position adopted in the present Report by the Royal College.
At all events, as the noble Earl who moved the Motion said, the following have accepted the position: our own Departments of Health for Scotland and for England and Wales; our own Medical Research Council; the National Cancer Research Institute of Canada; the Netherlands Ministry of Social Affairs and Public Health; the United States Study Group on Smoking and Health, 1957; the United States Public Health Service; and the World Health Organisation. But as my noble friend has pointed out, there is, of course, much that we still need to know. We do not know the exact mechanism by which cancer is caused in this case. We can only guess, as several noble Lords have pointed out, at the type of constituent in the tobacco smoke which acts as the agent.

753
I thought that my noble friend Lord Ampthill made a valid point when he cast doubt upon the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and, indeed, on the recommendation of the Report, that it might not be a fair test to place on the outside of the packet an analysis of the two particular constituents which are under suspicion, because they are, I concede, no more than that. We do not know whether the constituent acts alone or whether it requires other, and if so what, co-factors. We do not know whether the offending factor can be eliminated, or whether the attempt to eliminate it is as futile as to try to eliminate alcohol from whisky.
No doubt all these matters, as my noble friends Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, Lord Ampthill and Lord Coleraine, have pointed out, are all matters deserving of research. I do not want to say anything against research. I wish to acknowledge the generosity of the manufacturers in placing at the disposal of the Medical Research Council large and munificent sums for the purpose of research. By all means let us research on all these questions. But do not let us delude ourselves that research will buy us out of action now, or out of a belief in the conclusion which has now been established; because that would be wholly contrary to research, and research then would be a curse and not a blessing.
We know, so far as any human being is concerned, that cigarette smoking, as it is now practised, is a cause of lung cancer in the countries and places where they are smoked. Whatever we do or do not do, we ought to act in this belief, and we cannot buy ourselves out of that fact by research; otherwise we deceive ourselves, and endanger others. We cannot afford to delude ourselves with alternative explanations which have been eliminated, nor with other hypotheses which, though possibly true, are not inconsistent with what I have said.
Of course we cannot acquit atmospheric pollution; but the possible implication, indeed, the probable implication, of atmospheric pollution to which the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, has referred, and which is referred to frankly in the Report, does not diminish the responsibility of cigarette smoking.
754
Nor are the figures, quoted in several quarters, for the unpolluted parts of the world, which show that lung cancer is less frequent there, of any real assistance to anybody. Because, side by side with those figures, is the fact that the ratio between lung cancer in those areas of the smoker of cigarettes and the nonsmoker is the same as the ratio between them in the much higher figures which exist in the polluted areas.
My Lords, it is not possible any longer rationally to believe, as some have tried to do, that smoking simply determines the site of the cancer; or that the cancer is due to some inherited tendency which independently excites the desire to smoke, or even (as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead. said), excites the inability to get rid of the desire to smoke at a later stage; or that cancer is caused by drinking, or that the exhausts of vehicles, or even our climate, are responsible for the significant increase in the figure. I am not going to discuss all these at length because the extent and validity of these various escapist formulas are all adequately exposed and discussed in the Report of the Royal College itself.
It is for this reason that I regret the present professed agnosticism on the part of the tobacco trade. It is not that I condemn them. It is not that I criticise them in any way, save this one. On the contrary, I realise that it must be a hard and bitter thing to persuade oneself that an honourable business, decently built up, is in fact purveying a substance capable of implanting mortal disease without any fault on the part of the purveyor. But the facts of life are often hard things to face, and the impression the tobacco manufacturers now make on public opinion—this I must tell them plainly—will largely depend on the extent to which they prove themselves able to recognise as facts propositions which are accepted by impartial scientists everywhere but which they find unpalatable.
