Sitting of 10 April 1963

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Assistant Naval Attaché, Oslo
    Commander Keransasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when it is intended to reappoint a British Naval Attaché at Oslo.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr, C. Ian Orr-Ewing): We are discussing with the other Departments concerned the possibility of appointing an Assistant Naval Attaché to Oslo as an alternative.
    Commander Kerans: Would not my hon. Friend agree it is high time that the Treasury reconsidered this,
    issue, bearing in mind that the Norwegian Navy is rebuilding? Is not this a great opportunity to get some of these orders for the North-East Coast at an early date? I hope that my hon. Friend will advise the Treasury to rethink this matter out again.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am aware of those facts. Oslo is not without naval representation, for we have a vice-admiral, a captain, four commanders and eight junior officers at the N.A.T.O. headquarters in that city.

    Replenishment Ships (Tenders)
    Commander Keransasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what consideration he is giving to the placing of the proposed Admiralty orders for replenishment ships to yards on Tees-side, in
    1250
    view of the present high level of unemployment in the area.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Tenders for the two new Fleet replenishment ships were invited in February. These ships are designed to full warship standard and this did not make it possible for us to invite tenders from firms on Tees-side. Three firms of the warship group on the North-East Coast were invited to tender.
    Commander Kerans: I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider this issue, bearing in mind that Furness and Withy, although outside my constituency, is very close indeed to it. Will my hon. Friend consider this issue as a special case, bearing in mind that we have surplus labour at the Hartlepools from Grays & Grays (Tees), which is now facing a difficult time?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am well aware of the very considerable difficulties of the shipbuilding industry in the North-East. This is a matter not only for the Admiralty but also for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

    Rosyth Dockyard (Nuclear Submarines)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the estimated number of new jobs which will be created in the Rosyth Dockyard, consequent on the implementation of the recent decision to refit nuclear submarines there.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on the 15th March and 3rd April to the hon. Members for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) and for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
    Mr. Hamilton: I think that it is said that this project will create 400 jobs. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in so far as the project is part of the nonsensical idea of an independent British nuclear deterrent, the Labour Party would be utterly opposed to it, but that, in so far as it is part of the general nuclear programme for constructive purposes, we would welcome the establishment of this kind of nuclear project in Scotland?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: No doubt the House of Commons and the country in general will note the hon. Gentleman's views.

    Surface Vessels (Guided Missiles)
    Commander Courtneyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (1) what weapons, apart from carrier-borne aircraft, are available for surface action by cruisers, destroyers and escorts of the Royal Navy as a counter to the surface-to-surface guided-missile systems fitted in the Kynda, Krupny, Kildin, Osa and Komar classes of Soviet warships;
    (2) whether a guided missile system for use against surface vessels is under development for the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: In our view, the best answer to this threat is the carrier-borne aircraft, bearing in mind that seaborne aircraft can be employed in many other offensive and defensive rôles.
    Commander Courtney: Is my hon. Friend aware of the serious situation which could arise if surface forces of the Royal Navy were faced by missile-armed Soviet surface forces in the absence of carrier-borne aircraft?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend the First Lord and I are very well aware of that fact. I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend is out of breath. He must have run all the way from the Savoy Hotel.
    Mr. Cronin: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the efficacy of carrier-borne aircraft, but is it not the case that they cannot operate in thick weather? Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is that cruisers and destroyers of the Royal Navy are so much behind equivalent vessels in the Russian Navy in their armament?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: If the hon. Gentleman would like to spend a day at sea in thick weather he would see that our all-weather aircraft can operate under the most extraordinarily difficult conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has been".] Perhaps on that occasion the weather was not as thick as it can be. I concede that the Russians have specialised in missiles and we have not. We must bear in mind that the Russians have never had any aircraft carriers in their Navy.
    Commander Courtney: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's
    1252
    reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Widows' Pensions
    Dr. Kingasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the amount of pension now received by the widow of a leading rating who was pensioned after maximum service and died in August, 1950; and how much it would be if he had been pensioned and died this year, assuming in the first case that the widow is 65 and in the second case 45 years old.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The widow of a leading rating who was pensioned and died prior to 31st August. 1950, receives no naval pension.
    The widow of a leading rating who had been pensioned and died this year would receive 22s. a week. This is based on 22 years which is the normal maximum service for a leading rating. The ages given in the question have no significance in the award of naval pensions to widows. These naval pensions do not debar her from drawing ordinary civilian benefits.
    Dr. King: Does the Minister think that what he has told us reflects a just state of affairs? Is he aware that, while the ex-Service associations appreciate what the Government have done to step up Service pensions, they cannot he happy as long as this unjust anomaly remains between the widow of the older rating and the widow who benefits by the present system? Will he seriously consider whether he can provide fair and equal widows' pensions for the widows of older ratings?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sure that the hon. Member, who is very fair in these matters, will understand that it is not a matter for a single Service but is really a matter for all State pensioners, both civil servants and uniformed pensioners. It is, therefore, a matter which goes rather wider than merely the Admiralty alone.
    Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman discuss this matter with the other Service Departments so that it might be raised with the Treasury?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, certainly, these matters are discussed inter-Service-wise. It is, however, a matter which goes a good deal wider than merely the Service Departments. It includes civil servants also.

    Shipyards, North-East
    Mr. Milneasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the value of orders placed with North-East shipyards during 1962; and what is the estimated expenditure for 1963.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: None for the calendar year ending 31st December, 1962, but they secured the orders worth nearly £10 million for the three fast replenishment tankers placed in February this year.
    In addition to these three new tankers, there are under construction or on order in North-East shipyards two 6,000 ton guided missile destroyers, two frigates and a tanker.
    Mr. Milne: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that I am breathless, not because of running from the Savoy, but because of the Answer which he has given to the Question? Will he remember that while we are appreciative of these orders in the North-East, there are also small yards as well as large yards and that many of the small yards arc in development districts? Will he pay attention to this matter?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, I certainly am well aware of the difficulties in the area. The total value of the ships which I listed in my reply is something like £47 million. There is, therefore, a substantial amount of naval work in the area.
    Mr. P. Williams: Would my hon. Friend welcome support from certain members of the Labour Party for an independent British defence policy?
    Mr. Milneasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the value of ship-repairing work placed with North-East shipyards during 1962; and what is the estimated expenditure for 1963.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: During 1962 contract ship-repair work amounted to £6 million of which £780,000 was placed with North-East shipyards.
    As far as possible ship-repair work is normally carried out in the Royal Dockyards and we shall continue this practice during 1963. Repair work which we place to contract during the year will in most cases be by competitive tender and the North-East shipyards will be given the opportunity to bid for suitable orders.

    International Indian Ocean Expedition
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if the international fleet of exploratory research vessels, including the £800,000 oceanographic research vessel built in Aberdeen, now exploring the southern oceans are equipped with the new type of 10-ton undersea research vehicles capable of reaching depths of 6,000 feet with a range of 20 miles and endurance of 24 hours; and what results have so far been achieved by this exploratory research expedition.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: None of the ships taking part in the International Indian Ocean Expedition is so equipped and, so far as I am aware, no such vessel is yet in use.
    The expedition is not yet in full operation and its research programme will not be completed until 1964.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the international character of this expedition, its unusual character and its great expense, will the Minister say what arrangements he has made for periodical reports to this House of the progress of the expedition?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We must, I think, await the full findings of the expedition. If, however, the House were sufficiently interested, perhaps, the hon. and learned Member would put down a Question in, say, six months' time, when I should be happy to answer it.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister bear in mind that this is an unusual expedition with regard both to its expense and its scientific character? Will he bear this in mind with a view to making periodical reports to this House?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, I will bear it in mind. Even in the preliminary results, Her Majesty's survey ships have helped to define the Carlsberg Ridge and have obtained gravimetric observations in the area which are extremely important.

    Anti-Submarine Techniques
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of Vote 4 of the Navy Estimates for 1963–64 is to be spent on anti-submarine techniques.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It is not the practice to specify the proportion of effort as between separate fields of research and development connected with naval warfare; but I can assure the hon. Member that the effort on antisubmarine techniques is considerable.
    Mr. Willis: Can the hon. Gentleman say, first, whether these figures include anything in connection with the research work at La Spezia; and, secondly, in view of the urgency of getting a new break-through in anti-submarine techniques, whether he is satisfied that sufficient is being spent?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: As far as I recall, the work at La Spezia comes under N.A.T.O. auspices and, therefore, would appear not on Naval Votes but under Ministry of Defence Votes. In reply to the second point, it is true that we have been devoting more and more of our research development effort to this vitally important aspect. It would be unwise to give facts and figures, because to do so would be to tell a potential enemy and give him warning, which might be up to ten years of warning, of just how much effort we are devoting in this direction. I assure the hon. Member that the Board of Admiralty takes this matter seriously.
    Commander Courtney: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the most skilled anti-submarine techniques are quite useless without an adequate number of ships to operate these techniques in view of the very large number of potential enemy vessels with which we are faced? Is it not deplorable, therefore, that the hunter-killer submarine programme has been cut back?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, of course, one needs ships—and, incidentally, submarines—to operate these anti-submarine techniques. It is equally important to give them adequate practice and operational practice with our allies, an aspect to which we are devoting a great deal of attention.

    Hunter-Killer Submarine Programme
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what will be the extent of the delay in the hunter-killer submarine programme brought about by the Polaris programme.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: There will be no interference with the construction of Oberon hunter-killer submarines. There will be a hiatus in the programme of nuclear hunter-killer submarines which will mean that in the short term we may lose three boats, as compared with our planned rate of build-up. How soon this hiatus could be made good must depend on a number of factors, especially (a) the number of building streams employed on Polaris submarines; (b) whether Her Majesty's Government decided to have four Polaris submarines or five; (c) how fast Her Majesty's Government decided to make good the arrears of hunter-killers. But in broad terms the gap could be closed and the programme of nuclear hunter-killer overhauled by a date somewhere between 1972 and 1975.
    Mr. Willis: Does not that Answer make complete nonsense of what the Minister of Defence told the House about this programme? As the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) has just said, is it not deplorable that we have to stop this programme, which is extremely urgent in our anti-submarine preparations, to carry on with Polaris?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said, I believe, that in the long term there would not be any interference. I tried to make clear in my reply that it was perfectly possible by between 1972 and 1975, if the Government of the day so willed, to make up the gap or the hiatus which will exist.
    Commander Courtney: In his reply, my hon. Friend mentioned the Oberon class of hunter-killer submarine for, I believe, the first time in this House. Is he aware that this class of submarine has an underwater speed which is, perhaps, slightly over half that of the nuclear submarines which it is designed to hunt and kill?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am equally aware that the vast threat which is now coming from the U.S.S.R. is, at this date, mainly in conventional submarines. I am also aware that not only this country, but Commonwealth countries—Australia in particular is buying Oberon submarines from us—have great faith that the Oberon submarine has a very useful and economic rôle to play for a considerable time to come.

    Research and Development Contracts (Working Party's Recommendations)
    Mr. Reynoldsasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what changes in the financial and contractual procedures in relation to research and development contracts have been made as a result of the recommendations made by the working party appointed in May, 1960.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The working party reported in December, 1962. Decisions on the recommendations have not been taken yet by the Board of Admiralty. I hope, however, that we shall conclude our consideration very shortly and I will then write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Reynolds: In view of the suggestions made in the Report of the Auditor-General which led to the setting up of the working party, which was set up three years ago, may we have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that things will really move a bit faster in this matter, because large sums of money are involved and it is essential to do something to try to cut down possible excess of expenditure on various aspects of the work?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree. Equally, however, I think that the hon. Member would agree that the control of research and development is an immensely complicated problem. We have twenty-two research and development establishments in which over 7,000 people are employed and total annual expenditure amounts to £26 million. The matter must, therefore, be seen in perspective. It is an extremely intricate problem to solve.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: As yesterday the Prime Minister said that the Government were hesitating about the expenditure of £90 million for a Scottish power station, is it not time the Admiralty considered this huge, astronomical expenditure on something which is likely to be obsolete and not so useful as a power station?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I feel that most of the country would think that the defence of our country was the greatest necessity of all.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Meritorious Service Medal
    Commander Purseyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the present annuity and the annual allocation of money for the Meritorious Service Medal for Royal Marine other ranks and naval ratings, respectively; what is the number of Royal Marine and Royal Navy holders of this medal, respectively; and what allocation would be required to pay the annuity to all holders of the medal when pensioned.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Ten pounds, which, after adding various pension increases, amounts to an average of just over £20. The annual allocation of money is £400. This is for Royal Marine other ranks only, naval ratings not being eligible for an annuity. The total number of medal holders now alive is not known, but there are 236 Royal Marine other ranks eligible for the annuity. Payment of the annuity to all these would require a total sum of about £4,800 a year, including pension increases.
    Commander Pursey: With Navy Estimates at over £400 million, why does not the Civil Lord increase the allocation for this medal and pay all these old sweats the petty sum of six pennies per day with their pension in the same way as with the Distinguished Conduct Medal? Why are naval petty officers who served with the Army under the same conditions during World War I in France and others awarded the medal for their meritorious war service not paid the annuity in the same way as the Army and the Royal Marines? Why award a Meritorious Service Medal for which Queen Victoria provided an annuity of £20 to petty officers for war service with the Army if they are then to be the only ones denied this paltry annuity of £10?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that it would not be just for the Royal Marines, but the Army would, of course, have to be given the same annuity, and this would cost £95,000. I also think it is right to say that this is a nice medal and many people who win it like to have it for the value of the medal and not for the annuity. I think it is not a bad arrangement.
    Commander Purseyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many Royal Marine and Royal Navy holders of the Meritorious Service Medal were awarded the annuity in the last five years; what was the average age in each Service; in which years World War 1 and World War 2 lists are likely to be completed; and when the last of the present holders of the medal is likely to receive his annuity.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The answers to the first two parts are four Royal Marine holders and 77 years respectively. No Royal Navy personnel are eligible. Awards of this medal were not confined to war time, and the names of holders who satisfy the conditions for annuity are on a common list. As new grants depend on vacancies arising, I am unable to give a specific answer to the last part of the Question.
    Commander Pursey: Why has the annuity for the Victoria Cross been increased from £10 to £100 if, according to what the hon. Gentleman said in reply to my previous Question, the value of the medal is more important than the annuity? When this medal was introduced, the annuity was double the value of that of the Victoria Cross. Why should these old sweats, after 22 years' service, have to wait another 30 or 40 years for this paltry annuity of 3s. 6d. a week? After a long race of life against death with the odds against winning, is not the payment at the age of nearly 80 more of a death benefit than an annuity, as few men draw the annuity for any length of time?
    Captain Orr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Commander Pursey: There is no point of order, because I am now sitting down.
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) rise to a point of order?
    Captain Orr: I was merely going to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, as the supplementary question contains a number of figures, it could be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I have lost count. I could not deal with that.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I note the point of view expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey).

    "Green Ranger" (Loss)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on the loss of the "Green Ranger" off the North Devon coast last winter.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: "Green Ranger" left Plymouth in tow in light seas and fair weather on the 15th November but had to seek shelter in a heavy ground swell north of Clovelly during the afternoon of the following day and anchored there that evening. Difficulty in weighing anchor delayed until next morning the attempt to reach Lundy Island for shelter. During this time the wind increased, finally to force 9. Assistance was called during the afternoon but the tow parted and the ship drove hard ashore near Hartland Point in the evening. The runner crew was taken off by breeches buoy at 0300 the following morning, 18th November.
    In subsequent gales the ship broke in two and is a total loss—she will be offered for sale as she lies in the near future.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Civil Lord take into account that many people will think that the Admiralty was grossly incompetent in permitting this vessel to be taken in tow round Land's End at a time when she could, as after all she did, meet a gale of either force 9 or force 10? Will he and his right hon. Friend take into account that there is no harbour and no breakwater at Clovelly, and that the men who manned the beach lifeboat risked their lives to succour the men concerned? Will he also take into account that on that very same day there was an accident with another beach lifeboat at Seaham and nine lives were lost? Is it not time we spent some money on safeguarding our seamen instead of wasting hundreds of millions on Polaris missiles which may never be used?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is quite fair to suggest that this was a naval responsibility. The vessel was under tow by a commercial firm. I have been under considerable pressure to place just this kind of repair work in South Wales shipyards, and one of those shipyards won this tender, which included the towing of the vessel from

    1261
    Plymouth to South Wales. The weather forecast at the time was reasonable, but in this case it was not completely accurate.

    Bahamas Cays (Patrols)
    Mr. Croninasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement on action taken by the Royal Navy to prevent British territory from being used as a base for hostilities against Cuba; and what consultations have taken place with appropriate United States authorities with regard to such preventive actions.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement on recent incidents in the Bahamas, in which Royal Marines have been involved, arising out of the activities of anti-Castro Cuban émigrés.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Because the reply is somewhat lengthy I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Briefly the Senior Naval Officer West Indies has arranged for patrols of the Bahamas Cays over the last six weeks in consultation with the Governor of the Bahamas and the United States Administration and local co-operation with the United States Coastguard Service.
    Mr. Cronin: While I appreciate that there are considerable difficulties and that it is necessary to patrol hundreds of islands, in view of the grave diplomatic issues involved will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the utmost vigilance is maintained?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir; I will. The hon. Gentleman is very fair in saying that this is a difficult problem. There are also 88,000 sq. miles of sea to be patrolled. Consequently, it is not easy to find these very small boats.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is correct, as has been reported, that in one case a number of these émigrés were captured and were then allowed to retain the weapons which they had illegally in their possession?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will look into that question. I do not think it is one for me. I think it is a matter for the Attorney-General of the Bahamas to go into.
    Mr. Driberg: They were captured by the Royal Marines.
    Mr. Rankin: With regard to Question No. 19, does the hon. Gentleman realise that personnel are being recruited and trained for these hostilities on United States territory? Will he take that point up also with the appropriate authorities?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not accept that as a statement of fact, and if I did, I should not be responsible for it.
    Following is the reply:
    In consultation with the Governor of the Bahamas, the Senior Naval Officer West Indies has arranged for patrols of the Bahamas Cays over the last six weeks. There has been full consultation with the United States Administration, and local co-operation with the United States Coastguard Service.
    During searches in early March, a small schooner and a quantity of arms were seized. On 31st March, H.M.S. "Londonderry" arrived off Norman Cay and conveyed 17 men, who had been arrested by Bahamian police, to Nassau. Their launch was towed to Nassau by a crew from H.M.S. "Londonderry".
    On 5th April a Royal Marine party, operating with Army and police officers, searched William Island. Two armed men were arrested, and a further party of five men escaped in a fast dinghy and were subsequently apprehended by a United States Coastguard cutter. Dumps of arms, food and fuel were discovered on William Island. In addition, nine Cuban exiles were captured on Andres Island and were transferred to H.M.S "Londonderry".

    Borneo (Piracy)
    Mr. Croninasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Royal Navy on the suppression of piracy off the North coast of Borneo and in the adjacent waters.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Her Majesty's ships are continuing to undertake frequent anti-piracy patrols in co-operation with the local authorities in British North Borneo. These patrols have contributed to a marked reduction in the number of incidents reported in the area, involving either piracy on the high seas or armed raids by bandits attacking coastal villages from the sea. Her Majesty's ships will persevere with their efforts to suppress such lawlessness on the high seas and in the territorial seas of British North Borneo.
    Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case that piracy still flourishes off the coast of Borneo? Is it not highly unsatisfactory

    1263
    that scenes reminiscent of the days of Henry Morgan should take place in waters over which the Royal Navy is responsible?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: This is no new problem to that area. Piracy has been in existence in the China Sea for very much longer than I have been at the Admiralty. But we will look at this matter.

    Electrical Officers (Recruitment)
    Miss Vickersasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what measures are being taken to improve the recruiting of electrical officers to the Royal Navy.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: We have just introduced more attractive conditions for short-service and medium-service commissions. There will be a greater variety of commissions available; a five-year short-service commission which can be extended up to ten years and a sixteen-year pensionable commission. In addition the upper age limit for entry has been raised.
    Miss Vickers: Does my hon. Friend think that the new conditions will attract people from industry? What is the lower age, and is there any marriage bar to entry?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is no marriage bar to entry. The age limit has been raised from 36 to 39 and we seek to attract people from industry, to whom we give seven years' credit for suitable civilian experience and up to one year in addition for professional qualifications. This is a considerable incentive.

    Scientific Service Staff (Scotland)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many of the 7,140 staff employed in the Royal Naval Scientific Service on 1st April, 1963, were employed in Scotland; and whether the proportion is likely to increase in the near future.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The number employed on 1st April, 1963, was 552. No significant increase is foreseen in the near future.
    Mr. Lawson: In view of the very well-known inventive and mechanical genius of the Scottish people, does not the hon.
    1264
    Gentleman think that the Royal Navy is depriving itself of most valuable manpower? Will he ensure that the number of research workers in Scotland is vastly multiplied by the next time we ask a Question such as this?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot promise to do that, though as a Scot, albeit a Sassenach by habitation, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments. There is a great deal of engineering skill in Scotland and there are three important research establishments which contribute to our research and development effort in a vary well worth while way.

    Research and Development Contracts (Scotland)
    Mr. Rossasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how much of the £18,832,100 provided in the 1963–64 Navy Estimates, Vote 4, Subhead B, for other expenditure on research and development, will be spent in Scotland; and whether this figure is likely to increase in the future.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Approximately £3·1 million. No significant increase is expected in the future.
    Mr. Ross: How much was spent at the establishment to which the former torpedo experimental station at Greenock was transferred?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the work transferred to Portland, I cannot answer him without notice. In any case, I doubt if it would be wise to give an idea to our potential enemies of exactly how much we are spending in each of our research establishments.
    Mr. Millanasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how much of the £15,681,900 provided in the 1963–64 Navy Estimates for research and development contracts will be spent in Scotland; and how this figure compares with that for each of the last five years.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It is estimated that approximately £2·9 million, which will be about 18 per cent. of the total expenditure on research and development contracts in 1963–64, will be spent in Scotland. With one exception, this sum is higher than in any of the past five years.
    Mr. Milan: What special steps are taken by the hon. Gentleman's Department to attract this kind of contract to areas of high unemployment? Is a continuing effort made?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: As the hon. Gentleman knows, if we have a massive contract—a repetitive contract—there are special provisions far directing a proportion, up to 25 per cent., to development districts, But, apart from that, in giving out tenders, we have to look after the taxpayers' interests and the need of the Navy for prompt delivery.

    Stores and Equipment Purchases (Scotland)
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of the £5,947,000 provided in the 1963–64 Navy Estimates for the purchase of certain naval stores and equipment will be spent in Scotland; and in particular how much of the £1,215,000 for motor transport will be spent in Scotland.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: There will be very little expenditure in Scotland for motor transport. This apart I would expect the proportion of this subhead to be spent in Scotland to be at about the same level as it was in 1961–62—about 16 per cent.
    Mr. Gourlay: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that 16 per cent, is a very low proportion of the amount of money which should be spent in Scotland? In considering the amount to be spent on motor transport, will the hon. Gentleman re-examine the position with a view to giving a greater proportion to Scottish factories?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I understand that ray right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has stated that the motor factories in Scotland are not yet in full production, but we will take account of the merits of their products when we consider the next tenders.
    Mr. G. Thomas: What proportion is to be spent in Wales? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I should like the same answers about Wales as he has given to all these Questions about Scotland?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will bear that in mind. l will even answer Questions if
    1266
    the hon. Gentleman likes to put them down.
    Mr. Smallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how much of the £32,899,000 provided in the 1963–64 Navy Estimates for the purchase of electrical and electronic stores and equipment will be spent in Scotland; and whether it is his policy to increase such expenditure in areas of high unemployment.
    Mr. Benceasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how much of the £18,431,000 provided in the 1963–64 Navy Estimates for the purchase of general stores will be spent in Scotland; and whether he will indicate the nature of these stores, showing which are purchased in Scotland.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: All Scottish firms which are capable of supplying the various stores we want will be invited to tender but the contracts will be awarded on the merits of price and delivery offered.
    Mr. Small: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but may I ask him to do his best to extend opportunity for electronic equipment to be supplied by Scotland, since 60 per cent. of the science graduates in Scotland come to England after university training?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We will certainly bear this in mind. I think that I am right in saying that between 8 and 10 per cent. of our electronics expenditure goes to Scotland.
    Mr. Mellish: Will the hon. Gentleman take note that Northern Ireland has certain claims, although none of the Ulster Unionist Members opposite seem to be interested?
    Mr. McMaster rose—
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will take note of what the hon. Member who sits for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says.