Probably they will not relish what I am saying, but I believe it is to their interests to recognise the truth before, and not after, they are compelled to do so; and to drop the escapist propaganda which at the present time they are putting out, which personally, I am bound to say, I find both distasteful and lacking

755
in scientific courage and integrity. My Lords, otherwise the money they are spending on first-class brains and organisation will be wasted. The first-class man is a man who recognises and accepts compelling evidence, not one that fights against it.
I believe, with absolute conviction, that this evidence is compelling, and that not to accept it is not so much to sin against the light as to disregard one's own long-term interests. I am quite sure myself that it would in the end be more to their credit and less to their disadvantage if they got together in their boardrooms and frankly recognised that the merchandise they are now selling, in its present form, is dangerous and, taken to any degree of excess, potentially lethal. If they would do that they could begin to plan the consequences, which it is absolutely vital for them to plan, and if they do not plan now in advance of the recognition of the facts they will find it very much to their disadvantage.
It may be that they can, by research, establish that it is safe to switch to filter tips; it may be they can experiment with other tobacco cures; it may be they will think it wise to switch to other products, to switch their advertisements to pipes or snuff or cigars—possibly even to consider other things altogether. But they cannot do any of that so long as they cling to their illusions. The longer they cling to them, to an untenable position on the facts, the worse their dilemma when it comes, and the more people, incidentally, will die and the less they will themselves command the respect they will need if they want to prevent public opinion demanding more draconian expedients.
In parenthesis, may I say that it is fatuous to say that cigars are too expensive. In France, Holland and Scandinavia they are smoked by all classes. In this country, cigarettes cost as much as the best cigars used to cost, and I have no doubt that if they decided to sell cigars to the mass market the manufacturers would find considerable means of cheapening production. I frankly believe that tobacco companies would do far better to plan their future policy in the sober recognition of the true facts, realising that they cannot buy themselves out of the facts with propaganda, or blind themselves out of them with
756
science, and that research, although essential, will not be accepted as a substitute for action.
Cigarette smoking is the most important cause of the increase in lung cancer. I will quote the words of the scientific advice I have received. Lest it be thought I was expressing a purely personal opinion—although the personal opinion that I have been expressing is one I believe—I asked the Medical Research Council for their own comments on the Royal College's Report. The Secretary replied, "I cannot see how anyone can now deny the closeness of the association between smoking and lung cancer. With regard to the association of other diseases, such as bronchitis and coronary diseases, the evidence is less overwhelming, but if the subject were non-controversial it would be regarded as sufficiently strong as a basis for action."
My Lords, I must dissent, with respect, from the closing words of my noble friend who seems to think that until you can establish when or how or why the mechanism operated to cause this disease you must withhold your judgment and stay your hand. Human life is made up of moral certainties and moral probabilities. We have to base our judgment on evidence which is less than that which is absolutely cogent, but I cannot conceive of evidence in any matter in which one could give dispassionate advice and which, if it were presented in this form, would not be regarded as cogent in any other matter.
My Lords, so much for the tobacco manufacturers. Now, how about the public? Can we afford to go on as we are? Can we afford to bury our heads in the sand? If we have children, can we afford to leave this to the schools? We warn them about drink, and gambling and, if we have got any sense, about venereal diseases. Can we afford not to warn them about cigarettes? If we leave it to the schools, can we afford to be seen smoking in front of our children? What is the good of asking the Government to take action unless we are prepared to take action ourselves? In our homes, we are the Government. Can we afford to let our children know that we smoke?
How about the doctors? The Report is fairly clear about them. In their own lives

757
they have already begun to see the red light. According to the Report:
"The contrast between the smoking habits of doctors and the general public is notable in this matter. Doctors are in a position not only to read and appreciate the scientific evidence on the hazards of cigarette smoking, but also in their daily practice they witness the tragic consequences of the habit."
Clearly the G.P. cannot shirk his duty to his patient.
How about the life assurance companies? Clearly, they must act on statistical evidence in such matters. How about publicising the fact, emphasised by the Report, that it is never too late to change your smoking habits? Even at an advanced age, to give up cigarette smoking improves your chances of life. How about the good people who subscribe immense sums to persuade their neighbours of the evils of gambling or beer? I thank they would be wise to change some of their targets in the light of contemporary knowledge. How about public places—railway carriages, theatres, cinemas? Are we going to pollute the atmosphere for other people there? My Lords, I do not answer these questions—yet I do ask them. We cannot, as individuals, afford to continue to act as if the facts stated in the Report were uncertain or incorrect.
If the facts are conceded to be established, what can the Government do about it? The Report itself contained a number of suggestions. Of one thing there appears to be no doubt. Whatever may be our duty towards the adult population, we cannot shirk our responsibility to children and young people. True, if the parents will not co-operate as I have suggested, much of our effort will be wasted on them. All the same, we must make the effort. We must continue to try, by all means of education in our power, to stop the habit from being formed. In the long run this is by far the most valuable thing we can do. I myself would not desire to say anything, despite the noble Lords who have expressed a contrasting opinion, to minimise the value of education in this respect. The Report itself says that an experiment it describes
"suggests that appropriate education can dissuade a significant proportion of children from starting to smoke."
So education on the hazards of smoking
758
has been, and will continue to be, the the policy of the Government.
My Lords, the House will remember that in the publication of the Report of the Medical Research Council on Cancer and Smoking in June, 1956, the Minister of Health announced the Government's intention that the link between heavy smoking and lung cancer should be brought effectively to the notice of the public, so that everyone could make up his own mind whether—and how much—to smoke. This has been done through teachers, local education authorities and local health authorities. There is evidence that these efforts were successful in making the facts known to the public and that before the publication of this Report most people were aware of the possible association between smoking and lung cancer, but there was little sign of people's giving up smoking.
One result which I expect to emerge from the publication of this Report is that the number of those who accept the evidence of the link between smoking and cancer will increase. As I informed the House last week, the Government have already taken action in the recommendation of the Report that there should be more education of the public and particularly of schoolchildren. My right honourable friends the Minister of Health, Minister of Education, and Secretary of State for Scotland have again sent circulars to all local health and education authorities requesting them to take immediate and positive action. The officers of the Ministry of Education have written personally to chief education officers and principal school medical officers asking them to take a personal interest in discouraging schoolchildren from smoking. The Health and Education Ministers are devising publicity material for issue to local authorities; in particular the pamphlet for teachers and trainee teachers on Health Education is being revised to
incorporate material from the Physicians Report. All this will, of course, be issued free of charge.
Now about the adult population. The question here is how far we ought to go to help those who will not help themselves. This does not, of course, apply to those who want to get rid of tobacco addiction and cannot. The Report suggests clinics and injections. My right honourable friend the Minister of

759
Health has announced that he has in mind experiments with anti-smoking clinics.
The Report suggests differential taxation. This obviously is a matter for the Budget. I do not wish to indicate one way or the other what my right honourable friend will do or not do, but I would make one or two observations of my own. Differential taxation aimed at cigarette smoking could not, of course, be based on the present tobacco duty, which is based on the leaf before it is made up. The scale of the present tobacco duty on most other things would, I should have thought, have been considered crippling; yet it does not seem to have deterred for any length of time. My noble friend Lord Salter said that he did not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a bigger vested interest in ill-health. This, again, is a matter which will have to be considered, and so is the suggestion in the Report.
Should we ban, control or tax advertising? The debate this afternoon has shown that there are plenty of people who would like to see us do so. Advertising as such has its enemies, of course, but I personally am not among them. Previous efforts to regulate advertising of a product, not in itself illegal, have, I should have said, despite the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, really been limited to unethical advertising methods, such as claims to cure cancer or venereal disease. Ought we to embark on an effort to regulate the advertising of a perfectly lawful habit? Here I must say that I wish the tobacco companies would themselves make suggestions. Children's television broadcasts are already insulated from tobacco television advertisements.