    Polaris Submarines (Operational Base)
    Mr. Stodartasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when he will announce where an operating base will be constructed for the Polaris submarines.
    Miss Vickersasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider

    1267
    making Devonport the operational base for Polaris submarines.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am not yet able to make a statement but we hope to do so soon after the Easter Recess.
    Mr. Stodart: While operational considerations in this matter are obviously of paramount importance, may I ask my hon. Friend to continue to appreciate the advantages which Scotland has to offer, particularly in view of the Answers he has given, which show that the Admiralty appreciates the importance of Scotland?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, I am aware of these facts. But, as my hon. Friend says, it is speed which is of paramount importance, together with the operational advantages which we have to take into serious consideration.
    Miss Vickers: In considering this, will my hon. Friend remember the service given by the dockyard at Devonport during the last 300 years? Will he ensure that the present level of employment there is maintained? If it cannot be an operational base for these submarines, will he see that the aircraft carriers, for which this port is eminently suitable, are sent there? Frigates could also be based there, and there is the possibility of building further ships so that the dockyard can be kept fully employed.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will certainly bear that point in mind.
    Mr. Manuel: Will the Polaris submarines, when they arrive—if ever—be put under the control of N.A.T.O.? If they are, will N.A.T.O. decide on the operational base or will this be a unilateral decision?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is not right in his assumptions. We are making plans at the present time about these submarines. If there are talks at a higher level on an international agreement concerning them, that is another matter. At present the Admiralty must get ahead with plans for the operational base.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Before complying with the request of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) to make Devonport an operational base for Polaris submarines, what
    1268
    steps would the hon. Gentleman take to ascertain whether the inhabitants of Devonport desired it?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sure that the inhabitants desire to remain part of a free country, I am sure that they will wish to make their contribution to defence.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Royal Ordnance Factories
    Mr. Whitlockasked the Secretary of State for War if it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to regard the Royal Ordnance factories as a vital strategic reserve and as a preferred source for certain equipment.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): There is no change in our policy towards the Royal Ordnance factories.
    Mr. Whitlock: While I am very glad to have the Minister's assurance, may I ask how he can reconcile that statement with the fact that in the Nottingham factory shop after shop has been closed and more than 400 men are threatened with redundancy? Cannot he make some renewed effort to ensure that these 400 skilled men are retained?
    Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Gentleman knows the circumstances under which this redundancy arose. I am afraid that it arose out of an order not going to the Royal Ordnance factory which we expected would go there. Because of the disparity in costs, the preferred-source policy, as he knows, cannot apply.
    Mr. Tapsell: Is my hon. Friend in a position to give a categorical assurance that it is not the intention to close the Royal Ordnance factory at Nottingham?
    Mr. Ramsden: We are, as I think my hon. Friend knows, conducting a review of the capacity in the weapons and engineering group, and I am not yet ready to make a statement.
    Mr. Whitlockasked the Secretary of State for War if during the past year contracts have been placed with private enterprise for work which the Royal Ordnance factories are equipped to undertake and for which they have not been asked to tender.
    Mr. Ramsden: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Whitlock: As the hon. Gentleman says in a recent letter that the Royal Ordnance factory at Nottingham is at a disadvantage in competing with industry because all its labour force is highly skilled, and it is not given the design and development experience, will he say what kind of jobs Nottingham is likely to get, except short-run production, which is extremely costly, and which private enterprise does not want?
    Mr. Ramsden: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Nottingham is heavily engaged on a substantial programme of gun manufacture. The Question asks whether orders have gone outside the Royal Ordnance factories for which they had not had an opportunity to tender. These mostly relate to ammunition components which are in a different field from that in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.
    Mr. Tapsell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is particular concern at Nottingham Royal Ordnance factory because it feels that it is not getting a chance to do design work for which it is well-equipped; for instance, in regard to a recent mobile anti-tank gun which it is felt could have come to it but which did not?
    Mr. Ramsden: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. The question of what work goes into Royal Ordnance factories has always been subject to the design rights, as they are called, of the parent firm.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Secretary of State for War what orders have been placed in foreign countries during the past six months for armaments which the Royal Ordnance factories in this country are also equipped to make.
    Mr. Ramsden: None, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if such orders have not been recently placed they are about to be for about £550,000 worth of anti-tank guns from Sweden and £10 million of orders from the U.S.A. for 175 mm. guns? If that is so, in view of those orders being placed and of the recent orders that have been placed with
    1270
    private firms, would he not agree that all these orders are of a type which could be carried out by the Royal Ordnance factories in this country? Whatever the reasons may be for the placing of these orders, would he not agree that, when they take place at the same time as the staff of the Royal Ordnance factory in Nottingham is being cut by 30 per cent., it must create the impression there that the factory is on the way out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—and, in spite of what he has said to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell), cannot he say something to allay these fears?
    Mr. Ramsden: I fully understand the uncertainty which the recent redundancies have created at the factory, but I cannot add to what I have said in reply to my hon. Friend about the review of what is to happen. In reply to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, our research and development effort cannot be deployed in a wide enough field to cover every possible Army requirement. The reason that these weapons have been ordered from abroad is that there are no British designs from which the weapons could be built, so we have to go abroad in order to get the Army the equipment which it needs.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for War if the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich, is still a preferred source for the production of conventional weapons; and if he will set up an independent committee of inquiry into the fairness and efficiency of present methods of tendering by Royal Ordnance factories.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): Yes. Sir, and the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich, receives its due share of such Royal Ordnance factory production orders as it is equipped to undertake.
    I do not consider that an independent committee of inquiry into the methods of tendering by the Royal Ordnance factories is required at present. The problem that must be decided first is the scale of Royal Ordnance factory capacity that needs to be retained. I am at present examining this very important and involved question and before taking a final decision I have asked Sir Eric Mensforth, the Chairman of Firth Brown Tools Ltd.

    1271
    and Westland Aircraft Ltd., to give me his views on the outcome of this examination.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern in Woolwich about this subject? Can he say why, if the Arsenal remains a preferred source in the production of conventional weapons, the Minister constantly gives these orders to private enterprise?
    Mr. Profumo: It is not true that we constantly give these orders to private enterprise. The hon. Member, with other hon. Members interested in the subject, will know that in this case we bent over backwards to try to pursue the preferred-source policy, but there was such a discrepancy in the tenders that we were unable to do so. It is for that reason that we are having an inquiry and I hope that when Sir Eric Mensforth reports to me we shall be in a clearer position.
    Mr. Mayhew: The Minister will accept that he is himself responsible for the efficiency and competitiveness of Woolwich Arsenal?
    Mr. Profumo: Certainly.

    Scottish Infantry Record Office
    Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Secretary of State for War why it is proposed to move the Scottish Infantry Record Office out of Scotland.
    Mr. Ramsden: The amalgamation of the Perth Record Office with that at York where there is new specially designed accommodation and new punched card machines will produce very substantial economies. I regret therefore that my right hon. Friend has had to decide to close the Record Office at Perth.
    Miss Anderson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the bad effect on morale that this will have and that it will be regarded as removing yet another part of the independence of the Scottish regiments? Will he not look again to the alternative, which was put up and looked upon favourably about two years ago, that at least some of the work should be maintained in Scotland?
    Mr. Ramsden: We are confident that the Scottish infantry regiments will get from the office at York every bit as good
    1272
    a service as they have had from Perth. Many Scottish units are already administered with regard to their records outside Scotland at the moment. I am afraid that, for reasons of economy which I have mentioned, it is impossible to reconsider this decision.
    The Earl of Dalkeith: While I appreciate some of the reasons given by my hon. Friend, I wonder whether he could make his answer still more convincing by letting us have some figures of the economy that will be effected as a result of this change?
    Mr. Ramsden: The estimated economy is about £40,000 in a full year.
    Mr. Manuel: Does not the hon. Gentleman, in making this decision, consider that the Records Office could have been just as suitable at Perth as in the English location that he has now given to the combined operation, and can he say whether his right hon. Friend has the figures of the actual numbers which will be removed from Scotland to York as a result of this transaction?
    Mr. Ramsden: We considered that, but what weighed with us was the fact that the volume of work and the number of staff employed in York were more than three times that of the Perth office, and new accommodation to house staff and machines had recently been specially built for the Records Office in York. The effect on employment, I am glad to say, although any effect is regrettable, will be comparatively slight.

    Sentry Box, St. James's Palace
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will investigate the circumstances, of which details have been supplied by the hon. Member for Brixton, in which a model was permitted by the military authorities to use a sentry box outside St. James's Palace for a fashion display; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ramsden: The photographer who used this sentry box as background for a fashion advertisement did not ask to be allowed to do so. The box is in a public street and it would be difficult to stop members of the public being photographed against it when the sentry is away from it.
    Mr. Lipton: Why is the Under-Secretary answering this Question

    1273
    instead of the Secretary of State for War, who knows more about these things? Will the Under-Secretary say whether this kind of thing really helps to preserve the dignity of the Services?
    Mr. Ramsden: I think that I might answer both parts of that supplementary question by asking why the hon. Gentleman is asking it at all.
    Mr. Shinwell: Would the Minister give this further consideration? Has it occurred to him that St. James's Palace would look very much more attractive if we replaced the soldier in the sentry box by the model?

    Apprentice Training School, Woolwich
    Sir J. Pitmanasked the Secretary of State for War (1) what consultations he had before deciding to discontinue the Apprentice Training School at Woolwich;
    (2) what plans he has for utilising the valuable specialist equipment and experienced staff for training craftsmen at the Apprentice School, Woolwich, at a time when school leavers are more than usually numerous and the needs for such training are great.
    Mr. Profumo: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to see whether we can arrange for the Apprentice Training Shop to be used by non-Government apprentices. I would like in this way to be able to make use in some measure of the staff and facilities of the workshop. There are however practical difficulties—for example, questions of security arise because the shop is in the middle of a defence establishment—but we shall of course do our best to overcome these.
    Sir J. Pitman: While greatly welcoming that decision, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consult also with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education? One of the finest technical colleges in the country is there, and colleges of further education in the adjoining areas are very good indeed. Would my right hon. Friend consult the Minister of Education to see if he might supplement the work that is being done there?
    Mr. Profumo: Certainly, Sir. I want, however, to make it clear that I have not discontinued the apprentice training school. I have simply decided to suspend the normal intake for one year.
    Mr. Reynolds: While I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can solve the security problem, may I ask whether he would agree to pass on the means of solving it to the First Lord of the Admiralty who seems to be having difficulty in solving a similar problem at Greenwich?
    Mr. Profumo: All these problems are very difficult, and if I can solve them it will be only because the security aspect is not too big.

    Retired Pay
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Secretary of State for War what was the maximum retired pay received by a lieutenant-colonel who retired in 1935; and what is the comparative purchasing power of the amount he now receives, assuming that he is now 77 years old.
    Mr. Ramsden: The maximum retired pay received by a lieutenant-colonel who retired in 1935 was £543 a year. With pensions increases he would now be receiving £877 a year. The comparative purchasing power of £877, in relation to the cost of living in 1935, is £331.
    Mr. Lubbock: Does not this indicate that these officers have not only failed to participate in the increase in the standard of living enjoyed by the rest of the community, but have dropped behind?
    Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Member moved certain Amendments in this sense during the Committee stage of the recent Bill, but, at the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Committee rejected them. I do not think that we can take that debate any further today.
    Mr. Paget: Are we not at some time to do something about this gross injustice to a lot of old men who have given valuable service? Are we not to adopt the honest policy of the same retirement pension for the same service, which is the only decent way to do it?
    Mr. Ramsden: What this boils down to is the amount of the national resources afforded by the taxpayer which the Government think it right to allot to these various charges. Within the limit of what is thought to be proper and what is available, I believe that our method of successive pensions increase Measures is the proper way of dealing with the situation.
    Dame Irene Ward: Why does not my hon. Friend just give the straight answer that the Minister of Defence and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are having an examination of this, whole matter? Why does not the Army stand up for its own people? If it had done so a little earlier, we would not be in this position today. That is my view of the subject.
    Mr. Paget rose—
    Dame Irene Ward: May I have an answer?
    Mr. Ramsden: With every respect to my hon. Friend, I think that she is oversimplifying the situation.
    Mr. Paget: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of continued increases of pensions, does he not appreciate that that does not affect these old gentlemen who gave their services a long time ago, since when money has depreciated? Cannot we allocate something to honesty, which is what it comes to?
    Dame Irene Ward: Go on—be honest.
    Mr. Ramsden: There must be a limit to the amount of resources which can be allocated to these Service and other pensions, and judgment has to be made as to the proper way of doing it. I think that the present policy is the best that can be done.

    Surplus Unused Motor Cars
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for War what action he is taking to dispose of surplus unused Service motor cars; whether, such cars are being made available to other Government Departments; and what are the arrangements for such purchases.
    Mr. Ramsden: The War Department has no surplus unused motor cars. We buy cars for Service use each year.

    1st Battalion, Scots Guards (Pirbright)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he will now make a detailed statement on the recent discontent in the 1st Battalion, Scots Guards, at Pirbright; what were the guardsmen's grievances; and what action has been taken.
    Mr. Pagetasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement with regard to the investigation ordered by him of the Pirbright mutiny.
    Mr. Profumo: A very thorough examination has been made into the circumstances leading to this incident.
    The complaints made by the men, though numerous. were for the most part individually trivial. They concerned the internal affairs of the unit, and whilst I do not propose to give details, they have been very carefully considered and action is being taken on any which have proved justified.
    As I have already said, the battalion is at low strength and the examination has shown that, apart from guard duties, it was trying to do too much. The local amenities are not entirely satisfactory and the normal channels for dealing with complaints were not always being used.
    Nevertheless, the incident should never have occurred but for a loss of contact between some of the officers and their men, and I am afraid that there can be no doubt that there were failures in administration and man management in the unit. In addition to other necessary measures, certain changes in the personnel of the battalion have been made.
    Mr. Driberg: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that very candid reply, may I ask him whether, when he says that the usual channels for complaints were "not being used", he means that they were being blocked at some point and, if so, where? Secondly, when he says that the complaints were "individually trivial", does he not realise that a very large number of individually trivial complaints can accumulate into something quite big? Is it, therefore, broadly his conclusion that there is, or was, too much "bull" in this battalion and that there ought to be less of it?
    Mr. Profumo: There are channels for complaints to officers in every unit and, of course, there were in this, and officers are bound to deal with these complaints. In some cases these channels were fiat being used properly and in some cases protests were not being properly investigated. But I do not think that there is any need for me to add anything further to the rather full Answer I have given, which shows the failure in man management.
    Mr. Paget: Is there not some method of finding out trouble of this sort before a mutiny takes place? A mutiny is not a very good precedent as a method of drawing attention to grievances and getting them remedied.
    Mr. Profumo: I must challenge the hon. and learned Member's use of the word "mutiny". This was not a mutiny. Nobody was charged with mutiny, or with attempted mutiny, or with incitement to mutiny. There were grievances and a number of guardsmen went absent without leave, some for less than twenty-four hours, but then came back of their own accord. There is no question of there having been a mutiny.
    Mr. A. Royle: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the burden of public duties carried out by the Household Brigade in London? Does he feel that this burden was in any way responsible for some of the troubles with this battalion of Scots Guards at Pirbright?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think that that was one of the problems which was responsible, because the battalion, as I have said earlier, was capable, although at low strength, of carrying out public duties if not pushed too far in other directions. It could have called on London District for assistance if the commanding officer or the lieut.-colonel had felt that necessary. There is a later Question about public duties.
    Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when collective refusal of duty ceased to be a mutiny?
    Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Gentleman is perhaps more versed in the law than I and I can only tell him that there was no question of mutiny or incitement to mutiny. The commanding officer, or lieut.-colonel, when speaking to the men pointed out that there
    1278
    was a narrow line between what might develop into some form of mutiny as compared with what happened in this case.
    Mr. Hastings: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the record of this regiment is without peer in the British Army and that the best thing that can be done now is to leave it alone to put its affairs straight?
    Mr. Profumo: I agree, and I think that everybody would wish to do the same. It is our job to see that the commanding officer is given every sort of help and that the battalion builds up its strength.

HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEDURE
Sir W. Robson Brown45. Sir W. Robson Brown asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will move to appoint a new Select Committee on Procedure with wide terms of reference, to consider, in particular, whether time can be saved by the removal of detailed business from the Floor of the House and whether all-party committees could usefully he appointed to examine and report upon matters of economic, industrial, technical and scientific importance.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I will certainly consider this. But I think first we should await the Report of the present Select Committee on Procedure on the Finance Bill. This may be available tomorrow.
Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be particularly intense opposition to any idea that the House should surrender its duties as the watchdog over finance by sending any Finance Bills to Committees, and that any idea such as that contained in the Question runs entirely contrary to British Parliamentary tradition? I hope that he is aware of it.
Mr. Macleod: With respect to my hon. Friend, he should not get too indignant before he reads the Report.
Sir W. Robson Brown: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that, quite apart from what the present Select Committee reports, the great majority of

1279
the House and the country will be very glad if the Government will take an initiative in this matter and appoint a new Select Committee to consider these new terms?
Mr. Macleod: Among other matters to be considered, quite apart from whether these points should be referred to a Select Committee, is whether it should be a new Select Committee or the Select Committee on Procedure which the House has already set up. I do not think that we can reasonably examine these matters until we have had tomorrow's Report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for the week after the Recess?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Recess will be as follows—
TUESDAY, 23RD APRIL.—Second Reading of the Water Resources Bill [Lords], and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 24TH APRIL.—Remaining stages of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
Second Reading of the Local Employment Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
THURSDAY, 25TH APRIL.—Second Reading of the Remuneration of Teachers Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY, 26TH APRIL.—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 29TH APRIL.—The proposed business will be: Debate on the British Railways Board's Plan for the Reshaping of the Railways.
TUESDAY 30TH APRIL.—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed should be taken formally to allow the debate on the railways to be concluded.
Mr. H. Wilson: I take it the right hon. Gentleman understands that if we debate the Beeching Report many of us will want to discuss not merely the narrow parts of the Report itself, but the wider aspects of transport and the considerations of transport policy which has brought about this Report?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I think that that is well understood.
Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be making a statement on the Parliamentary controversy which took place last week, or whether Motions Nos. 117, 119 and 120 will end the matter?
[That this House deplores the action of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in requesting the hon. Member for Blackburn to withdraw a Question on turnstiles from the Order Paper on his written undertaking that he would inform her in advance when he was ready to make a statement so that she could table her Question again, in failing to honour that undertaking, in making his statement instead in reply to the hon. Member for Tynemouth and in inviting the hon. Member for Belfast, West, to introduce a Private Member's Bill to implement the policy for which the hon. Member for Blackburn had previously pressed in a Bill for which Her Majesty's Government had refused to give facilities, and calls on the Prime Minister to ensure that an apology is made to the hon. Member for Blackburn for the dishonouring of the pledge made to her.]
[That this House reaffirms the right of individual Members to put Questions on the Order Paper and to withdraw or transfer them within the rules of order.]
[That this House regrets that the hon. Member for Blackburn did not ascertain, before making allegations to the contrary, that the hon. Member for Tynemouth had exercised her right to seek information from the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the matter of turnstiles in which she had interested herself for the National Council of Women without any request from any Minister.]
Mr. Macleod: It was my right hon. Friend's intention to make a statement

1281
to the House on that matter, and he had so drafted it, but it was not possible for the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who is very much concerned in this, to be present that afternoon, so, naturally, my right hon. Friend did not make the statement but wrote to the hon. Member for Blackburn instead.
Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman find an early opportunity for the House to discuss the White Paper on the Polaris sales agreement, which will make this country wholly dependent on the United States for its deterrent for many years to come?
Mr. Macleod: Without entering into the polemics of that, clearly there is not an opportunity immediately after the Recess.
Sir G. Nicholson: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think that I am introducing a trivial note, but will he change his phraseology in future and not refer to "Supply, which it is proposed should be taken formally"? Will he make it clear that it is open to any hon. Member to debate Supply, and that it cannot be proposed and disposed of just like that? Could my right hon. Friend perhaps say that he hopes that it will be taken formally?
Mr. Macleod: I should like to use a slightly different form of words; but am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him. Perhaps the form of words that could be used is, "if the House agrees, it might be taken formally", or something like that, which would make it clear, as one always does, that one preserves the rights of hon. Members.
Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the statement made in West Cardiff on Friday last by the Prime Minister, and which I saw in the Press, concerning the establishment of a Welsh Office, can the Leader of the House say whether we are to have an opportunity soon to discuss this question in detail?
Mr. Macleod: There will be the usual opportunity later, of course, to discuss Welsh affairs.
Mr. Lawson: Is the Leader of the House aware that in the Scottish Standing Committee, which is dealing with very difficult and complicated legislation, we
1282
are deprived of the services of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and that we meet without any senior Minister of the Crown being present? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this question to see whether we can at least sometimes have the Secretary of State for Scotland present at our Committee so that we can get some authoritative advice on the legislation with which we are dealing?
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman knows that the question of Law Officers for Scotland is a problem for both sides of the House. [Laughter.] Of course it is. It has often been discussed, but, with respect, the point made by the hon. Gentleman does not arise out of the business that I have announced.
Mr. McMaster: Besides Welsh and Scottish affairs, can my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to discuss the high rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Macleod: I have no favouritism in this matter. I shall give exactly the same answer—certainly, some time.
Mr. Snow: Referring to the debate on the Beeching Report, since it is apparently not within Dr. Beeching's terms of reference to examine future transport requirements, for example, in the case of the Midlands overspill scheme, will the Minister of Housing and Local Govermnent be in attendance during the debate?
Mr. Macleod: This debate is some time ahead. We have not yet drawn up the list of speakers for the Government, but I shall take note of the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ross: Bearing in mind the fact that the business for the week when we return includes a meeting of the Scottish Standing Committee, which is dealing with criminal justice, will the right hon. Gentleman remind the Prime Minister that he promised us that in the absence of the Law Officers matters relating to the law would be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Would not it be a good idea if the Secretary of State for Scotland attended the Committee occasionally?
Mr. Macleod: The point is taken, but, with respect, I am dealing with the business on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Bowles: My right hon. Friend may not have drawn up the list of Government speakers for the Beeching debate, but has he drawn up the Motion, and, if so, on what is it based?
Mr. Macleod: We have not yet tabled a Motion. The debate will probably arise on a Government Motion, and it would not be surprising if there were an Amendment to it.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Prior to the debate on the Beaching proposals, will my right hon. Friend arrange with the Minister of Transport for the British Transport Commission to disclose traffic figures on the lines it is proposed to close? It is difficult to assess and debate this matter unless this information is given. Will my right hon. Friend look into this point?
Mr. Macleod: I shall certainly discuss that point with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman. will remember that about three or four weeks ago he promised me that he would have a word with the Secretary of State for Scotland about making an announcement on the Floor of the House concerning the future development of Scotland. Can we take it that we are now at long last to hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland, or are we not?
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman can certainly take it that I carried out my undertaking to discuss that point with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Manuel: The recommendations of Dr. Beeching and the debate that we are to have have terrific implications for Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been making speeches on the basis of this Report. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland is one of the speakers during the debate on the Report, so that he may deal with what will happen in Scotland if these recommendations are carried out?
Mr. Macleod: That point has been put to me before. We shall bear that in mind when we consider the question of Government speakers.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: When does the Leader of the House propose to make
1284
a statement on the future activities of Dr. Beeching? Is he proposing to lend him to the Ministry of Defence to cut down expenditure there?
Mr. Temple: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has announced the Second Reading of the Water Resources Bill, will he say whether he can find time for a debate on the Bledisloe Committee's Report on salmon and fresh water fisheries, as this Report is very much concerned with matters which will be discussed on the Water Resources
Mr. Macleod: This is a matter in which a number of hon. Members have a considerable interest, but during the period of business which I have announced, and with which the House is immediately concerned, I cannot see such a possibility.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the Leader of the House failed to realise that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is very important and will be a very imperfect piece of legislation unless he makes an effort to have in attendance at the Scottish Grand Committee either a Law Officer who represents Scotland or the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in replying to my hon. Friends he has not given any promise to secure the attendance of Ministers in order to effect this very important piece of legislation? Will he reconsider that matter and try to see that a responsible Minister is in attendance at the Scottish Grand Committee?
Mr. Macleod: Of course this is an important matter. I do not pretend that it is not. But it is not a matter that concerns business on the Floor of the House. The points which hon. Members have put to me I will, of course, take note of and discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Sir J. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a few weeks ago I raised the point about the absence of Law Officers from the House and asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he would seek co-operation from right hon. Gentlemen opposite? Has there been any co-operation?

BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL EMPLOYMENT
  Bill to make further provision for the payment of grants under the Local Employment Act 1960 towards the cost of machinery, plant and buildings required by undertakings in development districts, and to enable the Board to fulfil certain agreements in localities which have ceased to be development districts, presented by Mr. Erroll; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Hare, Mr. Michael Noble, Sir Keith Joseph, and Mr. David Price; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS [3rd April]
  Resolutions reported;
  [For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 495–504.]
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith on each Resolution, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).
  First to Twenty-eighth Resolutions agreed to.

  FINANCE (EXCHEQUER ADVANCES)
  Resolution reported;
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums which, under section 42 of the Finance Act 1956, are authorised or required to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid into the Exchequer, as may be attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session continuing the power to make advances under that section (subject to the limits for the time being in force on the borrowing powers of the bodies to which such advances may be made), imposing or providing for the imposition of new aggregate limits on the amount of advances under the said section 42 and repealing section 78 of the Finance Act 1960.
  Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [9th April]
  Resolution reported;
  WAYS AND MEANS [9th April]

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to making amendments of the enactments relating to purchase tax so as to give relief from tax, other than amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description or for all goods to which any of the several rates of tax at present applies.
    Resolution read a Second time.
    Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other

    1287
    Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance (Exchequer Advances) and agreed to this day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Edward du Cann, and Mr. Anthony Barber.

    FINANCE
    Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

    CHIEF ENAHORO
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [26th March].
    That this House regrets the action of Her Majesty's Government in refusing political asylum to Chief Enahoro.—[Mr. G. Brown.]
    Which Amendment was, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "mindful of Great Britain's tradition of granting political asylum here to persons who might otherwise he exposed to unjust or oppressive treatment in their own country, is confident of the fair and impartial administration of justice in Nigeria and upholds the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to return Chief Enahoro to stand his trial there".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
    3.50 p.m.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): This is a resumption of the debate which was adjourned on 26th March. In the rather complicated course of the discussions on this issue, three separate questions have emerged.
    There is, first, the legal point—the meaning and effect of the second charge against Chief Enahoro. This was raised, very properly, if I may say so, by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), when it was brought to his notice. It was certainly his duty to bring it to the attention of the House. It was equally proper far my hon. and
    1288
    learned Friend the Attorney-General to be unwilling to commit himself to a definite opinion without consideration.
    The second broad group of arguments resolves itself into the question, in effect: have we confidence in the Nigerian Government? Whatever may be the law, whatever may be the protestations of the Nigerian Government, are we content to send this man back on this charge?
    The third question which has arisen, and which, I think, interests many, if not all, hon. Members, is the nature of a political offence, the traditional right of asylum which was given in this country over many years and even generations to foreign refugees and the effect of the Fugitive Offenders Act operating within the old Empire and now operating within the new Commonwealth.
    On the question of the legal points, there is, I think, now no doubt. There were two separate points. There was the point raised in the course of the debate by the right hon. Member for Belper. This is now agreed to be a bad point by all concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I understood that the general view was that that was a bad point. I do not mean a bad point in the sense that it was a wrong point. I mean that it would not hold water. I understand that that view is shared by all the lawyers.
    Then there was another point of a similar kind, perhaps even mare refined, which was brought to my hon. and learned Friend's attention a little later. On this, he gave his opinion yesterday with equal firmness as on the first point. I do not think that anyone now seriously questions that in giving that view the Law Officers have rightly advised the Government on this issue. I think that it is fair to say—and I believe that the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and his colleagues will agree—that in raising these legal points they were not bringing a charge of a sort of Machiavellian plot by the Nigerian Government. I heard no insinuation that the Nigerian Government subtly inserted this particular form of charge with the intention of claiming a death penalty, as it were by stealth.
    Indeed, it would have been rather foolish of them to do so, as they know that this very interpretation has already been rejected by the Nigerian courts. That governs Nigerian legal practice. It would

    1289
    have been the depth of duplicity to do so, because if one sets out three charges, the first carrying a maximum of life imprisonment, the second seven years and the third two years, then to put one in the middle, intending it in a kind of obscure, hidden way to be possible of carrying the death penalty, would be dishonest, dishonourable and, indeed, a monstrous thing to do.
    Right hon. Gentlemen opposite quite rightly treated this aspect as a legal subject. As far as I know, and as far as the law is concerned on this point, there is no doubt that the capital sentence cannot now, it is clear, be attached or passed in connection with the second charge.
    I should tell the House that the Home Secretary received this morning from Chief Enahoro's solicitors a request that Her Majesty should be advised to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the question whether Chief Enahoro is liable to the death penalty under the charges which he faces. The Government do not think that such a reference is either necessary or appropriate in the circumstances. The advice given by the Attorney-General is clear on both points. On the second point, which was raised later, his view coincides with the view taken by the Nigerian High Court when it was put before it.
    I ought now to make a reference to the assurance which I personally gave in intervening when the House last had this matter before it. This assurance was very clear, and I repeated it several times, although in different words. What I said, in effect, was this: if the point raised by the right hon. Member for Belper should prove to be valid, then the Government would not return Chief Enahoro unless the Nigerian Government gave an undertaking that Charge 2 would be withdrawn and that no new charge would be substituted for it which might carry the death penalty. That is perfectly clear. If it were not proved to be valid or if it appeared to us not to be valid, then, of course, my assurance did not apply. It was that contingency.
    Since, as I say, it has been generally accepted that the legal points, very properly raised, are proved to be without validity, there is nothing for me on which to press the Nigerian Government as a result of my assurance to the House on
    1290
    that day. However, while the legal question was in doubt, I naturally entered into communication with the Nigerian Government, and so, immediately after the debate and before I heard the Attorney-General's final opinion, I caused an approach to be made through the High Commissioner in Lagos, who discussed with the Nigerian Prime Minister and his colleagues the situation which had arisen.
    Lord Head explained that, in view of the assurances I had given to the House, I wished to be quite sure that Charge 2 did not carry the death penalty or, alternatively, if it could be construed to do so, that it would be withdrawn and that no other charge attracting the death penalty would be put in its place.
    In reply, the Nigerian Government made it clear that they were most reluctant to give such assurances—and for these reasons: first, in their view it was obvious that Charge 2 did not carry the death penalty. This was the view of their professional advisers, in whom they had great confidence, and this had been publicly confirmed by the ruling of their court. This, indeed, confirmed the information on the character of the charges which had been given to us by the Nigerian High Commissioner in London.
    The Nigerian Prime Minister and his colleagues therefore felt—and I must say that I have great sympathy with them—that to ask for a further assurance implied a lack of confidence in the impartiality of the Nigerian courts or in the good faith of the Nigerian Government.
    Happily, the need for any further undertakings has been removed by the opinion given by the Law Officers and, I believe, not seriously challenged—that the point, however right it was to raise it, is not effective and is invalid.
    Mr. George Brown: When Lord Head put this to the Prime Minister of Nigeria, and was given the reply that the Nigerian Government took the view that the death penalty did not apply, did Lord Head ask why, in that case, the Senior Crown Counsel included a statement to the contrary in the affidavit?
    The Prime Minister: The whole question of the affidavit has clearly been shown to be absolutely irrelevant to the position of what the law means. If that

    1291
    is to be raised again, the Attorney-General can explain it in the legal formula which is appropriate to it. It has no bearing on it.
    I have dealt with the legal question which was raised in the previous debate.
    Mr. Frank Bowles: The Prime Minister keeps talking about the Government of Nigeria prosecuting. The Government in this country do not prosecute. Is it not for the Attorney-General, or the Director of Public Prosecutions? Is it the Government there who institute prosecutions?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that that intervention has been made, because it is one of the points which they put to us, that they followed our procedure. Although, in these very special cases, they might be asked to give an assurance, it was actually, as the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) very properly said, a matter for the Attorney-General, who, I understand, is a very distinguished lawyer.
    I have dealt with the legal question and I turn to the second question which was in our minds in the previous debate before the legal point arose—a fundamental question, not a legal question: have we confidence in the Nigerian Government? Or, to put another way, have we such lack of confidence that we fear that while getting this man back on one charge they would present another which would carry a capital punishment? Of course, this is theoretically possible. It is even practically possible for any Government under an extradition treaty, any foreign Government under any extradition treaty, or any Government of the Commonwealth operating under this Act, to commit a breach of faith. It is possible.
    It is even possible that such a Government, having got a man back on one charge, should not put him on trial at all, but keep him permanently immured. It is even possible that they might do something worse—condemn him without trial. This may be true of any Government to whom extradition treaties or the Fugitive Offenders Act apply. Once a man has left the jurisdiction of this country we have no longer any physical control over him, but what we have to decide here is not whether it is
    1292
    theoretically possible, but, can we concede that it is within the bounds of reasonable possibility? First, it would mean that we regarded that Government as of such a character that we could have no faith in them at all—that it had become a tyranny of one man or one party, or because, in addition to the abandonment of constitutional and parliamentary machinery, it had abandoned any freedom for the individual under the law.
    Of course, if we thought that, then these legal points would be of no importance—none at all. The assurances I gave on them would be of no importance. Both the courts and the Home Secretary ought to have rejected this application under the terms of the Act. They should have reached a conclusion that the man would not have a fair trial. They should have held the view—I quote the words of the Act—that
    "To return him in all the circumstances would be unjust, or oppressive, or too severe a punishment."
    I do not believe that with all the interest that this case has very properly excited anyone has wished to make an attack of this kind on the integrity of Nigerian justice, or on the honour of the Nigerian Government. Both of them command our respect.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: Why does the Prime Minister suggest that it would be improbable, on behalf of the Nigerian Government, having obtained the return of this man on one charge, to prefer another charge? When we obtain the return of somebody here by extradition proceedings we frequently prefer another charge and different charges. When magistrates commit a man for trial different charges are frequently preferred.
    The Prime Minister: In an extradition treaty that is exactly what we do not do. We have made complaints of other Governments that they have done it and we have objected to a breach of the spirit of the treaty. It would be a very dishonourable thing to do to set up these three charges and then not to try the man at all, or to shoot or hang him. That would be an act of a tyrannical Government and it would be a very wrong thing to do.

    1293
    I must say a word about the responsibility placed on the Home Secretary. He has to make in these matters decisions which are difficult and sometimes painful, but they are actually quasi-judicial decisions and they put a very heavy responsibility upon him. They are not Government decisions; they are his own decisions. They come into the political field only when, as in this case, what amounts to a Motion of censure is put forward in the House against the Home Secretary for the way in which he has discharged his duty.
    While I think, and trust, that this is an exceptional case, we should all be sorry to see a situation arise in which the jurisdiction functions of the Home Secretary were transferred from a decision of the responsible Minister to a trial by the House of Commons. The House of Commons has a perfect right to complain, criticise, and if it wishes, censure. At the same time, the Minister is responsible for the decision and I have to remind the House what he has to do. First, he has to consider what the courts have said. The courts, including the magistrates' court, have to decide whether there is "a strong or probable presumption" that the accused committed the offence with which he is charged.
    Where application is made to the superior courts, as it has been here, they have not merely to decide the question of fact—whether it was reasonable for the magistrate on the evidence before him to find that there was a strong or probable presumption of guilt. They have also to consider other and very important matters. They have to consider whether, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be—to quote from the Act—
    "unjust, or repressive, or too severe a punishment to return the fugitive".
    There are many other things they would take into account of any evidence put before them as to whether the accused is likely to have a fair trial. That is the first barrier or safeguard, as I would call it, in the Act.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is not the real difficulty here that everybody acknowledges that the character of the offences charged was in itself political and that in the extradition treaty, agreement or Act the courts would give effect to that and that they would not consider the charge, or a fair trial, or the
    1294
    kind of penalty at all, whereas under the Fugitive Offenders Act the courts are precluded from giving any effect to what is the relevant consideration?
    The Prime Minister: I was coming to that part in a later passage of what I have to say. They have a right and, I repeat, an important duty, to say: would it be unjust, or would it be oppressive or too severe a punishment? That is their duty. That is the first safeguard and, in considering that, they are entitled to consider all the circumstances, the character of the Government, the situation in that country, and so forth.
    The Home Secretary acts as a kind of second barrier, or safeguard. Even if the courts take the view that we are not justified in refusing an application for the return of a fugitive in a particular case the Home Secretary cannot, unless he thinks it just, order his return. In reaching that decision, apart from the guidance which he gets from the courts, he must take into account other matters which were perhaps not before the courts, but which are relevant to the broader issue.
    I can well imagine situations—I will be very frank with the House—in which the Home Secretary might feel it unjust. I can think of them. If, for instance, he felt that the Government and judicial system of the country concerned had fallen altogether away from the standards which we regard as the essential conditions of a free society, or from the proper administration of justice, or from the independence of the judicial system, then he would be right to refuse consent on the ground that it would not be just.
    On the other hand, if he refused consent on such a ground where there is no other question of fact or law which is an obstacle to the man's return, then it is, in effect, to pass such a judgment against the Government of the country making the application. It is this point that I wish particularly to stress and all that it implies.
    I now come to the third point. Perhaps the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will bear with me for not having answered immediately his intervention. It is the point: is the Fugitive Offenders Act out of date because it was passed in 1881? Is it inconsistent with what many people feel about political asylum?

    1295
    Is it really right that political asylum, which through a very long period has been afforded here to foreign rebels against tyrannical rule, should be refused to citizens of the Commonwealth? What ground is there for this distinction between a refugee from the Czar in the nineteenth century, or from the present Russian Administration in the twentieth century, or from the Iron Curtain countries, and refugees from the Commonwealth? That is the point which, I think, has worried hon. Members and to which I should like to give a little attention.
    We have a very long tradition that we give refuge to a political offender. We have interpreted that word rather widely—not merely an agitator, or an inconvenient and irritating propagandist, but even to men who have been driven to acts of rebellion, sometimes on grounds of repressed minorities—I can think of many cases in the nineteenth century; so can other hon. Members—and sometimes on grounds of a general protest against a tyrannical or undemocratic form of government. That is a very long tradition, but it has never applied to countries within our Empire or within our Commonwealth. Some people think that it ought to, perhaps, but it does not.
    Under the present law, there is no doubt whatever that the claim of the Nigerian Government for the return of this man is sound, and to refuse it could only be based upon a judgment that they have fallen away from the kind of standards which the countries of the Empire tried to follow and were able to follow when this law was passed. Nigeria is a country which has scrupulously observed both the letter and the spirit of the institutions which we bequeathed to her. Her judiciary is independent of the Executive. Her courts command respect not only in that country, but in our country.
    The Chief Justice of Nigeria has recently been made a member of the Privy Council in order that he may be invited to serve on the Judicial Committee. This was widely welcomed in Nigeria, not merely as a recognition of the Chief Justice's eminence as a lawyer but as a tribute to the way in which justice is administered in the courts under his jurisdiction.
    Moreover, it is against a Government of this character that Chief Enahoro and
    1296
    his leaders and other associates are accused of subversion and an attempt to overthrow the regime by armed revolt and an attempt to overthrow the regime by force. These are the alleged charges. Happily in spite of bitter political quarrels over many generations sometimes even reaching points of violence it has been so long since this country has had any experience of a movement against the Constitution itself that we are apt to forget what a terrible thing it is to a country and how serious may be the consequences. Broadly speaking it is more than 300 years in England and over 200 years in Scotland since there has been any serious attack on the Constitution itself.
    This so-called political offence is not a light one. It is no mere agitation and the making of seditious speeches that we are accustomed to hear and do not always take very seriously. The alleged crimes if they are true are very serious, and especially serious against a country newly established, with only a very short background of its independent life and honestly striving to carry out the traditions of a free society.
    Nevertheless, in view of the fact that some of the Commonwealth countries have passed laws which have the effect of depriving the United Kingdom of the right to make use of this Act, although not, I believe, denouncing it for themselves, there is certainly a strong case for discussing with our partners in the Commonwealth to what extent it would be desirable for this law to be reviewed. Indeed, I think that it would be right for us to initiate such discussions, but that is very different from an arbitrary denunciation on our part.
    What I would resent, and what, I think, the House would resent, is the suggestion that the Fugitive Offenders Act was quite all right when the Empire consisted of three or four countries of British or European descent, together with the Colonial Territories administered by British officials, but that somehow or other it has become quite unsuitable to the conditions of the new Commonwealth. That, I think, is an offensive suggestion, based upon a rather arrogant sense of our superiority.
    What the Home Secretary has a right, and, indeed, a duty, to do under the law is to satisfy himself that the return

    1297
    would be just, and in making that decision he has a right and a duty to take all circumstances into account. He has not the right by his decision to abrogate the law.
    I think that I have dealt with the three major questions which have caused anxiety, and natural anxiety, to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Today, the only question is this: is the House going to censure the Home Secretary for carrying out his duty in strict accordance with the terms of the law and alter full consideration of what the courts have decided and the matters brought to his attention? Although he is satisfied that the Chief will get a fair trial, a just trial, on the charges, is he to refuse to return him merely because, by some, the Fugitive Offenders Act is said to be obsolete or obsolescent?
    I have heard it argued that it is wrong that a foreigner should be treated better in our courts than a Commonwealth subject or citizen. The fact is that this law applies equally to any fugitive from one Commonwealth country to another, irrespective of his nationality, and this law discriminates not against Commonwealth citizens but in favour of Commonwealth countries. That was its purpose. It was believed, I think rightly, that they ought to have confidence in each other and that they were part of a system in which they had special obligations one to the other.
    Nevertheless, to balance the rights given to the Commonwealth countries under this Act, the safeguards—the two safeguards, the courts and then the Home Secretary—that I have referred to were introduced, and they are fully operative. I cannot believe that the Home Secretary can be censured for carrying out honourably and conscientiously the duty placed upon him by Parliament.
    Are we then, by implication, at any rate, to censure—and I would almost say "insult"—the Nigerian Government? Are we to say that we have no confidence in the integrity of that Government, or in their Law Officers, or in their courts? Are we to declare that we doubt their good faith? Are we to say that we fear that they would commit what would be really the discreditable, and indeed, monstrous, act of getting him back on one charge and then putting him on trial on another? If that is the
    1298
    message which is to go out from this House it would be, in my view, a disastrous day for the whole life and future of the modern Commonwealth for which we have worked and done so much.
    4.18 p.m.
    Mr. George Brown: I feel that the Prime Minister cannot have made many hon. Members happy about large parts of the speech that he has just delivered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Large parts of it were very dangerous doctrine indeed. The Prime Minister went very near, as hon. Members will see if they read carefully what he said, to identifying which members of the Commonwealth he regards as trustworthy in this respect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—and which he does not.
    The right hon. Gentleman made it very clear that certain conditions, in his view, are met in Nigeria, and that, therefore, we can happily return a fugitive offender to them. But, using that gravity and slow mode of speech that he uses when he wants to impress the House that he is being very grave, he went on to say that he could well imagine—and he was talking about the Commonwealth—nations in the Commonwealth where that would not exist.
    I suggest that hon. Members opposite are jeering without really thinking. The point is that it will be exceedingly difficult for this House ever to refuse to return a fugitive offender in the light of what the Prime Minister has said this afternoon, The right hon. Gentleman has himself recognised—and he actually said this—that any refusal to return a fugitive offender within the Commonwealth will be to convict the governmental and judicial system of the other country of not matching up to these requirements.
    The day we say that about one of the fellow members of the Commonwealth there will be the very disastrous results to which the right hon. Gentleman referred towards the end of his speech. That is why it has been the case from this side of the House that these considerations should not be introduced. We have already refused to return people to Cyprus. Presumably, therefore, the Prime Minister is committed to the view that the Government of Archbishop Makarios and Mr. Kutchuk does not measure up to the requirements which

    1299
    Nigeria does. By his own speech this must be the case, for this must be the corollary to what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    It would have been far better had this debate not been taken on to that dangerous course by the Prime Minister. It is not necessary to our purpose to reflect or animadvert on the legal or Parliamentary system in Nigeria. I have made it clear from the beginning, when speaking from this Box, that I did not wish to do so, that I had no desire to do so, and that even if it were part of the case—which it is not—it is totally irrelevant. Thus, I say that it would have been better had we kept the discussion the way it was, even if the decision is to send the man back in this case. Let us be clear that this part of the argument should have nothing to do with the discussion if we wish to keep ourselves free in other cases perhaps to take a different decision.
    Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that he would skate over this in order to deceive the House?
    Mr. Brown: I think that a representative in this House of Northern Ireland had better go very carefully. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If we had to be satisfied that the Parliamentary system in Northern Ireland was operating in accordance with the precedent set down there, it would take a lot of satisfying. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] However, we are not discussing that aspect today. We are discussing Nigeria and not Northern Ireland.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. James Callaghan: Hon. Members opposite should not protest too much.
    Mr. Brown: What we are discussing today, in the submission of my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, I would have thought, quite a number of hon. Members opposite who are prepared to approach this as impartially as one can—is the culmination of an appalling record of muddle on the part of the Government, of shuffling and of inadequacy when it came to knowing or being able to explain the basis on which they took their decision. Worse than that is the degree of interference that seems to have gone on.
    1300
    The Prime Minister referred to what he had put to the Jamaican Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should, of course, have said "the Nigerian Prime Minister", and I beg the pardon of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There must be something the matter with hon. Members opposite when they make so much noise about a little point like that. Let us not consider this as the real measure of what has happened in regard to Nigeria. One of the things hon. Members opposite should ask themselves is whether the operations of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the British High Commissioner in all this have not been far beyond what was permissible.
    Lord Head, our High Commissioner—to whom the Prime Minister referred—gave a Press conference in Ibadan, the details of which were published in West Africa on 6th April. The report stated:
    "Lord Head is known to feel strongly on the case. At a Press conference in Ibadan last week he said that all that had happened was that certain of Enahoro's supporters had succeeded in lobbying certain Members of Parliament on his behalf."
    As a description by our High Commissioner in Nigeria of Parliamentary processes in this country I would have thought that a very miserable business indeed—and a very doubtful operation on the part of the High Commissioner of this country acting in that capacity.
    What we have now achieved is, I think, more ill-will in Nigeria over the way in which this has been handled and the pressures applied to them, and the remarks of Ministers, than if Ministers had acted in accordance with the position had the Extradition Act applied here in the first place. I believe that there would have been less resentment than at present exists in Jamaica—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."] I mean, of course, Nigeria—if that had been done in the first place.
    In his speech the Prime Minister dealt, first, with what he called the "legal point". Let us, if we can, get this clear. Although this point turns on an argument about the legal meanings or construction of a Statute, there is, of course, more than a legal point if, by that, one means a narrow and relatively unimportant point. The whole question of what penalties apply is relevant and exceedingly important and the points I raised