I wonder whether the companies would not gain in respect and prestige if they had an even further look at this. They claim now—I think with reason—not to slant their advertising towards the young. The Report challenges this. Could they not look again at it and consider, too, their products, as I have suggested before? Obviously our own attitude as a Government must depend in part on public opinion, and this in turn will depend on the kind of figure which the companies themselves are prepared to cut.
760
My Lords, I have endeavoured to put before the House the social and political issues inherent in this problem, and implicit in the recommendations of the Report. I have told your Lordships in some detail of the action so far taken in education on the hazards of smoking. We are, as I told my noble friend Lord Salter, studying the other measures on which the Report recommended action. Some of these recommendations, those on restrictions on the sale of tobacco, and on the places where smoking is allowed, relate to matters already covered by legislation, the enforcement of which depends to a great extent upon the co-operation of the public. Other recommendations, such as those proposed restrictions on advertising, increasing the tax and informing purchasers of the tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke, must clearly be considered in relation to their likely effectiveness in reducing the hazards to health and in discouraging children from starting smoking.
My Lords, I cannot give answers to these problems to-day. I will only say this in conclusion: that I think this debate has done a very great deal to assist the public to form its own conclusion. My own impression, for what it is worth—and I am bound to say that one's subjective impressions are not necessarily worth a great deal—is that this time, at last, the public has begun to take an interest in this important matter; and that, for some reason which can only guess at, this Report may have succeeded where others equally emphatic have failed. If that is so, it is something which all of us will have to ponder upon, and conduct our own private lives and our public lives accordingly.
9.56 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, this may be somewhat unprecedented, but the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has seen fit to impugn the motives of manufacturers and in particular, I think, myself.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, my Lords. I do not want to interrupt my noble friend, but I really must emphatically say that I was particularly careful to say that no motives at all were impugned. What I did impugn was manufacturers' wisdom in olinging to a belief about facts which I thought could no longer be sustained.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: May I say this, my Lords? When I informed the House earlier this afternoon that I did honestly and sincerely believe that the case is not proven, I meant that that is my belief, and I must ask the House to accept it. I would also ask the House to accept the fact that the manufacturers' attitude to this is as I have described it. They have never said that heavy cigarette smoking cannot in certain circumstances cause this disease. But they do say that the fact that smoking causes lung cancer is not proved.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed just to say that I absolutely accept my noble friend's complete sincerity in everything he said, and if I gave any other impression I did not intend to do so. I am certainly delighted to correct it, because I know my noble friend sufficiently well to know that he would never tell this House anything which he did not sincerely believe himself.
9.57 p.m.
THE EARL of ARRAN: My Lords, we have had a long and tense debate, the length and tenseness of which shows the interest taken in these affairs, and the seriousness with which they are regarded; and that is an excellent thing. In a way the debate has been the first expression of public opinion since the publication of the Report, for I like to think that this is a democratic Assembly and that, despite our curious composition, we represent public opinion. This debate has also produced some very clear results. After the views expressed, I hope it will be clear to the interested persons and parties that it is not just the doctors and the Government who believe in this Report. Rightly or wrongly, and despite the Daily Express, most people believe in it.
That being settled, I hope that we can now once and for all approach the
762
major problem of what to do next without any looking back over our shoulders. It has been a comfort to hear the reassuring, indeed, strong, words of the noble Leader. As I said earlier, what we really want to be sure of is that this time the Government really mean business. The impression I get is that they do and I can assure them that, if they do not, we shall be after them. Perhaps to-day we may have saved a few lives, my Lords, and that is a pleasing and a comforting thought on which to go to bed. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported yesterday with Amendments.
GRANGEMOUTH BURGH BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a,
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on February 8 last discharged, and the Bill referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

YORKSHIRE WOOLLEN DISTRICT TRANSPORT BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill: read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.