    1301
    the other night—and which subsequently came out in discussion between my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and the Law Officers—still remain germane to the decision we must take today.
    I do not agree with the Prime Minister's description of the situation now. It is perfectly true that what is called "the second point"—that is, the question whether the relevance of the penalty provided under Section 37(2) of the Nigerian Code, which is death—is a stronger point than whether the same penalty under Section 37(1) applies to the charge under Section 516. That emerged, but no one has agreed with the Law Officer, except the Law Officer himself, that there is no doubt at all about the first point—Section 37 (1)—and certainly no one has agreed with his view that the penalty provided under Section 37(2) is not in question.
    It remains our view that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General is quite likely wrong on the second point. Certainly, there is doubt on this point. The Prime Minister has not answered this today, nor has any other Minister, and we must remember that a tremendously important question needs to be answered: why, in the affidavit which was sworn by the Senior Crown Counsel of Nigeria, which was attested by the Federal Minister of Justice of Nigeria, in his capacity as Federal Minister, did that affidavit specifically draw the magistrate's attention to the fact that another penalty, other than that provided under Section 516, was, in fact, available and that the other penalty was death? It is no use saying that they have not asked about this; it is no use saying that it does not arise, for it must arise. The magistrate took the original decision to return this man on the basis of the evidence put before him.
    The Prime Minister said that the affidavit was irrelevant, but it cannot be. The affidavit was a sworn and vital part of the evidence on which the magistrate took his decision. If, therefore, it is said by the Attorney-General—and, of course, it must follow from his own decision—that the affidavit was wrong in a material fact that must affect the proceedings in the court. On the other hand, if it is held that the affidavit was not wrong, it remains true that
    1302
    it was the view of the Crown Counsel and the view of the Federal Minister of Justice that another penalty, namely, death, was open for imposition by those trying this case.
    Whether or not the Attorney-General is right or wrong in his opinion, it is in fact, so far, the opinion of the Attorney-General of Her Majesty's Government. It is pretty clear from the affidavit that the opinion of the Federal Minister of Justice in Nigeria and the opinion of the Crown Counsel were the other way round—and these are the Nigerian ministerial officials laying the information on which action is taken.
    They are not, however, the only people. It is significant that when dealing with this matter yesterday the Attorney-General quoted Section 516 without reference to the exemption where provision for another penalty is made elsewhere. The hon. and learned Gentleman left that out, and it is a rather extraordinary thing to have left out since the whole argument turns on it. Not only was it the prosecution's view that another penalty was open, not only is it the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport even now, that under Section 37(2) another penalty is open, but it is the view of everyone else in Nigeria.
    I have here, the Official Report of the speeches made on this subject in the Nigerian House, in which, quite clearly, it is the view of the Opposition spokesmen there that the death penalty applies. The Report contains a very clear statement by the Opposition Chief Whip, speaking in that House—column 240 of the Official Report of Debates there for 1st April—if hon. Members would wish to see it. So the Opposition there takes the same view.
    I have received, as no doubt have other hon. Members, a lengthy memorandum from the leading defence counsel at the treason trial now proceeding over there. The whole purpose of that memorandum is to set out his view, as leading counsel for the defence, that the death penalty is applicable—not that it will be imposed, but that it is applicable. We therefore have the defence counsel saying so, we have the Opposition there saying so, we have a Minister saying so, and we have the Crown Counsel saying so. Frankly, the only person not saying so is our

    1303
    Attorney-General, and we are bound to take into account this extraordinary division of opinion.
    The Prime Minister may prefer the opinion of his own Attorney-General to that of everyone else, but I must put it to him that if everyone else takes the other view there must at least be some doubt about it, and if there is some doubt about it the Prime Minister's assurances to us the other night are not met merely by referring to the Attorney-General's view as something that has to carry. There is a remaining doubt about it, and no one else is at all as sure as the Prime Minister proclaims himself and his hon. and learned Friend to be.
    There remains, too, the doubt about whether this charge can be redrawn. The Prime Minister made much of the fact that it would be odd to make the No. 2 charge on a warrant containing three charges the one that carried the higher penalty; I believe he actually said that it would be rather dishonourable and monstrous to slip it in in that way. But suppose that when this man goes back that charge is redrawn and is made the first charge, as it easily could be—there can be no assurance for this House so long as the matter is in as much doubt as it is.
    The Attorney-General said yesterday, and the Prime Minister repeated it today, that we did not need to go on discussing whether the penalty was that provided under Section 37(2) because it had been decisively rejected by the Nigerian courts—let the House note the language "decisively rejected by the Nigerian courts." He used the plural—the Attorney-General used the word "courts" yesterday, and that is important, because a bit of the doubt I have about this is caused by the imprecision of the Attorney-General's language on a matter that needs to be tremendously precise [HON. MEMBERS: "What about your own?"] The Attorney-General carries responsibility that I do not carry, which makes it much more important. At the moment, a man's life and liberty is in his hands. I might be forgiven a little imprecision, but the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be if his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is to exercise this responsibility on his advice.
    1304
    I asked yesterday that we should be told before today, or by today, what the case was that had been settled in the Nigerian courts, so that we could see its relevance. We have had no further information from the Government, but last night I asked the Attorney-General's office to what he was referring. I was told that he was referring to the Awowolo case, now proceeding. We have made such check as we can, and what appears to have happened is the following.
    At the conclusion, I think, of the prosecution's case—but, at any rate, at some stage in the case—a submission was made by one of the counsel representing one or other of these men that, in view of what had been said, and of the nature of the charge and the fact that it might attract a penalty under Section 37(2), the trial was being wrongly conducted because there was no jury present as required by the Code for a capital charge.
    That submission was over-ruled by the trial judge, who sits alone, and I therefore presume that the trial is proceeding. But that decision is appealable in the Nigerian Supreme Court, and to say that the Nigerian courts have decisively rejected something which, at the moment, is merely the over-ruling by the trial judge of a submission by counsel goes far beyond any meaning that those words could be made to bear.
    It is not as decisive as that, it is not as settled as that. Therefore, to say, as the Attorney-General said yesterday, that we do not need to concern ourselves with this case because this point is settled is, in my view, misleading the House—whether he did it deliberately or accidentally. Therefore, that uncertainty, that dubiety remains, and I must say frankly that in the light of that doubt we cannot accept either the Attorney-General yesterday or the Prime Minister today as having effectively disposed of the real kernel of the matters that we raised under this head the other day. On that ground alone, I believe that the exercise by the Home Secretary of his discretion to return this man is, if not censurable, as the Prime Minister said, something that we should certainly do all we can to persuade him not to continue with.
    That is on the legal side, but the legal side is not alone for consideration. I turn to other considerations which we

    1305
    must frankly face. One consideration to which the Prime Minister did not address himself—we do not complain of that, but it does remain—is that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) raised again yesterday, and which I raised when we first debated this case on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, and which must still be resolved.
    I refer to what the Home Secretary calls a "misunderstanding", on the basis of which, alone, this man got here. I must put it to the Prime Minister that there is here involved a matter of British honour quite as deep as any honour in our relations with Nigeria. The fact that one man is concerned rather than a whole Commonwealth territory does not, in my view, alter it at all.
    In the place in which this man was before coming to this country there was no risk of his being sent back to Nigeria to face this political trial. Before he came here, friends of his, acting very properly on his behalf, saw officials of the Home Office to discover whether he would be safe from arrest, and subsequent deportation, if he came here.
    I have seen the people concerned. I have copies of statements from them, which no doubt other hon. Members have also seen, about what took place at the meeting. It is absolutely clear that they believed, when that meeting was finished, that they had received an assurance that he would not be proceeded against in this way were he to come here. It is absolutely clear that he came here only because he had received this assurance.
    The Home Secretary says that his official did not, in fact, give that assurance. The man's friend is adamant that he did. The Home Secretary says that another official in his Department was mentioned as somebody who might be consulted. Mr. Enahoro's friend is adamant that there was only the merest passing reference to that official and at no time was he told to see him in order to receive the assurance from him.
    It would be a real tragedy if we were to send to Nigeria to stand trial for a political offence, for which life imprisonment or seven years or this disputed death penalty is available, a man who would not be here but for a misunderstanding between the Home Office and his repre-
    1306
    sentatives about what the position would be if he came here.
    I repeat that our honour is involved here. This does not involve us in a breach of faith with Nigeria. We could obviously put this right by saying what the Home Secretary said in the House, when he called it a genuine misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that it was deliberately misunderstood, or that the argument was made up subsequently. We could put ourselves right by letting Chief Enahoro return to where he was before he came here. Let him go back to Eire where he was and let the situation then start from there. We should then be able to say that we are not involved in a breach of faith with the man, and we could not be accused of a breach of faith with Nigeria, because he would not be properly here at all.
    Although this was raised with the Home Secretary on the occasion of the very first debate, and this is the third or fourth time that, in one way or another, we have returned to it, this has still not been cleared up. We could not, in honour to ourselves, deport this man under the Fugitive Offenders Act in the light of that misunderstanding remaining uncleared. On that ground, quite apart from the legal ground, I would regard our failure to insist upon the Home Secretary changing his mind as a grave dereliction of our duty, and I would regard the Government's failure to change their mind as a grave dereliction of their duty.
    The other issue has been the major issue of our traditional approach to these matters of political asylum, or, rather, political freedom from extradition in political cases. I thought that the Prime Minister today was qualifying the whole basis of this. He may well believe it should be qualified. What he said certainly amounted to a qualification of it.
    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.
    Mr. Brown: I cannot see, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to see, the capacity in 1963, which is totally different from 1881, to make a difference in the requirements which we need from fully independent sovereign members of the Commonwealth and those we need from other Governments elsewhere.

    1307
    We have never required to pass, nor does the Extradition Act require us to pass, judgment on other Governments or judiciaries in lands from which political offenders have come. It is no part of the Act. The Government may be the friendliest and most democratic and may have the best of all judicial systems. All we and the courts are asked to do is to discover whether or not a crime, be it murder or anything else, is a political crime. Once that is discovered, the man is safe under our law and traditions from extradition. He does not necessarily have asylum here, but he is safe from being extradited.
    I do not see how the House can permit the Prime Minister to enter into this extensive qualification of this today by a distinction between friendly and good Governments and unfriendly and bad Governments. If the Prime Minister's view of the situation is to hold the field today, then, clearly, the Extradition Act should be amended to come into line with it. If the Act should not be amended, then the Prime Minister's defence of the Fugitive Offenders Act ought not to stand up. I agree with the Prime Minister that we are well overdue for an amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Act.
    I do not dispute the fact that, whatever other people have done who have acted arbitrarily and unilaterally, we ought to have discussions with the Commonwealth before we decide to amend the Act. But if we are to do that—and I interpreted the Prime Minister to say that we were to do it—it is tremendously important that in the interim we do not act in a way in which we would not be able to act once that amendment has gone through.
    This man has been here a long time. He has been in prison now for four or five months. There seems to me to be no reason why we should hurriedly deport him to Nigeria at the very moment when not only public opinion clearly thinks that the Act should be amended, but when we are about to enter into discussions to amend it. If the House will permit me, I should like to read a letter which I received from Chief Enahoro. It is as follows:
    "I have been following closely the newspaper and parliamentary reports on my case and I would like to say how grateful I am for the great interest and concern which so
    1308
    many people are taking in my plight. I think that it has been clearly shown that no one now believes that the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, is appropriate to the Commonwealth as it exists today.
    I appear to be a victim of circumstances in that, in the first place, legislation has failed to keep pace with changing conditions in regard to a fundamental right and that, secondly, I would not even have considered entering the country but for the most unfortunate misunderstanding which arose regarding my safety to come and go as a result of the three telephone conversations which my friend had with the Home Office.
    The Home Secretary has stated that the offences of treasonable felony and conspiracy for which I am charged under Nigerian law do not carry the death penalty. Nevertheless, the Affidavit sworn by Joseph Diekola Ogundere, Acting Senior Crown Counsel in the Federal Ministry of Justice, filed in the Court here on behalf of the Nigerian Government in support of the Warrant contains the following words."
    Then he quotes what we have been saying about Section 37(1).
    Hon. Members: Not so fast.
    Mr. Brown: I am sorry.
    The letter continues:
    "It follows from this that the Ministry of Justice were under the impression when drafting this Affidavit that they were dealing with a capital offence but even, however, if the Home Secretary's interpretation of Nigerian law is correct, I am advised that there is nothing in law to prevent the Nigerian Government's amending the charges after I am returned so that I have to face a treason charge.
    May I, finally, suggest that having been here in prison for the past four months there is no cause for my being returned as a matter of urgency now and that I may reasonably be permitted to remain in the United Kingdom pending negotiations between the United Kingdom Government and its Commonwealth partners to amend the Fugitive Offenders Act."
    I have put up the proposal that the man should be allowed to return to Eire, where he would have been but for a misunderstanding. I have put this up as one way for the Government. If that is not acceptable to them, I propose that he should be allowed to remain here while discussions proceed about the amendment that we might make to the Act.
    I make this proposal all the more firmly and strongly for another reason. The Prime Minister told us, I think, that a request has recently been received from Chief Enahoro's solicitors asking that a special reference of this disputed matter of the death penalty be made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

    1309
    The Prime Minister said that this is not necessary because the Attorney-General's view is so clear. I thought that that was putting rather more weight upon the Attorney-General's view than most people would accept. However, since the matter is in doubt, since there are all these different views about it, it seems to me that a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would be very much in order.
    There is an additional interesting point in this connection. It could be of some significance. I am told that the Federal Chief Justice of Nigeria, Sir Adetokunbo Ademola, who, my friends in the law tell me, is a most distinguished jurist and lawyer, is to come here next term to sit as the first African judge of all time as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We welcome this. It will be a very historic occasion when he does. Would it not also be a very suitable occasion on which to make this special reference to the Judicial Committee which will include then the Chief Justice of Nigeria as a member?
    I put it very strongly that it is open to the Government to delay the return of this man, to continue discussions with the Commonwealth on amending the Act—which may then alter the whole situation—and, in any case, in the meantime, to arrange for the opinion of the Judicial Committee to clear up the very important point of doubt which is still there.
    Sir Cyril Osborne: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept its decision?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, certainly. I regard the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as having a measure of dignity and authority which I am not wholly prepared to accord to the Attorney-General. There is all the difference in the world between the highest judicial decision and an ex parte statement by a retained lawyer.
    To conclude, there are, clearly, many grounds on which we can avoid doing something which many people, whatever their views of the legal merits, regard as very distasteful indeed. There are many grounds which do not involve us in conflict with Nigeria. It is interesting that a paper which was founded by Dr. Azikwe—I am not clear whether he is still associated with it—the West African
    1310
    Pilot, actually concluded a recent editorial by saying that the British can hold Enahoro but they do not need to insult Nigeria. That is very true. We can hold Enahoro. Even people like those associated with that paper recognise this in Nigeria. The question is how to do it on a basis which does not insult or offend Nigeria.
    The reason I ventured to take issue with the Prime Minister was that I thought that he was putting the matter on to a ground in which offence and insults were inevitable. I believe that this is not necessary at all. There are several courses of action, any one of which could be taken, any one of which would avoid deporting this man to face this trial and would avoid our breaking faith with our undertakings, or assumed undertakings.
    I urge very strongly on the House, partisan feelings aside, that we should best consult our traditions and what we would hope will be our future practices by urging the Government tonight to take one or other of those courses. For this reason, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    4.54 p.m.
    Sir Edwin Leather: I enter the debate with some trepidation, treading upon ground which, hitherto, has largely been held by the lawyers. So far, we have been concerned mainly with two points: first, the question of justice and liberty for an individual, of which all Members of the House are traditionally jealous and scrupulously careful; second, the legal technicalities of the various clauses and charges and the pregnant argument as to whether the death penalty is or is not involved. I do not wish to get involved in these legal technicalities because, like the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I am not legally qualified, and I suspect that, if I were drawn on to that ground, I should end up as addle-pated as the right hon. Gentleman is about it.
    The right hon. Gentleman pointed to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and said that a man's life and liberty were in his hands. This is unquestionably true, but it is true also that a great political principle is in the hands of this House. I am very concerned about this great political principle which entails the whole question of the relationship between member countries of the Commonwealth.

    1311
    So far as he apportioned blame for any damage to our relationships with Nigeria, the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make quite clear that he thought that the whole blame rested on Her Majesty's Government. He went out of his way to assure us that he did not reflect on the good faith or competence of the Nigerian judiciary. I accept his assurance, of course, as, I am sure, we all do in the House; but the right hon. Gentleman and those who think like him must face the unpleasant fact that the Nigerians do not accept it. Our relationship with Nigeria has already been strained to an intolerable degree by the fact that the Home Secretary's decision was not carried out without question by the House.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the Nigerian judiciary. I think that this is the first time in our controversy here that this subject has been mentioned at all. There is no doubt that the impression given in the country is that at least somebody in this House has cast reflections on the Nigerian judiciary, and there is no argument at all but that this is what many Nigerians think.
    As I understand, on any charge on which Chief Enahoro could be arraigned before the court in Lagos, the decision, whatever it was, would be appealable to the Nigerian Supreme Court. The right hon. Member for Belper made great play of the idea of referring the question on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He took the view that, if we did that, the Nigerians would not be offended.
    This is completely contrary to all the information which I have. I think that they would be mortally offended and would very quickly come back at us and say, "If this man were convicted in our own courts, he could then appeal to the Privy Council. You are suggesting that we, as a Government or as a judiciary, would in some way interfere with his right to do so". The very fact that we took that course would be, in my view, the gravest reflection on the Nigerian judiciary. I am quite certain that the people of Nigerian not only would take it so, but have already taken it so.
    I believe—I should be very surprised if I were contradicted by the right hon.
    1312
    Gentleman—that the Supreme Court of Nigeria contains not only justices of the greatest eminence at the Bar but expatriate justices. I cannot readily think of any other country in the world which has carried objectivity, in its desire to preserve impartiality and integrity, to this extent. There is, I believe, at least one—if not more—British justices who sits as a member of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
    The Nigerians have every right to say. "We have bent over backwards to show our integrity, and now you question it." All the protests by the right hon. Member for Belper—[Interruption.] I have accepted that the right hon. Gentleman says that he does not question it; I accept it. The Nigerians do not accept it. Their Press and the statements of Members in their Parliament have made this abundantly clear.
    This is significant, and hon. Members opposite ought to face it. It is not only Nigerian Government supporters who are most indignant with the Government and with this House of Commons for what we have done. It is members of the Action Group themselves who are indignant with us. It is members of Chief Enahoro's party who are extremely angry with us because, they say, we have denigrated the integrity of the Nigerian Government and of its judiciary.
    Mr. John Stonehouse: Name them.
    Sir E. Leather: This is something which the hon. Member can read. He can look it up for himself. He pretends to be extremely well informed on African matters. He does not have to be told. These things are in the Press every day of the week.
    Mr. William Yates: This is a major charge between two important legislatures. When my hon. Friend comes forward with a statement like that, I should be grateful if he could refer me to the column in the Nigerian HANSARD.
    Sir E. Leather: I shall be happy to do so if my hon. Friend likes to see me afterwards. I can say that I would like notice of the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I do not withdraw the statement. The right hon. Member for Belper has the HANSARD with him. Perhaps he would oblige by passing it up to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. G. Brown: What I am looking at is, again, the speech of the Opposition Chief Whip, in columns 239 and 240 of the Nigerian HANSARD of 1st April, in which he goes out of his way to defend the attitude taken in this House by those hon. Members who are opposing the deportation of Mr. Enahoro. He said that
    "in the House of Commons, Members"—
    that is, us and those who support us—
    "took great pains to find out the facts surrounding Tony's case. They contacted the Nigerian High Commissioner in London; they interviewed Chief Enahoro in Brixton Prison; they studied the charges preferred against him and they read the record…".
    He goes on to say:
    "You can accuse Britain of anything but not blindness to their own rights. The British people have a greater interest today than any other country in the world in the continued stability, peace and good government of Nigeria."
    He goes on, in another column, to say how "wonderful" he finds us because we are taking the line of opposing the deportation.
    Sir E. Leather: That, of course, is perfectly true—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] No, I will not withdraw. That is perfectly true, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that that is only one speech. He took one sentence from a leader in the West African Pilot. I have not equipped myself with that newspaper, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the general line adopted by that paper and by many other Members of Parliament in Nigeria, that they are indignant and that they regard what we have done as a grave denigration of the integrity of their Government and judiciary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite cannot, by protesting, alter the fact that that is what people in Nigeria think.
    I am making only this one political point, which seems to me to be of tremendous importance, that if we continue to stall and prevaricate, if we adopt any of the courses which the right hon. Member for Belper has endeavoured to urge upon us, we will exacerbate relationships with Nigeria to a most dangerous degree and do irreparable harm to Commonwealth relations. If the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends press the Motion of censure against the Home Secretary, there is no doubt that however hard they try, or however sincere they may be, this will
    1314
    be interpreted throughout Africa as a vote of censure against Nigeria.
    Mr. Hugh Delargy: May I ask the hon. Member a question? I have followed him with as much care as I am capable. Is his case simply that because relations between this country and Nigeria are strained, because many Nigerians are upset and, possibly, feel insulted, we must for these reasons, send this man back? Is not this the old doctrine that one man must die for the people whether he be innocent or guilty?
    Sir E. Leather: No, certaintly not. I said that I wanted to speak briefly on one point. My right hon. Friend and Leader, the Prime Minister, made the case extremely effectively. I have underlined what I believe to be a fundamental political point, which the party opposite ignores at its peril.
    5.5 p.m.
    Mr. Emlyn Hooson: A vital question of principle which arises in our debate is in danger of being clouded over by rather partisan feelings on both sides. The Prime Minister posed the question of whether we have confidence in the Government of Nigeria. That is an entirely irrelevant consideration to the debate.
    Surely, this difficult situation has arisen because in 1870 we passed an Extradition Act which governed the relationship of our countries with countries which we regarded as equals. Then, in 1881, we passed a Fugitive Offenders Act, which governs our relations in these matters with countries which were then under our dominion. The problem which has arisen in this case has arisen because countries have come of age and achieved independence without, as far as I am aware, anybody noticing the great distinction of principle between the two Acts.
    I start from the basis that traditionally we in our country have been a sanctuary to the politically oppressed. I take issue with the Prime Minister when he says that we have afforded asylum to those who have fled from political tyranny. Surely that has not been the basis of the right of asylum which has been granted here to those who have fled their own country. It has not been a question of whether they were fleeing from tyranny but of whether they were coming

    1315
    here to get relief from what they considered to be political oppression in their own country; even if they fled from a democracy such as the United States of America. I believe I am right in saying that our first extradition treaty with a political exception proviso was with the United States and not with a country that was subject to tyrannical rule.
    We should approach this problem, surely, on the basis that our traditions demand of us that in dealing with countries equal to ourselves we have always recognised the principle that people who flee from those countries have the right of political sanctuary here—at least, the right mot to be extradited—and generally the Home Secretary has afforded the right of asylum.
    I make no apology for referring directly to the relevant Sections in the Extradition Act, 1870, because there seems to be considerable misapprehension in this House about what exactly are the rights of a man who comes to this country seeking political sanctuary and who is fleeing, as it were, for political reasons from his own country. Section 3(1) of the Extradition Act states:
    "A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the offence in respect of which his surrender is demanded is one of a political character".
    That is a mandatory requirement. No discretion is allowed. If the offence for which he is sought to be extradited is of a political character, that is an end to it. He cannot be extradited.
    Section 3(1) goes on to state:
    "or if he prove to the satisfaction of the police magistrate or the court before whom he is brought on habeas corpus, or to the Secretary of State, that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character".
    Thus, the second provision is that even if it is sought to extradite him on a charge of, say, murder, forgery, assault or anything of that kind, if he can satisfy the magistrate or the Home Secretary that the motive behind it is of a political character, that again is sufficient to protect him from extradition.
    Furthermore, the most elaborate precautions were afforded in the relevant proviso to Section 7 of the Act, which states:
    "If the Secretary of State is of opinion that the offence is one of a political character, he
    1316
    may, if he thinks fit, refuse to send any such order, and may also at any time order a fugitive criminal accused or convicted of such offence to be discharged from custody."
    There is another provision governing how this evidence can be brought before a magistrate.
    Therefore, it can clearly be seen that when this country was passing the Act which governs our relationship with countries which we regarded as our equals we thought that if a person fled from his country for political reasons he could not be extradited for a political offence or if he satisfied the magistrate that the real motive for extradition proceedings was political. As I say, this principle is what has governed our relationship with equal countries.
    I remind hon. Members that in 1877 a Royal Commission was set up to consider the whole question of extradition. It sat under the chairmanship of the Lord Chief Justice of those days. In its report it recommended certain limitations on this political escape clause in the Extradition Act, but Parliament never accepted those suggested limitations.
    I wish to quote a decision of the Queen's Bench Division in the case of In re Meunier, decided in 1894, in which Mr. Justice Cave defined what was meant by a political offence. He said:
    "It appears to me that, in order to constitute an offence of a political character, there must be two or more parties in the State, each seeking to impose the Government of their own choice on the other, and that, if the offence is committed by one side or the other in pursuance of that object, it is a political offence, otherwise not."
    Nothing is said about political offences in the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, and the reason for that is simple—because that Act was passed at a time when substantially the government of all our overseas territories was controlled from this country.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I think that the hon. and learned Member is inaccurate. The Fugitive Offenders Act expressly refers to treason.
    Mr. Hooson: I think that Section 9 refers to treason, but there is no reference as such to political offences. I will come to the reference to treason in a moment.
    Surely it was inconceivable in 1881 that what amounted to a political offence in

    1317
    a Colony could be other than a political offence here. That is the basis of the Act and the reason why no mention is made in it of political offences. But we were not then dealing with equal partners. The Government of Nigeria did not enter into an agreement with us about this Act. This was an Act passed to govern our relationship with the Colonies and other dependent territories. Under Section 6 of that Act, which is the relevant Section for the Home Secretary's consideration, after the court processes have been gone through under the provisions of the Act, a completely unfettered discretion is left with the Home Secretary if he thinks it just not to authorise the return of the fugitive.
    I wish to say a few words about Section 10 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, which was considered by the House of Lords last year in the case of Zacharia v. the Republic of Cyprus. Under Section 10 of the Act, to which reference was made by the Prime Minister, a court, if it believes that it would be
    "unjust or oppressive or too severe a punishment to return the fugitive either at all or until the expiration of a certain period",
    may order that he shall not be returned.
    I refer to this decision in the House of Lords simply to make this point. The House of Lords had to interpret the word "unjust" in a judicial manner. "Unjust" in this context surely means unjust according to law. The House of Lords is not entitled to consider the political implications. It has to interpret the Act, and it can only do that by looking at the words in the Act. Lord Devlin, in particular, in his speech in the House of Lords—I am sure that the Home Secretary has already seen this—drew a distinction between what the court could consider under the provisions of Section 10 when considering the word "unjust" and what the Home Secretary is entitled to consider under the provisions of Section 6.
    Under Section 6, the Home Secretary has a duty to exercise his discretion whether or not the offence for which the return of the fugitive is required is political. Even if the alleged charge were murder or forgery, the Home Secretary would still have to exercise his discretion and, in so doing, certainly would have to consider the matters which he adumbrated in the House the other day, such as
    1318
    whether the man concerned would have a fair trial in the country which sought his extradition or whether evidence would be properly obtained. He would have to consider all those matters in any event whether or not the offence for which the return of the fugitive was required was political. Surely the difference in this case is that the return of Chief Enahoro is required for a political reason. There is no doubt that treason is a political offence, and, even if it were not clearly so, the motives for requiring his return are political.
    I submit to the Home Secretary that, unfortunately, in this case a situation has arisen because no one anticipated or foresaw that circumstances had so changed since the passing of the 1881 Act. Our Colonies have grown up and have grown to maturity and have now reached full independence. Surely they are now in a position to be regarded and treated as equals. In those circumstances, why should the law applying between ourselves and Nigeria be different from the law applying between ourselves and the United States on extradition matters? Surely this is one matter which the Home Secretary should consider in the exercise of his discretion under Section 6.
    Mr. David Renton: The hon. and learned Member has based his whole argument, as I understand it, on the assumption that at the time that the Fugitive Offenders Act was passed all of Her Majesty's Dominions and Colonies were governed from London. In fact, Canada was already independent by then, and there were several self-governing Colonies and provinces by then. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman's assumption is not correct and, therefore, his argument must fall to the ground.
    Mr. Hooson: What I said was that substantially our overseas territories were governed from here. I think that I am right historically in saying that Canada was the only country which had self-government at that time.
    Mr. Paget: Even in the case of Canada, the Governor-General was then appointed by the Government of this country on the advice of the Prime Minister here, and he had the prerogative of mercy concerning Canada. So that even Canada was not completely independent.
    Mr. Hooson: I am obliged for that intervention.
    It seems to me that the Home Secretary, in exercising his discretion in this case, has considered all the matters which would be relevant even if this had not been a political offence. What he has not satisfied the House about—certainly he has not satisfied me about this—is that he has also taken into consideration the vital fact that this is a political offence and that, since it is a political offence and Nigeria is an equal member of the Commonwealth, as entirely independent, is permitted to go its own way and to decide its own future and to impose its own laws, the right hon. Gentleman should have undoubtedly exercised his discretion in favour of Chief Enahoro—on that ground alone.
    It would be quite monstrous at this stage to return Chief Enahoro for trial on a political offence. Much has been said of the injured feelings of people in Nigeria who, perhaps, have read our newspapers and seen extracts from speeches which might have given offence. Surely this is a risk which the Government should have foreseen when the request for the return of Chief Enahoro was first made. It should at that stage have been made clear discreetly by the Home Secretary that he would not exercise his discretion in favour of the Nigerian Government, not because of the particular facts of this case, but because of the general principle that we in this country do not return a political fugitive to an independent State. Why should there be this distinction between countries which have very much more in common with us and countries which are sometimes alien to us? For example, why is it that a man who comes from the United States of America is in a far more favourable position regarding extradition than a Commonwealth citizen from Nigeria?
    Surely the damage which has been done in the public relations between ourselves and Nigeria stems largely from the way in which this matter has been handled by the Government. That must follow, of course, when the quality of the law, the standard of administration of justice in Nigeria, have been called into question in the Press, if not in this House. That is much to be regretted, but I do not think that it is relevant to our present considerations. Neverthe-
    1320
    less, it has happened. Why has it happened? Because the Government have taken the course which they have taken when there was a simple, easy way out in accordance with a principle. It is the principle that we in this country never agree to extradition for a political offence to an independent country.
    I believe that even at this stage the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should reconsider the matter and make the most difficult but greatest political acknowledgement that any politician can make, and that is to say that he was wrong and that he did, in fact, exercise his discretion wrongly. It is not too late to retrieve the position.
    5.22 p.m.
    Mr. David Renton: I am sure that the House has listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), but I must say, speaking for myself, although I was greatly interested by what he said, that I find myself in disagreement with a very great deal of it. I will in the course of my remarks endeavour to pick up some of the points which the hon. Gentleman made, especially about extradition, because, with respect to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and to hon. and right hon. Members of the Opposition who have spoken on previous occasions about this matter, I think that there is very great confusion in their minds about extradition based on the Act of 1870 and action taken under the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881.
    In my opinion, the law is right and has stood the test of time well and is wholly applicable in principle to the not very greatly changed circumstances to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, which I will explain further later. I say that the law is right and still applicable. I say that the law has been rightly explained and interpreted by the Law Officers and by the Government in relation to this case, and I say that the Home Secretary's decision is not only right but, in my opinion, inevitable in the circumstances which we now have.
    The right hon. Member for Belper accused my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of having come very near to saying something! What the right hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister

    1321
    had come very near to saying was that there were members of the Commonwealth which could be trusted and those which could not. The Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881 was, rightly or wrongly, based on the assumption that there were certain Protectorates and Colonial Territories which had reached a standard in the administration of justice that could be accepted and that there were others which had not.
    Owing to the immense variety of political institutions within the Commonwealth, the tremendous variety of legal systems, some of them even tribal, and also the great variations in the degree of control exercised by Whitehall, it was necessary to have a provision in the Fugitive Offenders Act which enabled the Home Secretary when exercising his discretion under the Act to be selective and to decide whether, if an offender were returned, he would receive justice or not.
    Mr. Paget: Surely that is plainly wrong. The Fugitive Offenders Act does not only apply to this end. It applies to the Protectorates or to whatever is considered in their relation to us. That discretion contained in the Act has nothing whatever to do with competence in the courts. If the offence was relatively trivial or the man was ill, or a number of other things like that which quite often arise, it is not in proportion to take him half-way round the world.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt have the opportunity of developing that theme if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but in view of Section 6 of the 1881 Act I do not see how he can hold that view.
    The Fugitive Offenders Act was always intended to be a matter of common convenience within, formerly, the Empire and now the Commonwealth, a way in which the countries and territories of the Empire and then the Commonwealth could bring to justice people who had found their way to each other's shores. The common interest in bringing people to justice is, I should have thought, just as strong now as it was then.
    The Extradition Acts have an entirely different foundation. The original one was a prelude to a series of treaties between this country and foreign countries which, within the limits of those
    1322
    treaties, also enabled the countries which were parties to them to bring offenders to justice. The fundamental difference, and it is a very important difference, between the Extradition Acts and the Fugitive Offenders Act is that the Extradition Acts expressly excluded political crimes and the Fugitive Offenders Act did not. Mot only did the Fugitive Offenders Act have no exception in favour of political crimes, but it expressly referred to the offence of treason as an offence to which the Act applies.
    Although I know that the Government have taken a more generous view in this case, I think that, on the strict interpretation of the Act, if a charge of treason had been pursued against Chief Enahoro the Government would legally have been perfectly justified under the Fugitive Offenders Act in sending him to Nigeria for trial.
    The right hon. Member for Belper in seeming to suggest that all countries and territories of the Commonwealth must be trusted or none of them seemed to be inferring that we ought to trust all of them. If all of them are to be trusted, I should have thought it followed that subject to other considerations, which I agree arise, Chief Enahoro could safely be sent to Nigeria. But if no territory is to be trusted and if we are to assume that in all cases we have got to look to the merits of the case ourselves and never let the local courts decide, then I should have thought that the whole movement towards self-government, in other words, the whole of the policy of "the wind of change", must be regarded as a deception and a sham. I am sure that the Opposition did not intend that and, therefore, we have to consider the other factors which, in my opinion, are much less important than those I have already mentioned.
    On the facts of the case, a great deal of reliance has been placed by the right hon. Member for Belper upon the original affidavit which was produced in support of the application to our courts. But surely that affidavit, important though all affidavits are or should be, must be regarded as having been superseded by assurances by the Nigerian Government, and if we have faith, as we are entitled to have, in the Nigerian Government, then these assurances must be accepted.
    Mr. David Weitzman: Would the right horn, and learned Gentleman agree that there is no assurance whatever that if this man is returned to Nigeria the charge against him will not be amended or a second one added to involve the death penalty?
    Mr. Renton: Far be it from me to add to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to that very point. I should have thought that the Prime Minister's reply was really an end of the matter.
    Mr. John Strachey: Perhaps I misheard him, but I understood that the Prime Minister's reply was that the Nigerian Government did not desire to give assurances—perhaps rightly. So I am astonished to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the Nigerian Government gave assurances. It was a main part of the Prime Minister's argument that they did not.
    Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman can place what interpretation he likes upon the Prime Minister's reply. It will be in HANSARD for him to see. I understood it clearly to be to the effect that there is not the slightest need to ask the Nigerian Government for assurances; that we have had our discussions with the Nigerian Government and they have given those assurances for which they were asked; and that there is no need to press them further on this matter. I should have thought that was a perfectly sound and sensible attitude to adopt in this case.
    Mr. Bowles rose—
    Mr. Renton: I have given way a very great deal. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. He will realise that I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House.
    I have just one final point. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, if I understood rightly, suggested that we should now rewrite the 1881 Act, and the right hon. Member for Belper said that the Home Secretary should defer a decision in this case until we had done so. I have already attempted to give my answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman; namely, that in my opinion the 1881 Act, although originally produced in somewhat different circumstances from
    1324
    the present, is essentially sound in principle in its application to the circumstances of today because it is based now, as it was then, on a common interest on the part of members of the Commonwealth in bringing offenders to justice. It surely is significant that at the time when the Statute of Westminster was written and at the times when we were giving self-government to the various Colonies which have achieved that status since the war, there was, so far as I know, no suggestion that the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. should be rewritten.
    I would add that if it were to be rewritten and if it were to be made effective, it would have to be in very much the terms in which it is now. I know that hon. Members opposite say, "We should write into it a right of political asylum". But that, again, brings to mind the confusion which I think there has been between the Extradition Acts and the Fugitive Offenders Act. The right of political asylum is certainly one of which this country always has been very proud, but it has not been without its limitations.
    Mr. Hooson: On the argument that we have a common interest with Nigeria in the return of a fugitive, would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman also agree that on the basis of that argument we equally have a common interest in the return of a fugitive to the United States of America, which is one of our allies? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is well founded, does not that make nonsense of the provision in the Extradition Act that people should not be extradited for a political offence?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Gentleman almost tempts me to reminisce on the subject of Captain Galvao. I myself had to answer Questions on this subject on the Floor of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman may care to turn up those answers. It is a fact that the right of asylum may to some extent have been further modified—I have mentioned already that it has had its limitations—when we enter into defensive alliances, at least to the extent that—[Interruption.]—I made this absolutely plain at the time—at least to the extent that we would not allow this country to be used as a base for a revolution against a fellow-member of

    1325
    a defensive alliance. However, this is a very great digression from the case of Chief Enahoro, and I do not propose to pursue it any further.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Had not the right hon. and learned Gentleman better be a little careful in what he is now saying? He held high office in the Home Office for many years. Is he not in danger of spilling some official beans? Does he subscribe to the doctrine that political asylum applies only to one's enemies and not to one's friends, and applies only where the country which is seeking to bring a man back is a non-democratic country?
    Mr. Renton: I know the hon. Gentleman too well. I have crossed swords with him too often. I shall content myself with saying that I have said nothing today that adds one word to what I said when he used to question me across the Floor of the House on this very subject. He can turn up those questions and answers in HANSARD.
    In conclusion, I would, with great humility and, I hope, without sounding pompous, make a plea for Commonwealth solidarity in this matter. We shall not advance the great cause of the Commonwealth and of giving independence to countries which we think are fit for it, a course which hon. Gentlemen opposite have always boasted they supported, by making somewhat niggling and legalistic points which prevent the normal pursuit of justice as between members of the Commonwealth. I do not think that, if we attempted to amend the Fugitive Offenders Act in the way that has been suggested, we should be advancing the cause of Commonwealth justice. But one thing is abundantly plain, and that is that the Home Secretary has made a decision which is completely within the letter of that law and within the spirit of Commonwealth co-operation.
    5.38 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) will forgive me if I do not embark on a long examination of the circumstances in which the Fugitive Offenders Act was passed and whether or not conditions have now changed sufficiently,
    1326
    as I think, and as I believe a great many other hon. Members think, to require some amendment of the Act. I would prefer to confine my remarks to what I think is the quite short, simple, acid test of this question, which is as follows.
    Under the Act as it stands—let us forget for a moment that it is due for overhaul and, perhaps, modification—the Home Secretary has to decide the simple question whether or not it is just to send this man back to Nigeria. It seems to me that in coming to a decision on that simple question the House is still left in considerable doubt about one matter, namely, whether the Home Secretary, in exercising his discretion, did or did not consider that the man might be exposed to the death penalty. There is still confusion about that because, on 1st March, the Home Secretary said:
    "Let me add, because there have been misconceptions and misstatements about this, that there is no question of Chief Enahoro being sent back to stand trial for his life."
    Later, he said:
    "I have already explained that the charges he faces do not involve the death penalty."—[OFFICAIL REPORT, 21st March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 601–3.]
    The right hon. Gentleman may have considered it or not, but at that time he thought that there was no possibility of the death penalty being involved. Then we had a debate late at night on 26th March, on a Motion of censure. It then became apparent to the House that there might be the possibility of the Chief being exposed to the death penalty. Accordingly, the Prime Minister intervened. Twice he said that there could be no possible question of Chief Enahoro being returned to Nigeria if there was any question of the death penalty being enforceable by the Nigerian courts. The Prime Minister stated that in column 1285 on 26th March.
    The Prime Minister gave a categorical assurance that if there was any charge against the Chief in respect of which the death penalty was involved, he could not possibly be returned, and the whole House accepted that assurance. The debate was then adjourned in circumstances in which, I am sure, if that assurance had not been given, the Government would in all likelihood have been defeated on a vote of confidence.

    1327
    The question I ask myself is, what on earth has that to do with the question of justice in Nigeria? There is nothing whatever in the Fugitive Offenders Act which makes any discrimination as regards the penalty, whether it be death or anything else. The Government have stated, through the Prime Minister, that it would not have been just to send this man back to Nigeria if he had been exposed to the death penalty. But the only basis on which the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General could say that and ask us to accept it—which we did—was on the basis that if death were the penalty, or if there were any risk of the penalty of death, then there was doubt about the Chief getting justice, for it is only if there is doubt about justice that the Home Secretary can exercise his discretion not to send a man back but to grant him asylum.
    If one is considering embarrassment to the Government of Nigeria, or doubt about the integrity of the Nigerian courts, it matters not what the penalty is. One cannot argue that the Nigerian courts will administer justice provided they do not have to exercise the death penalty but that there is doubt about their capacity to administer justice if they are able to exercise the death penalty. Surely the case is that the British Government have stated, as the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister quite rightly stated, that if there were a question of the death penalty being involved it would be manifestly wrong, under the terms of the Fugitive Offenders Act, to send this man back. This being so, the Home Secretary surely has no possible reason for rejecting the conclusion, nor can it be just, not to send the Chief back even if the death penalty is not involved.
    Precisely the same reasoning ought to apply, whether there is doubt about the death penalty or not, to penalties less than capital. In applying the test as to what is just—to try to assess what the Nigerian courts are likely to do and whether they can possibly be influenced or not in a case involving treason and, therefore, the right of asylum—the penalty is irrelevant. There is nothing in the Fugitive Offenders Act which says that the Home Secretary can grant asylum to a man if he is in danger of his life but cannot grant it if all that is at risk is his liberty.
    1328
    On the contrary, every statement made by the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General in enunciating this classical doctrine of asylum has made it clear again and again that the doctrine, whether under one Act or another, is that asylum is granted, for cherished and respected reasons which have arisen over the centuries, to a man if he appears to be in danger of life or liberty on political grounds or grounds or religion or race.
    It really is bedevilling the question to maintain that there is a vital distinction depending upon whether or not the capital penalty is a possibility. It is recognised by the Government that if the possibility of the capital penalty were involved it would be wrong to send the Chief back. There may be some doubt about whether the death penalty is involved, although the Attorney-General does not think that there is. Other people think that there is doubt, however.
    The Nigerian Government have been asked for certain assurances. Whether or not they have given them does not seem to me to mater. I assert that the Government, through the Prime Minister and with the assent of the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, have recognised that were the death penalty involved it would not be just to send this man back. They could only come to that conclusion if in these circumstances there were some reason for doubting the complete integrity and impartiality of the Nigerian courts. This assumption having been made with the assent of this House, whatever embarrassment it may cause the Nigerain Government is irrelevant because, in all matters of extradition, we decide on matters of justice but never on the question of embarrassment to a foreign country or even a Commonwealth country. The consideration of embarrassment to another country is always inherent in any question involving the right of asylum.
    Therefore, it is surely as plain as a pikestaff that, once it has been recognised that were the death penalty involved it would not be just to send this man back, precisely the same reasoning must apply if the case involves a penalty less than death, for if one does not accept that corollary one is writing into the Act something which is not there. The only relevant consideration is the question: is it just to send him back? If it is not

    1329
    just in one set of circumstances, because a certain penalty is involved, it is not just in another set of circumstances involving another penalty.
    The Home Secretary and the Government have reduced this case to a state of complete muddle and confusion. For all the reasons I have given, and for those given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), there should be no possible doubt that the only reasonable, the only sensible, the only just thing to do is to grant this man political asylum.
    I do not think that we can pay attention to the argument about the effect this would have in Nigeria. Any damage that might have been done is irrelevant. But if damage can be done it has been done already. What greater damage can be done in this case than the recognition that the House has already made that if the death penalty were involved there would be no question of sending Chief Enahoro back? That having been the consensus in the House, surely we should not worry any longer about that aspect.
    I would in conclusion add one thing because I see the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) in his place. I thought that his letter to The Times yesterday was a real masterpiece of absurdity. It seemed to me to reduce this argument to an absolute absurdity to say that the whole existence of the Commonwealth depended upon sending this man back to Nigeria, and that if we did not do so we should have broken the last real link that holds the Commonwealth together. I cannot believe that the hon. Member or anybody believes that.
    Surely the ties of the Commonwealth are founded in conceptions of justice, and I think that we should expect the nations of the Commonwealth to have complete regard to the common law doctrine of asylum. I am convinced that no harm whatever would be done to the vital interests of the Commonwealth by granting this man the liberty and the right of asylum to which he is clearly entitled, and, equally, I think that unless this House condemns the action of the Home Secretary it would be betraying some of the highest ideals and traditions of this country.
    5.51 p.m.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: This case is a complicated one and raises almost as many issues as the days on which we have debated them. I want to be brief and not to try to cover every issue. I will, of course, mention the one just referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I personally regret the assumption which was made in the Opposition Motion, or, perhaps I should say, implied in the Opposition Motion, that this case has been or can be dealt with on a basis of political asylum. To my mind, that is altogether the wrong criterion to apply, but it is, of course, the only criterion on which we can vote, because it is the issue which is before us.
    I am not saying that the Home Secretary should never have regard to political considerations in dealing with cases falling under the Fugitive Offenders Act. There are certain cases where the Home Secretary in his discretion should have regard, indeed must have regard, to political considerations. It may well be that cases can arise where political considerations will give rise to prejudices of a kind which will prevent a fair trial, and so on. If he has any reason to think that the trial will be unfair, or that any oppressive result can happen, then I quite agree that political considerations are relevant, and, indeed, may easily be paramount. He has to consider each case on its merits.
    The Motion that we are discussing, that is to say, the Motion moved by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), really states a quite general proposition. In effect, the Motion says that Chief Enahoro ought not to be sent back to Nigeria because the offences charged against him are political offences. In other words, simply on the general ground that whenever we get a political offence charged, the law ought not to be allowed to operate. The right hon. Member for Belper, in his speech on 21st March, stated the Opposition's case very clearly. He said:
    "There is no valid reason why, in 1963, we should apply a different test in the case of Commonwealth citizens from that which we apply in the cases of citizens from elsewhere. Summed up in one sentence, that is the case."
    He went on to say:
    "Why should we argue a totally different case if it happens to be a member of the

    1331
    Commonwealth from that which we argue about a French, or Spanish, or Russian, or any other citizen?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 583.]
    That is the case which we are now engaged in debating.
    My remarks will be directed to that particular issue which is, I believe, the most relevant. Ought we to treat a fugitive from a Commonwealth country in a way different from that in which we treat a fugitive from a foreign country? Put in another way, I think that the question can be fairly stated: ought the law to treat British subjects and aliens alike? If we put the question in that way, I think that everyone in the House will answer it immediately and in the negative. We answered this very question last year when we had the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill before the House, and hon. Members on both sides rightly said that we must treat British subjects from the Commonwealth differently from aliens.
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member said that we should all unhesitatingly say "no" to the proposition that we should treat them alike, but should we not also, and even more unhesitatingly, answer "no" to the proposition that we should treat Commonwealth citizens worse.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is exactly the point to which I propose to direct my remarks.
    British subjects are not, of course, treated as being the same as aliens in our law. British subjects, for instance, have still far greater freedom of access to the United Kingdom than aliens. They have far better rights to remain in it. British subjects can become Members of this House. There are many public offices which can be held by British subjects and not by aliens. The status of being a British subject carries very important rights indeed. That status is based on the principle of belief, that is to say, the loyalty which each one of us owes to the Crown, as head of the Commonwealth.
    The duty of allegiance applies equally to all British subjects, whether they live in this country, whether they live in one of the Commonwealth countries which is not a republic, or whether they live in one of the republics which is now a member of the Commonwealth.
    1332
    This is not merely a personal matter. It is a duty to respect the institutions constituted under the Crown and not to seek to overthrow them by violence. It is a duty binding on every British subject in every part of the Commonwealth. Those are the duties affecting all British subjects, and the duties and the rights of British subjects are inseparable. We cannot have one without the other. That is the reply to the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). If we do something to diminish the duties, then to that extent we shall lessen these rights.
    The combination of duties and rights is the peculiar mark of a British subject. It is that which constitutes the British Commonwealth of Nations. If we remove the obligations, the removal of the rights will follow very shortly afterwards. It always has been so. Hon. Members opposite would be the very first to argue that where we have duties and rights combined and we seek to remove the duties, then the rights will not long remain. If we remove the duties of allegiance, the only duties affecting British subjects, we shall not be long before we see the rights following them.
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member referred to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, by which we considerably reduced the rights of British subjects without affecting their duties or the validity of the Commonwealth.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Everybody in the House had grave misgivings about what we were then doing just because it would begin to undermine the very principle which I have mentioned. In fact, we did it only because we had to deal with a matter of urgency—and temporary urgency. We carefully inserted into the Bill that it was not to be a permanent Measure, but it was urgently needed for a particular practical reason.
    What is being argued by the Motion and by the hon. Member for Islington, East is that no British subject ought to have any higher obligation than an alien. He is arguing for the total removal of all these obligations.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am arguing for the modification of the Fugitive Offenders Act to bring it into accord with modern conditions, and I am saying that it would

    1333
    be a much less radical alteration of the position of British subjects than was the Comonwealth Immigrants Act.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I could not agree more strongly with the hon. Member. That was precisely what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced this afternoon that he intended to put in hand. But what the hon. Member said is something quite different. He said that we start from the premise that we ought to strike out treason and political offences from the content of that Act. I say that if we strike these out, then we strike out the whole basis of allegiance, and if we strike out the whole basis of allegiance then very shortly afterwards the rights which attach to the duties of allegiance will disappear. I think that that would be entirely wrong and that it is a course which no one in the House wishes us to take.
    I am not arguing the particular question of Chief Enahoro. I am arguing the larger question which is raised in the proposal before the House. I am saying that the basis for that proposal is entirely wrong and that for that reason, if for no other, I would vote against the Opposition Motion. When we come to the particular case, having regard to the facts disclosed and to the arguments on the other issues, I am completely content that the Government have followed the right lines, and I shall have no hesitation in supporting them on the Amendment in the Lobby.
    6.4 p.m.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: One of the best things which can be said about the House of Commons is that when the liberties of a man are concerned, all of us will give earnest and serious consideration to his case. That is true about hon. Members opposite as it is true about hon. Members on this side of the House. If one looks at the records of the proceedings of the House over the last 200 years, one finds that some of the most impressive debates which have taken place in this assembly have been on the liberty of only one individual.
    Another striking fact, if one looks at these debates in Parliamentary history, is how often opinions have changed according to the arguments in the debate. I will make a particular appeal
    1334
    to the Home Secretary, even at this late hour, not to close his mind to other proposals for a solution to the very difficult issue in his hands. The fact that Parliament has spent three days in discussing this issue indicates the gravity in which it is held in each party.
    I want to say at once that I differ from some of the speeches which have been made from this side of the House during the three days of our debates. I do not believe that Chief Enahoro is or ever was in danger of the death penalty. The discussions which have taken place about the interpretations of the law do not seem to me to meet the fact that not one of us who knows the membership of the Nigerian Government, who knows the man in Nigeria who is now the Attorney-General, and who knows the spirit in which he has approached this problem, can believe that Chief Enahoro would have suffered the death penalty.
    The unfortunate impression has grown within Nigeria that the attitude of those of us who oppose this deportation is one of regarding their State as second-class and inferior—that we know everything and that we can judge better than they can judge. I want to emphasise quite as emphatically as with my former point that, far from taking that view, I regard the Nigerian Government as one of the most outstanding Governments in the whole Continent of Africa in their tolerance, their patience and their fairness.
    Before the events which arose in the Western Region last year, nearly everyone in the House regarded the Government of Nigeria as a model. We recognised the statesmanship which was shown by its leaders, those from the Eastern and Western Regions, who might have had their own independence much earlier than independence was granted for the whole of Nigeria and who quite deliberately said, "We will postpone our own independence in order to secure the unity of the Federation." All this, and the way in which there has been formed in Nigeria a coalition Government of one of the most radical parties with the Conservative Party of the North, shows an attitude of the mind which is completely different from any picture given in this House that that Government is authoritarian, totalitarian or tyrannical. That

    1335
    should be said emphatically from these benches.
    Thirdly, I do not believe that we have any right to make the decision tonight because of any suspicion of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in Nigeria. It is one of the remarkable facts of Africa that even when there has been tyranny in a country the judiciary, and particularly the higher ranges of it, has shown its independence and impartiality. This was true of Kenya even during the worst months of Mau Mau. It was even true of the Republic of South Africa until the Government there began to pack the judiciary with their nominees. This is emphatically true of Nigeria. If anyone tonight suggested that we ought to reach a decision on the ground that justice would not be extended by the courts of Nigeria, he would be unaware of what is happening in Nigeria, and unaware of the character of those who are responsible for its judiciary.
    Having said that, I acknowledge that there are differences between the African States and this country. In African countries political offences are regarded with much more gravity than they are regarded here, and the punishment for them may be more severe. They are new nations which are being built up from diverse racial elements and diverse religious elements. In those circumstances, if someone resists the emergence of nationhood, there is the danger that he may be regarded as a traitor to the aims of that nation. Because of this, a different attitude is adopted towards political offences from that which we adopt. We differ from them, but we ought to understand their situation. We criticise, as many of us have done in the case of Ghana and the United Arab Republic, but we understand. This ought not to mean, however, that we are prepared to sacrifice our stand for political liberties in any way.
    The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) built up a picture of the Commonwealth on the basis that all its subjects show an allegiance to the Crown, and that that allegiance requires the Governments of the Commonwealth to have a closely integrated legal association which means that if a subject in one territory earns the displeasure of the Government there, and leaves the country for another part of
    1336
    the Commonwealth, the Government of the country to which he goes would be required to deport him to his own country.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman has somewhat overstated what I said or suggested. The person concerned would have to commit an offence to bring himself within the Fugitive Offenders Act, and that would be a pretty serious offence.
    Mr. Brockway: I shall amend what I said. Instead of saying "displeasure", I shall say "commits an act which is regarded as an offence" by the Government of the country in which he lives.
    I should despair of the future of the Commonwealth if it were dependent on that theory. This Commonwealth in which we believe must be based on a concept of liberty and democracy. It cannot possibly be based on the principle that a member of the Commonwealth who commits a political offence can be sent back to a country in the Commonwealth, while an alien who is not a member of the Commonwealth has the right to remain here.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate, because the Fugitive Offenders Act applies both to British subjects and to aliens. It applies to those who, either by virtue of being British subjects or as residents owe allegiance.
    Mr. Brockway: I am entirely accurate. The difference between the two Acts is that if a person is an alien refugee in this country he can claim the right to political asylum.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth rose—
    Mr. Brockway: I shall not give way again. I have done so continually, and I claim that I am correct in what I am saying.
    The difference between the two Acts is that an alien who comes to this country as a political refugee need not be sent back to his country, whereas a Commonwealth subject who comes here after committing what is regarded as a political offence is in a worse position than an alien and is more likely to be returned to his country.
    The hon. Member for Hendon, South, has held high office in the Home Office.

    1337
    I believe that he is a learned gentleman—[Laughter.] You interrupted me, and you are now laughing about it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must address our observations to the Chair. I was not interrupting the hon. Member.
    Mr. Brockway: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last Member to suggest that you would interrupt or laugh on an occasion like this, and I apologise.
    I return to the argument which I was putting and which, I thought, was gaining the consideration of a large proportion of hon. Members before I was interrupted. I was arguing that although the African countries have a different attitude to political offences, this country ought to stand firmly by its historical record of granting political asylum.
    Sir Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Brockway: No, the hon. Gentleman may not. Mr. Speaker, you have only just come into the Chamber. I have given way again and again, and my argument has been interrupted many times. I think that I have been reasonable in giving way on so many occasions, and I do not propose to do so again.
    I come back to my argument. I was saying that the African countries regard political offences more seriously than we do, and they therefore demand that those who take refuge here should be returned to them. While we understand their attitude, I believe that we must cling dearly and firmly to our record of granting political asylum. We must remember the contribution which this country is making to the pattern of human society. One of the biggest contributions which this country has made in that respect is the hospitality which it has given to political refugees from other countries.
    I am glad that the Home Secretary has come into the Chamber, because I wish to make a particular appeal to him. He may remember that one of the last debates of this kind in this House was over the case of a Spanish stowaway called Joaquim Perez-Selles. A member of the Government with, if I may say so, a longer standing in the House than the right hon. Gentleman, first decided that Perez-Selles must be returned to Spain. But under the influence of the contributions during the debate he came
    1338
    to another conclusion, and agreed that this man should be allowed to go to a country other than Spain, where he would have suffered imprisonment.
    I wish to make a very earnest appeal to the Home Secretary tonight to repeat that concession in a generous spirit such as was exhibited by the then Home Secretary. There are greater grounds for such a concession now than there were on that occasion. Chief Enahoro did not come here from Nigeria, but from Ireland. Whatever the explanation may be, the right hon. Gentleman will not doubt for one moment that Enahoro and his friends believe that an assurance had been given that Enahoro could stay here without being imprisoned.
    Under those circumstances, I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to insist that Chief Enahoro should be sent back to Nigeria and that this debate should result in the same decision as did the last debate. Instead of going to Nigeria, Chief Enahoro should be allowed to return to the country from which he came. I find it difficult to believe that the right hon. Gentleman can resist an appeal of this kind, and if he will agree to it—I think that it represents the opinion of hon. Members on both sides of the House—we might avoid the conflict which otherwise will occur at the end of this debate.
    6.14 p.m.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I wish to add my voice to the eloquent plea of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). I hope it is possible, even at this late stage, that the Home Secretary may feel able to consider it.
    I think that we have a good Government, a progressive and an enlightened Government. It is a Government which I support on nearly every issue. But I am completely sincere when I say that regarding Chief Enahoro I think the Government are grieviously wrong. I do not intend to repeat the arguments which I adduced when I was fortunate enough to be called to speak in the last debate on this subject. But I think there are a number of issues still unanswered even after this second debate and that it would be worth while to delve into them.
    At the outset I must indicate the reason for my personal interest in this case since the general interest in it has heightened after the one and a half

    1339
    debates that we have now had. Several people have approached me and asked, "Why are you taking such an interest in the case of Chief Enahoro?" For the benefit of those who did not hear the last speech I made on this subject, I must make clear that Chief Enahoro is by way of being a temporary constituent of mine. He was arrested in Chiswick while in a flat belonging to some of my constituents, and they approached me on his behalf. Enahoro himself appealed to me, and as a result of this approach I felt it my duty to look into the case on his behalf. I have gone through a considerable amount of evidence, and as a result of what I have seen and heard I believe, frankly, that he has an excellent case for being allowed to remain here.
    I wish, first, to go into the question of the death penalty. I understood right from the start of my inquiries that the death penalty was involved. Enahoro's solicitors assured me that the capital offence was there, even after the statement yesterday by the Attorney-General. Enahoro himself believes that he would face a capital charge if returned to Nigeria. He told me so when I saw him in Brixton Prison. I call in aid the leading article in today's issue of the Daily Telegraph which states:
    "We now have the Attorney-General's opinion that Chief Enahoro, if returned to Nigeria, would not face the death penalty. This opinion is backed with a wealth of arguments which would in other circumstances be pretty well conclusive. Against it, however, must be set the fact that the affidavit in which Nigeria's Crown Counsel applied for Chief Enahoro's return to Nigeria specifically says that the charges do carry the death penalty; it says it twice, indeed. The Attorney-General may well be right in law, the Crown Counsel mistaken. But (there seems to be at the very least an element of doubt, of which Chief Enahoro should surely receive the benefit."
    In addition to that evidence there are a considerable number of people, besides other hon. Members, who feel that he does face the death penalty. These are politicians in the Nigerian Assembly—we have heard them quoted by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)—and also some legal luminaries in Nigeria. Only last week we received a reasoned argument from the leading defence counsel at the trial, which I quoted to the Home Secretary in a
    1340
    supplementary question. Mr. O. A. Akintoye disagrees with the Attorney-General. In his view, Enahoro is charged on the second count with conspiracy to commit treason and not conspiracy to commit treasonable felony. He says:
    "A careful reading of the count and section 37(1) of the Criminal Code reveals that the draftsmen of the count had his eyes and mind on conspiracy to commit treason."
    In view of some of the allegations and comments, I should have thought that there is a real doubt about this Nigerian not facing a death penalty, and that it would be fair, in the circumstances, to give him the benefit of that reasonable doubt which must remain in the minds of so many people.
    I am not a barrister and therefore 1 often hesitate to tangle with hon. Members who are barristers when they speak in this House. But why on earth was the question of the death penalty ever mentioned in the affidavit if it had no relevance whatever? To me that seems incomprehensible. If my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is going to speak again—I do not know whether he is—he may be able to deal with this point. In its leading article this morning the Guardian takes up the point. It states:
    "In his view "—
    that is the view of the Attorney-General—
    "the two paragraphs referring to the death penalty had been included only to show the penalty for the principal felony, not the penalty for the lesser offence of conspiracy. He implied that these paragraphs were necessary in order to demonstrate that the offence was sufficiently serious for the Fugitive Offenders Act to apply to it. Yet if he is correct in stating that the maximum relative penalty is seven years, then there was no need for these two paragraphs in the affidavit. The charge was already serious enough to come under the Act."
    Later in the article it states—this is, perhaps, the most relevant point of all: "Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that Chief Enahoro would not be extradited unless it was clear 'beyond peradventure' that the death penalty did not apply. The doubt remains."
    I feel that that doubt does remain.
    Irrespective of that I should like to make a submission to the House on other issues in defence of Chief Enahoro. I cannot stress too strongly—I think that the Home Secretary will appreciate this point—that the right hon. Gentleman has

    1341
    absolute discretion in a case of this sort. What decision he arrives at is entirely a matter for him. My right hon. Friend is perfectly able to resist the persuasion of people like myself, and of others who feel that the Chief should go back. It is misleading to bring in the question of whether a government will be offended, or whether a government is friendly or is an antagonistic government. The whole case rests in the individual. I also think that my right hon. Friend is not bound to deport anybody under the Fugitive Offenders Act, and that, perhaps unwittingly, he has given the impression that he is bound to do so, particularly in this case.
    Why should my right hon. Friend exercise his discretion in favour of this Nigerian? First, I think because Enahoro came to this country, as we have heard today, under a misapprehension. It was a regrettable misapprehension. We have heard it gone into in detail today, but undoubtedly this man thought—and three specific telephone calls were made on his behalf by a very responsible person—that if he came to this country, he would be safe and would be granted asylum.
    He knew very well what charges were to be levelled against him in his own country and he realised that he had to get out before he was caught. He went first to Ghana, then on to Dublin and finally to this country. As there was this very grave misunderstanding—and one accepts the assurance given by the Home Office that it was a misunderstanding—the Home Secretary should exercise his discretion in Enahoro's favour.
    I should have thought that in a case of this sort it was extremely relevant to take into account the circumstances of the people involved. The man who did this inquiry on behalf of Enahoro is a perfectly responsible citizen and a man of some standing in the business world. Enahoro himself is not some illiterate, spear-carrying savage but a completely Westernised Nigerian and well educated, as was revealed by the letter read out today by the right hon. Member for Belper. He has been to this country many times and has been here on official visits. He has two sons being educated in this country and they are going on to Marlborough School, one not unknown
    1342
    to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He also belongs to a well-known London area golf club and is a man who obviously would not have come to this country unless he had been absolutely satisfied in his own mind that he would be given political asylum.
    Secondly, I base my appeal for the discretion of the Home Secretary on the fact that the Fugitive Offenders Act is admitted by most people today to be out of date. We all more or less agree that it was passed in a colonial era, but times have changed very significantly. As a result, whichever way one looks at it and whatever is said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), if Enahoro is sent back he will be receiving treatment less fair than a foreigner would get in the same circumstances. Surely that is wrong. Surely if we believe in the cause of the Commonwealth—and I certainly do and I am sure that everybody in the House does—Commonwealth citizens in times of trouble should be entitled to exactly the same consideration as a foreigner would receive in comparable circumstances. I do not think that it flows from that that there is discrimination against Governments in the Fugitive Offenders Act.
    Thirdly, I base my appeal to the Home Secretary for his discretion, even at this late stage, on the fact that political asylum is likely to be granted in cases of this sort when the Fugitive Offenders Act is altered. After our debates, it looks very likely that the Act will be changed. It would surely be very tragic indeed if this were the last case to be decided before that change took place, a case which has aroused tremendous interest and a good deal of passion on both sides of the House and one in which there is considerable merit in the case for the defence.
    Nevertheless, despite those three appeals which I make to the Home Secretary, the main argument overall must be that the Home Secretary should exercise his discretion, because by any count Enahoro is a political offender. It has been said—and it has been said in the House and I have heard it said outside the House—that the evidence presented against him involves bombs and guns and military training and efforts to bring about a coup d'état in his country; to

    1343
    overthrow the constitution by unconstitutional means.
    I must say quite honestly that although those allegations are perfectly fair so far as I know, they are strongly contested by Enahoro and his legal advisers. It is not for me to challenge the authenticity of the evidence which has been presented in the treason trial in Nigeria, but I say perfectly sincerely that it is not unknown for evidence to be rigged in political trials in various parts of the world, and we have always to bear that in mind.
    I accept that assurance of the Government that the Nigerian judiciary is first class and scrupulous, but what can a judiciary do if evidence happens to be tailored to the needs of the prosecution, even if it appears to be perfectly legitimate when it comes before the court? Fair trials do not always begin and end in court. There is the question of how the evidence is obtained and how it is presented, and the whole question of whether it is subject to cross-examination. Certainly some very disturbing evidence has come to this country to those of us who are interested in this case. It may be that three-quarters of it is not true, but if only a title of it is true, that would make the case for Chief Enahoro.
    So far as I can trace, a number of allegations which have been made by some of the accused have not been rebutted. There is also the question of a man named Ceulman, an interrogator of Dutch Afrikaans extraction, against whom the most serious allegations have been made. So far as I know, this individual has never been called in the treason trial.
    I referred to this the last time I spoke on the subject and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) went into some of the details. While I was speaking, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary interrupted me and said:
    "I could say a good deal about certain matters which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) read out, but those matters are sub judice in Nigeria and we must be careful what we say. I think that all of us must be careful in reaching judgments on matters which are now before the Nigerian courts for judgment there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March. 1963; Vol. 674, c. 641–2.]
    1344
    I thought that was fair and I did not pursue the matter in the course of the debate, but if the matter is sub judice there, could we not wait until the trials are over before sending Enahoro back, so that we can better study the evidence presented and look into the allegations—and I put it no higher than saying that they are allegations—about some of the evidence presented in this case?
    The evidence which I have read certainly leaves doubt in my mind, and I know that it leaves doubt in the minds of some of my hon. Friends who are very worried about this case. I know that the Home Secretary has read this evidence and I shall be very surprised if he says that it does not leave doubt in his mind. It may be wrong and it may be inconclusive, but there seems to be an element of truth in it.
    Those who are for sending Enahoro back to Nigeria use the very compelling argument that we must trust the Commonwealth and that if we do not let it stand on its own two feet, the Commonwealth in general and Nigeria in particular will be gravely insulted over this case. Some of my hon. Friends have even gone so far as to say that those of us who are concerned are doing irreparable damage to the Commonwealth by fighting the case of Chief Enahoro.
    May I say that is that I do not see it in the same light. Nigeria may well be angry about this issue and in some respects she is entitled to be angry about it, but I am sure that she will not leave the Commonwealth if we do not send Enahoro back. I am sure from some of the speeches which have been made in the Nigerian House of Assembly that that is the thought furthest from the minds of many of the people taking part in the Government there. I say again that this is a political matter and should be treated as such. Political trials of a comprehensive nature should always be regarded with the gravest of suspicions, whether they are in or out of the Commonwealth and without taking into account the nature of the country concerned.
    I am well aware that by my stand I have displeased the Government. I have displeased the Whips. I have displeased even some of my constituents who have asked why I should rush about and worry so much about the affairs

    1345
    of a man who is not even English and who is concerned with a country which does not particularly affect us. I must say that I am unrepentant and still not convinced by the arguments produced against me in this matter. It gives me no pleasure whatever to say that today, for the first time in my political career, I shall be forced to vote against the Government, but I feel that at least I owe this to Chief Enahoro as a gesture of my good faith in conducting his case for him.
    It may be misguided, because people can make mistakes and time may prove me wrong, but I think that I am doing the just and humane thing for Enahoro in taking up his cause, and I think that exactly the same applies to those of my hon. Friends who have worked very assiduously on his behalf. He came to us for assistance in his hour of trouble and I am only too sorry that there are signs, which we have seen today, that we have failed him. But at least we have achieved this—that when he gets back he will get fairer and better treatment than might have been the case if this had not become such a grave issue in this country.
    Finally, and I stress this above everything else, I am convinced that there is here a great and strong issue. It is the principle that the individual, however famous or however obscure, must always be regarded as more important where life and liberty are concerned than all the expediencies of Governments and all the nuances of diplomacy. The individual is greater than the State, and that must always be the case. The principle of political asylum is a great and cherished principle and one which it is vital we should preserve in this country. It appears that tonight we are to throw it overboard. All I can say is that I hope we do not live to regret it.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: We have just heard a very fine and a very eloquent speech. Over forty other hon. Members on the other side of the House signed the same Motion as the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiwick (Mr. D. Smith). If they had his courage, they could still save Chief Enahoro and, in the process of so doing, they could do much to restore the waning-reputation of this House. They would not bring about the resignation of the Government. Whatever
    1346
    else happens, the Government will not resign. Perhaps some Members on the Government side will still have the courage to do that. It is within their power.
    I agree with the hon. Member that Nigeria has reason to be offended with us. We could have said to Nigeria, "In 1881, when this Act was passed, it was passed upon the basis of a common subjection to what was then the British Empire. Treason as described in the 1881 Act was a common offence against that common authority. These are no longer the circumstances, now that we have free and independent nations. It has never been our custom to return those charged with political offences to other free and independent nations.
    "Therefore, we cannot exercise the discretion under this Act in that sense. It has been contrary to our universal custom. We recognise your freedom. We recognise your independence. We treat you as we would treat our old friends and kinsmen and our allies. We treat you as we would treat the great American Republic. We treat you as we would treat the French Republic. We treat you as we would treat any other free and independent nation, because that is our custom". If we had said that, Nigeria could not have taken offence.
    Instead of that, we did a most peculiar thing. We took up a half-way house. We said, "We will return you this man as long as we are satisfied that, if we do so, his life will not be in danger". That seems to me to be a profoundly offensive thing to say to the Nigerians. We say to them, "We are not treating you as a free and independent and equal country. We have not that sort of confidence in your courts. We are prepared to allow you to deal with a minor offence which does not carry the death penalty, but we do not think that you are fit to deal with a matter if it is capital". If the Nigerians take exception to that, I can agree with them, for, after all, the offence of treason is capital here as it is in Nigeria.
    As that undertaking was given, and given by the Prime Minister, it is one which we have to examine. If Chief Enahoro is returned to Nigeria, is he in danger of a capital charge? My answer to that without any hesitation whatever is, "Yes, he is in danger of a capital

    1347
    charge". I will not go into the argument with the Attorney-General as to whether this is so on Charge 2. The hon. and learned Gentleman may be right or he may be wrong. Some lawyers have taken one view, and some lawyers have taken the other. What I am saying is that, if the Chief is returned to Nigeria, the Nigerian Government can, and can quite properly, prefer a capital charge. The Prime Minister said in his speech that to say that they would get him back on one charge and then prefer another would be a gross insult to the Nigerian courts and that it is something which no civilised nation would do.
    I say this to the learned Attorney-General. It is something which we do. It is something which we have done. It is something which we do regularly. When we obtain people, both under this Act and by extradition proceedings, the charges which we prefer before the jury are, I will go so far as to say, generally different charges from those on which the man is obtained.
    The procedure is this. First, charges are laid and a warrant is sworn. That warrant is the basis of the extradition proceedings. The man is then brought back here. There is the preliminary hearing before the magistrates. That hearing begins on the charges in the warrant. At that time additional evidence may be obtained and other charges may be preferred. At the end of the magisterial proceedings, counsel in charge of the prosecution—it may be the Attorney-General—considers the evidence and then he drafts the indictment. The indictment may, and quite often does, contain charges which are quite different from the ones originally preferred. That is the normal process of our law.
    Extradition cases very often concern financial frauds of great complexity. It is very often absconding financiers who are returned. Nearly always, in those cases, by the time it comes to drafting the indictment the indictment is materially different from the charges originally preferred.
    The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): The position is that under extradition treaties there is an obligation on each side, both the returning side and the other side, not to prefer additional charges. It may be that some technical
    1348
    alteration is made in the form of the indictment, but it is a treaty obligation on this country, if it obtains the return of a fugitive, only to prefer the charges for which his return is obtained.
    Conversely, we do not return anyone under an extradition treaty to another country unless that country, by its treaty, is responsible for seeing that only those charges are preferred and that the person returned has the opportunity of leaving the country before further charges are made.
    Mr. Paget: I was coming to that point in a moment.
    This applies only to charges which are not extraditable. The treaties contain the provision, and our undertaking is that, if we obtain a man back on charges for offences which are extraditable, we will not prefer charges which are not extraditable and not within the treaty. In fact, the charges are normally and regularly changed. There have been cases in which protests have been entered because charges which were not extraditable have been preferred when we have handed people into extradition. The learned Attorney-General will be familiar with the cases. So long as the charges are extraditable, different charges can be preferred.
    But we are not here dealing with the Extradition Act. We are, in fact, dealing with the Act of 1881 in which there is not even a reservation as to non-extraditable offences. Under the Act of 1881 there is nothing at all to prevent the presentation of any charges, whether or not they are included in the Act. Why should there be? The answer is that the basis of the 1881 Act was precisely that this is a common subjection; that this was the British Empire and a common authority with which we were dealing.
    So, unlike the extradition position which is limited to non-extraditable offences, there is no limitation at all under that Act. Both we and the Nigerian Government can prefer any charge which is justified by the evidence. If the evidence which has been presented—and I am not at this point saying whether or not it is true—is accepted, it quite certainly does support a capital charge of treason. This undertaking having been given, it is hypocritical to say that this man does not run the risk of a capital charge if he is returned, for, of course, he does.

    1349
    The next point of great importance is the Prime Minister's request to the Nigerian Government for assurances either that the second count—or the second charge, because it is not a count—would be withdrawn if it were a capital one, and that no further charge carrying the death penalty would be presented. That was a grossly improper thing to do. To ask for those assurances was indeed grossly improper and the Nigerian Government are overwhelmingly right in refusing to do so.
    I will put this from the other point of view. Suppose one of the other members of the Commonwealth were to say to us, "If we return this man", who, perhaps, is charged with capital murder or treason, "we want an assurance from you, first, that the judge will not pass the sentence called for by the law, or, secondly, that the Home Secretary, in pursuance of his own judicial and absolute discretion, will exercise that discretion by ordering a reprieve; or that the Attorney General, in pursuance of his judicial discretion, will no: prefer charges involving the death penalty, even if the evidence would support those charges".
    Any Government which gave those assurances would demonstrate quite clearly that the judiciary and those who exercise judicial discretion are subject to the Executive. To give such assurances would be to give an assurance that our judiciary is not independent.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Member will perhaps be aware that, under our Treaty with Israel, Israel is not prepared to return to this country any person who would be on a capital charge. It therefore requires a certificate from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the charge is not capital. This is clearly the procedure.
    Mr. Paget: What has that got to do with this case? There are many extradition treaties which contain many charges which are not extraditable. I am discussing, where a capital charge is extraditable, the question of the Executive giving assurances by which the judiciary and those who exercise it are bound.
    If there is any doubt as to the judicial discretion involved in withdrawing a charge or in not presenting one, I would remind the House of the Campbell case, on which the first Labour Government
    1350
    fell. It fell precisely because the then Attorney-General in the Labour Government, Sir Patrick Hastings, was accused of having exercised his discretion to withdraw a charge for political reasons. Sir Robert Home, speaking on the censure Motion which overthrew that Labour Government, said in this connection:
    "I was saying that if the administration of the law should become subject to any considerations of political expediency then justice, as we have known it in this country for centuries, would disappear. Civilised communities can only enjoy full liberty if the political executive is excluded from interference with the mechanism of the administration of justice. It is for that reason that the very salutary rule has been observed in this country that the Attorney-General, in forming his opinion on matters of prosecution, is entirely free from any political influence whatsoever."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th October, 1924; Vol. 177, c. 581.]
    These were precisely the assurances for which we were asking the Nigerian Government.
    The rôle of the Home Secretary in these proceedings has been a sorry one. He has on a number of occasions misled and deceived the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I hear hon. Members opposite saying "No", but let us consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said. On the 21st of last month he said:
    "This is a grave matter. It deserves the most thorough and responsible thought that I am capable of giving to it."
    He went on:
    "I do not recollect any application having been made for bail."
    There have been three applications, to the magistrates' court and to the divisional court. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
    "… there is no question of Chief Enahoro being sent back to stand trial for his life."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 593–4, 601.]
    At that point the Nigerian Government's affidavit supporting the warrant for Enahoro's arrest, signed by the acting senior counsel for Nigeria, the Federal Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice, stated flatly that the second charge against him carried the death penalty.
    The liability to the death penalty at that point was mentioned and accepted in the magistrates' court, in the divisional court and in the Appeals Committee of the House of Lords. At that point the one dissenting voice that subsequently emerged, the voice of the Attorney-General, had not been heard. Indeed,

    1351
    it was a week or a fortnight after this that the Attorney-General told us that he had not had time to consider the matter. At that point, at which there was unanimity of opinion everywhere that this man was on a capital charge, the Home Secretary said in the House the words I have just quoted, that is,
    "… there is no question of Chief Enahoro being sent back to stand trial for his life."
    Later replying to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), the Home Secretary said:
    "The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed about the content of this affidavit. There is no reference … to the death penalty being a penalty for any of the charges on which Chief Enahoro's return was sought."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 625.]
    I shall not read the affidavit again. Everyone, of course, agrees that it was in the affidavit in the clearest of terms.
    Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "The information I have given to the House is strictly correct."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1278.]
    Really! That is his performance in guiding the House.
    We now come to the question of this decision. It is a judicial decision—a discretion; a discretion as personal, as judicial, as the discretion with regard to the recommendation of mercy on a capital charge. The Prime Minister tells us, "We have decided that Chief Enahoro is to return." Who is "we"?
    I refer again to something said by Sir Robert Home in the debate to which I have referred, when Mr. Ramsay Mac-Donald was Prime Minister. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald had used the words "as to what did or did not influence us," and Sir Robert Home said:
    "I do not know whether the Cabinet did arrive at a decision or not, but these remarks suggest that they did, and, if that is so, you have just that improper interference on the part of the political executive with the decision of the Attorney-General which at the beginning I deprecated in the interests of 'the proper administration of the law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th October, 1924; Vol. 177, c. 591.]
    And here we have what is, quite plainly, a Home Secretary deciding what "we" have decided, and what he is told to decide—told, primarily, by the strongest man in a weak Cabinet, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
    1352
    In an article written a short time ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) pointed out power had passed from the Cabinet and had become personal to the Prime Minister. When one has autocracy—and we are reaching the point where we have Prime-Ministerial autocracy—and particularly when that autocracy begins to get doddery, one has the most evil of political phenomena—the "creature". That is, the man who is there not for his abilities, not for his eloquence, not for his administrative capacity—but for his obedience. That is, the man who is there because he can be relied upon to do any task, however unpleasant, only that he be commanded to do so—the sort of position of Louis XI's barber, Olivier le Dain.
    That is the honourable office held by this Home Secretary in this Government. He has disgraced his office, and he has disgraced the Parliamentary system. This is a shoddy and disgraceful story.
    7.3 p.m.
    Sir Peter Agnew: This is the third debate that we have had on this subject. The two previous debates have, to some extent, revealed more sense of drama, almost of excitement, but I think that it is true to say that on this, the third and possibly final day, a sense of sheer gravity has been paramount. I do not want to go over too much of the old ground and, not being a lawyer, I do not want to enter into any of the purely legal arguments that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has presented, on which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of the same profession have remarked and with which they have not always agreed. At the same time, if we look at the legal position, I find myself, as an ordinary Member of the House, doing the unaccustomed task of reading an affidavit.
    I am not used to reading affidavits, but I must say that this particular affidavit, in spite of its title, was written in fairly plain English and, rightly or wrongly, I construed it as a deposition or statement made by the Senior Crown Counsel in Nigeria that Chief Enahoro, the subject of all these discussions, is arraigned on a charge that can carry the death penalty if he is proved guilty. I see that my hon. and learned Friend shakes his head again.

    1353
    One thing that I can say with certainty is that if the Chief were to be tried in this country I would have every faith in the words and opinions uttered by my hon. and learned Friend, but that is not the case. This opinion has bean given under Nigerian law, in Nigeria, and if Her Majesty's Government persist in their determination to deport Chief Enahoro to Nigeria he will pass from the power and the counsel and influence of the British administration of law into the power and control of Nigerian law as administered by the Nigerian judicial department.
    In that connection, it is right to note that if the Senior Crown Counsel swore that affidavit, as he did, he swore it before the Minister of Justice, that is to say, the executive head of the administrative side of the judicial department in Nigeria. It is therefore right to point out that our own Attorney-General takes a view different from that of the Attorney-Genera] in the country where the man, if he is sent back, will be tried. That point has to be taken into account in this debate.
    It can be said, I think, with the high authority of the Home Secretary himself, that the Fugitive Offenders Act is now regarded as obsolete to the extent that it urgently needs revision, although, of course, these debates have not been appropriate for discussing the exact type of revision required. My memory goes back to the time when I first came to this House just before the passing of the Statute of Westminster. Up to that time, most of our Commonwealth countries, and certainly a country of the status that Nigeria has today, would not have been able to pass laws of their own that were repugnant to anything we do here, and that Statute was intended to accord to the Dominions, as it was then fashionable to call them, the absolute status of sovereign nations. I believe that in failing, as we have failed over all these years, to look again at the Fugitive Offenders Act we have unwittingly left a relic of the old Imperial system that is utterly inappropriate for dealing with the kind of case we now have before us.
    The fact has been that in a sense, perhaps a technical one, although I do not think that Chief Enahoro today would take it as technical only, the sovereign status created by the Statute of Westminster has been incomplete in that small
    1354
    detail in preserving an out-of-date piece of machinery for use in cases such as these. But we are faced with the position that the Fugitive Offenders Act is still the law of the land and the Home Secretary has his duty to do as he sees it.
    It is undeniable, however, as others in the debate have shown, that not only in the case of the legal position, to which I have already referred, but also in the circumstances surrounding the whole of what is going on in Nigeria today, a doubt is held whether in the atmosphere of that young, progressive and anxiously democratic country the climate can be such as to give the kind of trial in the full atmosphere which would prevail if the trial were taking place in this country.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Most unworthy.
    Sir P. Agnew: My hon. Friend says that that observation is most unworthy. My reply would be that if when this matter was first raised in the House my right hon. Friend had announced that in the case of one independent Commonwealth country, namely, Cyprus, the Act had already been breached by decision of Her Majesty's Government, and that in this case again he proposed to do what would amount to breaching the Act and not send Chief Enahoro back, I venture to suppose—although it is a bold thing to do—that perhaps not one hon. Member on either side of the House would have stood up to suggest that another course be taken.
    Mr. Norman Pannell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in June, 1961, the Cypriot Government refused to extradite one Andreas Afamis required in this country in connection with inquiries into the murder of Arthur Lee on the ground that their Constitution did not permit extradition? Surely, in view of that, the Home Secretary was entitled to use his discretion when they applied for extradition.
    Sir P. Agnew: I must say to my hon. Friend that I do not believe in the doctrine of tit for tat.
    I do not wish to detain the House, but I should like to say a few words about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I feel convinced that his approach throughout this gloomy matter has been one of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which he always shows.

    1355
    I believe, however, that he has been the victim of an unfortunate obscurity as to the legal position at the outset, which permitted Her Majesty's Government, in a sense, to change their ground and rest it on the liability to the death penalty, as they themselves now see it.
    This has placed the Home Secretary, admittedly, in a difficult position. He now finds himself as a one-man court of appeal, and not only in the case of Chief Enahoro. He is placed with the duty and the power, as it were, to have to pass judgment upon the suitability, efficacy and fairness of the judicial system of, it may be, any and all the countries of the Commonwealth. I do not envy my right hon. Friend his task of drawing up a list of the sheep and the goats. It would be well-nigh impossible to do that.
    I ask him, even at this very late hour, to review the decision which he seems to have taken and to say to himself that if there can be, as I believe, still a residue of doubt upon this whole matter, then the consideration of the life of one man is a higher one than the prestige of any Government.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. John Strachey: We are debating again in a remarkable series of debates, as surely every hon. Member will agree, a case in which I think the impulse of every one of us is to do the generous and humane thing by the man whose fate we may be deciding tonight. I doubt whether even those who have firmly made up their minds that the Government would be right in sending Chief Enahoro back to Nigeria do not feel deep regret at the decision which, no doubt quite sincerely, they have taken.
    After all, if there were no other considerations—which there are—this would be a simple case, looked at from a human point of view, of a man who came here four months ago on what has been admitted on all hands, and has not been challenged today, a tragic misunderstanding—I put it no higher—with the Home Office, and who has lain in gaol for that period. His offence—and no one challenges it—is a political offence. It may be a very grave one, if it is proved, but there is no doubt that it is a political offence. He may—and I put it no higher
    1356
    —be at risk to his life if he is sent back. Surely, the impulse of every one of us must be to deplore this and, indeed, to demand that the Home Secretary should reverse the decision which we understand he will announce tonight.
    I put aside the consideration which, if I may say so, was rather crudely advanced in the course of the debate that we must send him back simply because to do anything else would undoubtedly offend the Nigerian Government. Relationships with Nigeria and the feelings of the Nigerian Government are very important, but they cannot be decisive for us in deciding this issue. That really would be an abomination. Even if a Commonwealth Government as important and estimable as that of Nigeria is bound to misunderstand our actions, the House must make up its mind to do what it thinks right and do its utmost to explain its actions and make the Government concerned understand.
    I join my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) in every word that he said in expressing confidence in the Nigerian Government. I would remind the House again that, as it happens, I am one of the few Members of the House who attended the trial of Chief Awolowo in Lagos which, as it were, is the master trial in this matter. I, too, was greatly impressed by Nigerian justice. If we still strongly urge the course of mercy on the Home Secretary, as we see it, it is not in the least because we doubt those legal proceedings in Nigeria.
    I want to come to the story of the action of the Government in recent weeks as it has emerged from the Prime Minister's speech today. The right hon. Gentleman made a most powerful speech. He was warmly applauded from his side of the House, but, if I may say so with respect, I do not think that every hon. Member opposite quite followed what the story was which the Prime Minister had to tell us. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us, absolutely frankly, that he had given us a most binding and strict pledge that Chief Enahoro was not to be sent back to Nigeria unless he could get full assurances from the Nigerian Government that the Chief would not be at risk of death. Next, the right hon. Gentleman told us that he inquired—no doubt, the

    1357
    Government did it through the High Commissioner—whether Chief Enahoro was or might be charged with an offence which carried the death penalty. As has already been emphasised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), the Nigerian Government at once refused to give an assurance on this, very understandably and very rightly, I think, because it was an assurance which it was almost impossible for them to give.
    What was the next thing? After that, the Prime Minister received an assurance from the Attorney-General, the British Attorney-General in this Government, that in his opinion Chief Enahoro is not in any way in jeopardy on a charge carrying the death penalty if he goes back to Nigeria. The Attorney-General has said that today.
    Mr. Paget: With respect, he said that he is not on these charges.
    Mr. Strachey: He has certainly implied—he will correct me if I am wrong—that Chief Enahoro, if he is sent back, is not in jeopardy of the death penalty, and that, therefore, the Prime Minister's pledge is satisfied.
    The Prime Minister tells us that, having received that opinion from the Attorney-General, there is no need even to make any further inquiries of the Nigerian Government. But if this is so, if the opinion of the Attorney-General here satisfies the Prime Minister, why did he make the inquiries of the Nigerian Government at all in the first place? The course of action which he has adopted has, I suggest, the most disastrous consequences because it has given the very maximum offence in Nigeria, but it has produced no assurances whatever from the Nigerian Government, and now, once again, we have had to fall back entirely on the ipse dixit of the Attorney-General. Frankly, that is not satisfactory to us. The hon. and learned Gentleman is, no doubt, very learned in the law, but others take a different view and there remains in my lay mind at least a very real element of doubt as to whether the Chief is or is not in jeopardy of death if returned to Nigeria.
    Here one has to speak as a layman. Many hon. and learned Members have spoken in the debate, but the laity, even in a law court, has a part to play.
    1358
    Laymen, after all, play the part of the jury, and that part is rather important sometimes. If as a lay juryman I had to make up my mind, with the evidence which has been put before me by hon. and learned Members, I should say that I was by no means sure that Chief Enahoro was not in peril of death if sent back.
    The Attorney-General sweeps away the whole business of the affidavit very easily and lightly. But what is it all about? As I have endeavoured to understand it, the affidavit appears to make clear that, in the opinion of the prosecuting authorities in Nigeria at least, under one of the charges Chief Enahoro is in jeopardy of the death penalty, by reference to two provisions of Nigerian law read together. I think that I ought to take the House through those provisions very briefly again.
    Section 516 reads:
    "Any person who conspires with another to commit any felony, or to do any act in any part of the world which if done in Nigeria would be a felony, and which is an offence under the laws in force in the place where it is proposed to be done, is guilty of a felony, and is liable,"—
    these are the material words—
    "if no other punishment is provided, to imprisonment for seven years …"
    I turn to the now famous Section 37(2) which reads:
    "Any person conspiring with any person, either within or without Nigeria, to levy war against the Sovereign with intent to cause such levying of war as would be treason if committed by one of Her Majesty's subjects, is guilty of treason, and is liable to the punishment of death …"
    I do not pretend to be a learned lawyer who can tell the House with clarity that I am sure that that means that Chief Enahoro is in peril of his life, but I have heard nothing which convinces me that he is not. I put it to the Home Secretary and the Government that we want a better opinion, with all respect, than that of the Attorney-General on this issue.
    I repeat the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). It is perfectly open to the Government to make a reference of this matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and obtain its opinion on this one issue: is Chief Enahoro, or is he not, in peril of the capital penalty if he is returned to Nigeria? If that is

    1359
    not done, there is nothing which the Attorney-General can say which makes us feel that if he is now returned he will not be returned in direct breach of the Prime Minister's pledge. We feel this very strongly.
    Now, the second issue, the less humanly exciting and dramatic one but, in the long run, perhaps, the more important issue, the question of the Fugitive Offenders Act and its amendment. Here again I found some difficulty in following the Prime Minister's speech because he seemed to say two things. He indicated quite strongly that he thought that it was now time to begin negotiations with other members of the Commonwealth for the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Act. But he went on, in almost the whole of the rest of that passage in his speech, to argue strongly, as far as I could see, against amending the Act and for continuing the very great difference between our treatment of Commonwealth citizens and of foreigners in this respect, because he went on to discriminate very clearly among the members of the Commonwealth. In the words of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew), he seemed to divide the members of the Commonwealth into sheep and goats, to some of which we should quite readily return political offenders and to some of which we should not.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper remarked, very acutely I thought, that the Prime Minister came very near to naming which countries of the Commonwealth he thought were, as it were, the sheep and which were the goats. I remind the House that, although the Prime Minister did not go so far as actually to name them, at an earlier stage of the debate the Attorney-General did particularise and discriminate between members of the Commonwealth, to some of which he thought it would be oppressive to return political offenders and to others of which it would not.
    I think that I should read his words. He was arguing in reply to myself:
    "The right hon. Member for Dundee, West, and, I think, also the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, drew the attention of the House to legislation in Southern Rhodesia. There are other countries—I think Ghana was mentioned—in which there is a right of detention without trial … those are, are they not, exactly the sort of considerations which
    1360
    the Home Secretary ought to bear in mind when he is considering whether he should exercise the power to return a person who is a fugitive from justice?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 670]
    I find this the most horrifying doctrine.
    The Attorney-General, in a flight of oratory, in another passage of his speech, said that if we amended the Fugitive Offenders Act so that we made it parallel and analogous to the Extradition Act we might not be able to extradite terrible criminals to other members of the Commonwealth. He went so far as to say that that might be interpreted as though we were saying, "Nevertheless, we will never return a person who has ever committed a political offence of any nature, although it might bring down the Commonwealth and lead to the triumph of Communism".
    I suggest that the doctrine which we are now hearing from the Treasury Bench is much more likely to bring down the Commonwealth. We shall damage the Commonwealth if we say to one Government, "You are a good Commonwealth Government and we shall return political offenders to you", but say to another Government, "You are a bad Commonwealth Government and we shall not return political offenders to you." Surely the Attorney-General, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister must see that this is an impossible doctrine. I imagine that the Prime Minister does see it. Otherwise he would not have indicated that he is contemplating amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Act. That is the whole point of amending it.
    The Prime Minister said that it was rather arrogant of us to take the view that the Act needed amendment. But why is he initiating discussions to amend it if that is his view? Surely, for the sake of the stability and well-being of the Commonwealth, there must be a clear-cut rule for the Government to follow which enables them not to discriminate between one member of the Commonwealth and another, and that rule can be no other than the familiar rule of the Extradition Act—that the Government concerned have no right to claim extradition of a person for a political offence.
    That does not mean, as the Attorney-General pointed out, that we should automatically give asylum to every individual.

    1361
    The person concerned may be sent somewhere else. He may be deported like any other alien. But it means that we do not have to send back a political offender simply because his political offence occurred in a Commonwealth country and not in a foreign country. That is what we are arguing with the Government.
    I put it to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) that we are facing the realities of the Commonwealth. I followed the hon. Gentleman's argument about allegiance. I take it that he means allegiance to the Crown. But much of the Commonwealth does not owe allegiance to the Crown. By far the biggest part of the Commonwealth. India, is a republic. Therefore, it is impossible to have a sort of pretence Commonwealth in which all these things are true. We are here talking about large independent Governments, and it is no criticism of them to say that their judiciary is not on a higher level than that of great, independent and highly developed countries.
    It is absurd to pretend that all the countries of the Commonwealth—Southern Rhodesia, for example—have better laws and better judicial systems than the United States, Holland. France and other developed countries. That is carrying things much too far. We must admit that they are on all fours with other States of the world—neither better nor worse—and we must treat them as such.
    The Commonwealth connection is different. It is very hard to define it and to put it into words, and it is a tender plant. But I am sure that if we pretend that it is something other than it really is we do it harm and not good. Therefore, those of us who are profoundly concerned for the future of the Commonwealth—and I think that that applies to all hon. Members; it certainly applies to hon. Members on this side—are worried that these debates may have done harm. But that is not our fault. We think that the trouble lies in the extreme mishandling of the situation by the Government and the extraordinary sequence of events which they have gone through by consulting and then dropping consultation with the Nigerian Government.
    The only way to preserve the Commonwealth is to do justice as we see it
    1362
    and to do the right and humane thing. We therefore ask the Home Secretary to do two things, as he can do under Section 6 of the Fugitive Offenders Act: first, to tell us clearly and definitely that the Fugitive Offenders Act will be amended, because it is producing intolerable results in the present-day world; and, secondly, pending that Amendment, to use his power of discretion, which is in black and white, and say that in all the circumstances, and while that amendment is being made, it would not be just to return Chief Enahoro to Nigeria.
    7.37 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I hope that the House will give me leave to speak again, because it is a decision of mine which is under dispute—not a decision of the Government nor a decision of anybody else, but my personal decision. I have listened to this debate with care such as I have seldom exercised in listening to any other debate in this House—for obvious reasons. It has been a debate of a very high order.
    I think that the speech which I admired most for its courage was one with which I did not agree, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith). He has set a magnificent Parliamentary example by the loyalty with which he has served Chief Enahoro, who is not a constituent of his but who happened to be in his constituency. In view of the loyalty which my hon. Friend has shown tonight, I for one will not charge him with disloyalty in any other direction.
    It would be right for me to say a few words about the position of the Home Secretary. In the working of the Fugitive Offenders Act, the Home Secretary does not come into the matter until all the court proceedings are past and' over. He has no cognisance officially of the matter until then. Only then does he have to consider it and to decide whether or not he thinks it just—those are the words of the Act—to send the person back to the Commonwealth country where he has been charged with an offence. It is his decision and no one else's. No one else can take the decision for him, despite the totally unfounded allegations of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who thought fit to charge me with political weakness.

    1363
    This is a grave responsibility for the Home Secretary. It is a heart-searching responsibility. This is a decision which I have to take on grounds not of sentiment, advantage, political benefit or political effect, but of justice alone. It must be a fearless decision.
    The fact that a person may be liable to the death penalty is not, under the Act, a conclusive reason for refusing to return him. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said on that. The case might be one of a man who is alleged to have murdered his wife or child in a country where the punishment for murder was death. But Chief Enahoro is not being called back to stand his trial on a capital charge. That is what I have believed throughout, and it was not challenged in the House when I stated it on 21st March. That is certainly what the British courts believed. That is what my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has confirmed. While I will not go over his statement to the House yesterday, I should say a word about the particular point that seems to have been puzzling some hon. Members, that is how there came to be any mention of the death penalty in the affidavit.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General explained this yesterday. Hon. Members will find it in columns 1103–4 of HANSARD. Let me, however, go over it once again. A person cannot be returned under the Fugitive Offenders Act unless the offence with which he is charged is punishable with imprisonment for twelve months or more.
    It was necessary to show in the affidavit that the offence of conspiracy to commit a felony was serious enough to fall within the Fugitive Offenders Act: that is to say, that it carried a sentence of not less than one year's imprisonment. For this reason, because of the way in which Section 516 is drafted, it was essential to show in the affidavit that the sentence for the principal felony, with which Chief Enahoro is not charged, is not less than one year's imprisonment, because if it had been less than one year the sentence for conspiracy to commit that felony would also have been less than one year's imprisonment. Quite clearly, the offender referred to in paragraph 7 of the affidavit is a person convicted of committing the principal
    1364
    felony mentioned in the count and not a person convicted of conspiracy to commit that felony but without actually committing it.
    I add that the prosecuting authorities in Nigeria could not possibly think that Count 2 carries the death penalty as they have allowed the trial of Chief Awolowo, who is the leader of the alleged conspiracy, to continue before a judge alone, who has no power to try an offence that is punishable with death.
    The right hon. Member for Belper and the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) suggested that the right course for the Government would be to have the case examined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, I received a request this morning from Chief Enahoro's solicitors that Her Majesty should be advised to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the question whether Chief Enahoro was liable to the death penalty under the charges which he faces. For the reasons given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the beginning of this debate, the Government do not think that such a reference is either necessary or appropriate in the circumstances of the present case.
    It is significant that the possibility of Enahoro facing a capital charge was never mentioned in the Divisional Court before the Lord Chief Justice and yet it would have been very pertinent to the case, which learned counsel on his behalf was seeking to establish, that it would be too severe a punishment to return him to Nigeria. It was never mentioned before the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords. It was never mentioned even in the petition which Chief Enahoro himself sent to me after all the court proceedings were finished, when he listed the reasons why I should not decide to send him back. There was no mention then of liability to a capital charge.
    If I doubted whether a man would receive justice from the courts of the other country, or supposing I thought that even though he was acquitted he was liable to be oppressively treated, most certainly I would not think it just to send him back.
    Reference was made to the Cyprus case. There was even a suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for

    1365
    Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) that the decision in that case involved a breach of the Act. There was no breach of the Act, nor was there any suggestion or insinuation of doubt as to the justice of the Cypriot courts. The reason for the decision not to send those two men back was that if they went back, there was good cause to think that they would be in danger of assassination in Cyprus by a gang who were their enemies. It was nothing whatever to do with the integrity of justice in Cyprus.
    At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) criticised my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for, as he insinuated, implicitly casting aspersions on a Commonwealth country. The right hon. Member then went on himself to cast totally baseless aspersions on the Government of Northern Ireland.
    The Fugitive Offenders Act gives the Home Secretary full and unfettered discretion to do whichever he thinks just, to send the man back or to refuse to do so and to release him. When a person has been charged with serious offences and our own British courts have decided that there is a strong or probable presumption of guilt—those are the words of the Act—and when they have also found, as the High Court under the Lord Chief Justice found in this case, that it would not be oppressive, it would not be unjust and it would not be too severe a punishment to send him back, clearly the Home Secretary could not take a different view unless he had reasons of strong substance for doing so. It is, however, open to me to do so if there are compelling reasons.
    My duty is to take into account not only what was said before the courts, but everything else which seems to me to be relevant. I have seen hon. and right hon. Members from both sides of the House who have come to talk to me about the case. I have gone into everything they have put before me. I have paid particular regard to the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick, who has made Chief Enahoro's case his own. I investigated with the utmost care the allegation that the representative of Chief Enahoro had been misled by an official of the Home Office.
    I will not go over that again, because the facts as I know them to be were set
    1366
    out in my earlier speech and anybody can read them. It is, I fear, the case that there was a misunderstanding by the representative of Chief Enahoro, and it had serious consequences, but I am quite satisfied that no one in the Home Office was to blame for that.
    What I cannot do is to escape my responsibility by arguing that the offences with which Chief Enahoro is charged are political offences and outside the intentions of the Act, because the Act makes crystal clear that political offences are within it. It mentions not only treason but a number of other offences. It is clear beyond question that it covers political offences.
    The other day, the right hon. Member for Belper urged that time and events had amended the Act and that if it was being rewritten now political offences would be excluded. Therefore, he argued that when the charge is a political one I ought ipso facto to decide that it is unjust to return a man. Surely, however, a Minister must treat an Act as it stands and not as it might stand if the words were altered. That must be all the more true of an Act which confers rights and obligations, not on us alone, but on other Commonwealth countries equally. If the Act is to be remoulded, it must be remoulded after consultation with other Commonwealth countries who are affected by it just as closely as we are. We cannot rewrite the reciprocal provisions in an Act unilaterally.
    What would we in this country think if a person charged with a treasonable offence here in Britain had been found in, say, Australia or Nigeria and we called upon the authorities there to surrender him and then the Australian or Nigerian Government replied that time had amended the Fugitive Offenders Act so that they did not consider that it should any longer apply to political offences and, therefore, they would refuse to send the man back to stand his trial for a treasonable offence in Britain? I know what public opinion here would say if that argument were used.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he not agree that Ghana and India have already amended the Act?
    Mr. Brooke: I am perfectly aware that certain countries have taken action. Nevertheless, the argument I am developing to the House stands unshaken.
    It makes no difference what the nationality of the fugitive may be under either the Fugitive Offenders Act or the Extradition Act. The man may be British, he may be Belgian, he may be a citizen of the Commonwealth, or he may be a citizen of Costa Rica. Neither Act draws any distinction whatever between Commonwealth citizens and aliens. What does make a difference is whether it is a Commonwealth country or a foreign country in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, because the Fugitive Offenders Act applies to the former and the Extradition Act to the latter.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said today that we shall set on foot discussions with other Commonwealth Governments on the question to what extent it would be desirable for the Fugitive Offenders Act to be reviewed. It may be a lengthy process. We must seek to achieve Commonwealth agreement, because we certainly could not get on without any Act at all for the return of fugitive offenders.
    Whether or not changes are desirable in this Act, I for my part hope that we may always aim at maintaining some closer method of co-operation between Governments of the Commonwealth than may be right in the case of foreign Governments. That, without any doubt at all, is the reason why we have two different Acts now and have had them different for so many years.
    But I must come back to where my responsibility lies under the law as it now stands. If I believed that the courts in the other country were unreliable or unjust, I would not think it right to return a man. But I have no ground whatever for fearing any such thing in Chief Enahoro's case, and I say that after having taken into account all the various representations which have—very sincerely indeed, I know—been put forward on his behalf. I come to that conclusion.
    The justice of Chief Enahoro's trial will depend on the competence of the Nigerian courts, on their integrity and
    1368
    on their independence, and in all these respects I have complete confidence in the Nigerian judicial system as regards both the court of trial and the court of appeal. I should hold just the same opinion if the further right of appeal to the Privy Council in London did not exist. It is for the courts in Nigeria, not for us, and certainly not for me, to judge the admissibility and the reliability of all the evidence put before them.
    If I thought that a man, even though acquitted in the courts, was liable to be oppressively treated afterwards by the Executive there, I would not return him; but I do not believe that of Nigeria. If I thought there was any other reason why, on balance, it would not be just to return a man whose return was asked for under the Act, I would not return him. But I have gone to great pains to consider every point put before me by Chief Enahoro or on his behalf. I have considered them all with the utmost care and thoroughness.
    Having done all that, I can come to no other conclusion than that I think it is just for him to stand his trial before a court of law. And when a Home Secretary has reached such a decision—a decision that is hardest of all for him—I trust that the House of Commons will accept that he has put aside all prejudices and partial affections and has reached it honestly and fearlessly.
    Mr. Stonehouse: The Prime Minister is reported in column 1286 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th March as stating that a definite undertaking would be required from the Nigerian authorities that no charge would be brought against Chief Enahoro. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that undertaking has yet been received from the Nigerian authorities?
    Mr. Brooke: What the Prime Minister said, and he made it perfectly clear in his speech this afternoon, was that if Charge 2 were found to carry the death penalty—
    Mr. Paget: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Brooke: —he would ask for an assurance that that charge would be withdrawn and that no alternative charge carrying the death penalty would be put in its stead. It has, in fact, been

    1369
    established that Charge 2 does not carry the death penalty, and so the question does not arise.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Before the Home Secretary resumes his seat, may we clear up this most important point? We understand that Charge 2 has been withdrawn. But is it clear that the Nigerian authorities have given a definite undertaking that no other charge will be preferred in any circumstances? That was the
    assurance to which the Prime Minister referred.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I think that we must now come to a decision.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 274.

    Division No. 94.]

    AYES

    [7.57 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Grey, Charles

    Milne, Edward

    Ainsley, William

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Albu, Austen

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Monslow, Walter

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Moody, A. S.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Gunter, Ray

    Morris, John

    Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham W.)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Baird, John

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mulley, Frederick

    Beaney, Alan

    Hannan, William

    Neal, Harold

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Harper, Joseph

    Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby,S.)

    Bence, Cyril

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    O'Malley, B. R.

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oram, A. E.

    Benson, Sir George

    Healey, Denis

    Oswald, Thomas

    Blackburn, F.

    Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur (RwlyRegls)

    Owen, Will

    Blyton, William

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Padley, W. E.

    Boardman, H.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Paget, R. T.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hilton, A. V.

    Pannoll, Charles (Leeds, W.)

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

    Hohman, Percy

    Parker, John

    Bowles. Frank

    Hooson, H. E.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Boyden, James

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Peart, Frederick

    Bray, Or. Jeremy

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Pentland, Norman

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hoy, James H.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Probert, Arthur

    Callaghan, James

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Proctor, W, T.

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Rankin, John

    Chapman, Donald

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Redhead, E. C.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Reid, William

    Collick, Percy

    Jeger, George

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Rhodes, H.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Cronin, John

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Robinson, Kenneth, (St.Pancras,N.)

    Crosland, Anthony

    Kelley, Richard

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    King, Dr. Horace

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

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Lawson, George

    Ross, William

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ledger, Ron

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Darling, George

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Short, Edward

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Delargy, Hugh

    Lipton, Marcus

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Dempsey, James

    Loughlin, Charles

    Small, William

    Diamond, John

    Lubbock, Eric

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

    Dodds, Norman

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    McBride, N.

    Snow, Julian

    Driberg, Tom

    MacColl, James

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Edelman, Maurice

    McInnes, James

    Steele, Thomas

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Stonehouse, John

    Finch, Harold

    McLeavy, Frank

    Stones, William

    Fitch, Alan

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Fletcher, Eric

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

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

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

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

    Swain, Thomas

    Forman, J. C.

    Manuel, Archie

    Swingler, Stephen

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Marsh, Richard

    Taverns, D.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mason, Roy

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mendelson, J. J.

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

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Millan, Bruce

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Tomney, Frank

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Willey, Frederick

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Warbey, William

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Woof, Robert

    Watkins, Tudor

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Weitzman, David

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Zilliacus, K.

    White, Mrs. Eirene

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

    Whitlock, William

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Irving and Mr. Ifor Davies

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Erroll Rt. Hon. F. J.

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Allason, James

    Farr, John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

    Fisher, Nigel

    McLaren, Martin

    Arbuthnot, John

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (Stafford&Stone)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maclean,Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs)

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Freeth, Denzil

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Barber, Anthony

    Gammans, Lady

    Macmlllan,Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Gardner, Edward

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Barter, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Macpherson.Rt.Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

    Batsford, Brian

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Maddan, Martin

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Godber, J. B.

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos & Fhm)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Gough, Frederick

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Gower, Raymond

    Mawby, Ray

    Bingham, R. M,

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Green, Alan

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Mills, Stratton

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Bossom, Hon. Clive

    Gurden, Harold

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Box, Donald

    Hare, Rt. Hon. John

    Morrison, John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Braine, Bernard

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Neave, Airey

    Brewis, John

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Hastings, Stephen

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hay, John

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Bryan, Paul

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Buck, Antony

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Bullard, Denys

    Hendry, Forbes

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Hiley, Joseph

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

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

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

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

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hobson, Sir John

    Partridge, E.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hope, Rt. Hon, Lord John

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Hopkins, Alan

    Peel, John

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Percival, Ian

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Howard, Hon. C. R. (St. Ives)

    Peyton, John

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Cole, Norman

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Cooke, Robert

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Corfield, F. V.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Costain, A. P.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

    Coulson, Michael

    James, David

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Jennings, J. C.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Critchley, Julian

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Proudfood, Wilfred

    Crowder, F. P.

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Pym, Francis

    Cunningham, Knox

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Ramsden, James

    Curran, Charles

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Rawlinson, Sir Peter

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Dance, James

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Rees, Hugh

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Rees-Davies, W, R.

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Kirk, Peter

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Leather, Sir Edwin

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Doughty, Charles

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    du Cann, Edward

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Roots, William

    Duncan, Sir James

    Litchfield, Capt, John

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Eden, John

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

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Russell, Ronald

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

    Longbottom, Charles

    St. Clair, M.

    Emery, Peter

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

    Emmet. Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    1372

    1373

    Seymour, Leslie

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

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Sharples, Richard

    Temple, John M.

    Wall, Patrick

    Shaw, M.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Shepherd, William

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

    Webster, David

    Smithers, Peter

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

    Whitelaw, William

    Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Speir, Rupert

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Turner, Colin

    Wise, A. R.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Stodart, J. A.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Woollam, John

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Worsley, Marcus

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Tapsell, Peter

    Walder, David

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Walker, Peter

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Mr. Finlay.

    Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—
    The House divided: Ayes 270. Noes 214.

    Division No. 95.]

    AYES

    [8.7 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Curran, Charles

    Hobson, Sir John

    Alien, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

    Allason, James

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hopkins, Alan

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

    Dance, James

    Hornby, R. P.

    Arbuthnot, John

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Balniel, Lord

    Doughty, Charles

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Barber, Anthony

    Drayson, G. B.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Barlow, Sir John

    du Cann, Edward

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Barter, John

    Duncan, Sir James

    James, David

    Batsford, Brian

    Eden, John

    Jennings, J. C.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Elliott,R.W.(Nwc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Emery, Peter

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Bingham, R. M.

    Farr, John

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Bishop, F. P.

    Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stafford&stone)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Kirk, Peter

    Bossom, Hon. Clive

    Freeth, Denzil

    Leather, Sir Edwin

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Box, Donald

    Gammans, Lady

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Gardner Edward

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Braine, Bernard

    Gilmour, sir John (East Fife)

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

    Brewis, John

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

    Godber, J. B.

    Longbottom, Charles

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Good hart, Philip

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Bryan, Paul

    Gough, Frederick

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Buck, Antony

    Bullard, Denys

    Gower, Raymond

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    MacArthur, Ian

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

    Green, Alan

    McLaren, Martin

    Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Gurden, Harold

    Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

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

    Chataway, Christopher

    Hare, Rt. Hon. John

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)

    Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)

    Cole, Norman

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Maddan, Martin

    Cooke, Robert

    Hastings, Stephen

    Maitland, Sir John

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hay, John

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

    Corfield, F. V.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Costain, A. P.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Coulson, Michael

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Hendry, Forbes

    Mawby, Ray

    Craddock, Sir Beresford(Spelthorne)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Critchley, Julian

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

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

    Crowder, F. P.

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

    Mills, Stratton

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Rees, Hugh

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Morrison, John

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Thompson, Sir Richard(Croydon, S.)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

    Neave, Airey

    Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

    Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Robertson, Sir D.(C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Roots, William

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Turner, Colin

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Orr, Capt. L. p. S.

    Russell, Ronald

    van straubenzee, W. R.

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    St. Clair, M.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    vickers, Miss Joan

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Sharples, Richard

    Walder, David

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Shaw, M.

    Walker, Peter

    Partridge, E.

    Shepherd, William

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Sheet, T. H. H.

    Wall, Patrick

    Peel, John

    Smithers, Peter

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Percival, Ian

    Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

    Webster, David

    Peyton, John

    Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Whitelaw, William

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Speir, Rupert

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Stodart, J. A.

    Wise, A. R.

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

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Woodhouse, C. M

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Worsley, Marcus

    Pym, Francis

    Tapsell, Peter

    Ramsden, James

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Rawlinson, Sir Peter

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

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Temple, John M.

    Mr. Finlay.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Diamond, John

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Ainsley, William

    Dodds, Norman

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Albu, Austen

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Allaun Frank (Salford, E.)

    Driberg, Tom

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Jeger, George

    Baird, John

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Beaney, Alan

    Fernyhough, E,

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Finch, Harold

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Bence, Cyril

    Fitch, Alan

    Kelley, Richard

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Fletcher, Eric

    King, Dr. Horace

    Benson, Sir George

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Lawson, George

    Blackburn, F.

    Forman, J. C.

    Ledger, Ron

    Blyton, William

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Boardman, H.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.

    Ginsburg, David

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

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

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Bowles, Frank

    Gourlay, Harry

    Lipton, Marcus

    Boyden, James

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Loughlin, Charles

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Grey, Charles

    Lubbock, Eric

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mabon, Dr. J Dickson

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    McBride, N.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    MacColl, James

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Gunter, Ray

    MacDermot, Niall

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Mclnnes, James

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Callaghan, James

    Hannan, William

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Harper, Joseph

    McLeavy, Frank

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Chapman, Donald

    Hayman, F. H.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Cliffe, Michael

    Healey, Denis

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

    Collick, Percy

    Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

    Manuel, Archie

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Marsh, Richard

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Mason, Roy

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Cronin, John

    Hilton, A. V.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Crosland, Anthony

    Holman, Percy

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hooson, H. E.

    Millan, Bruce

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Houghton, Dougias

    Milne, Edward

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Darling, George

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Monslow, Walter

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hoy, James H.

    Moody, A. S.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Morris, John

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayshire)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Delargy, Hugh

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Mulley, Frederick

    Dempsey, James

    Hunter, A. E.

    Neal, Harold

    1376

    1377

    Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby, S.)

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    O'Malley, B. R.

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

    Tomney, Frank

    Oram, A. E.

    Rose, William

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Oswald, Thomas

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Warbey, William

    Owen, Will

    Short, Edward

    Watkins, Tudor

    Padley, W. E.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Weltzman, David

    Paget, R. T.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Parker, John

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Whitlock, William

    Parkin, B. T.

    Small, William

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Pavitt, Laurence

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

    Willey, Frederick

    Peart, Frederick

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Williams, D, J. (Neath)

    Pentland, Norman

    Snow, Julian

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Steele, Thomas

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

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Probert, Arthur

    Stonehouse, John

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Stones, William

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Woof, Robert

    Redhead, E. C,

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

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Reid, William

    Swain, Thomas

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Swingler, Stephen

    Zilliacus, K.

    Rhodes, H.

    Taverne, D.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Mr. Irving and Mr. Ifor Davies.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House, mindful of Great Britain's tradition of granting political asylum here to persons who might otherwise be exposed to unjust or oppressive treatment in their own country, is confident of the fair and impartial administration of justice in Nigeria and upholds the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to return Chief Enahoro to stand his trial there.

    FORT WILLIAM PULP AND PAPER MILLS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    8.17 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade explained last Thursday in the Committee of Ways and Means, the purpose of this Bill is to empower the Board of Trade to lend up to £10 million to Wiggins Teape and Company Limited for the construction of a pulp mill and a paper mill near Fort William. The Bill lays down certain conditions for this loan and empowers the Board of Trade to negotiate the other conditions with the company.
    Wiggins Teape and Company Limited is one of the three largest paper companies in Britain, owning over 30 mills and factories in this country and with subsidiaries all over the world. The Fort
    1378
    William project is the culmination of a number of years of planning by the firm and by the Forestry Commission.
    The undertaking will be a large-scale fully integrated mill, the only one of its kind in Britain, going right through from the wood to the finished paper. It will draw its supplies of softwood from the Scottish forests to a radius of over 100 miles from Fort William. By taking advantage of the Scottish timber in this way the mill should be well placed to compete with producers in forest countries which operate fully integrated mills based on large supplies of indigenous timber.
    The construction of the mill will be in two stages. The construction of the first stage will begin immediately and is planned to come into production by the end of 1965. It will consist of a pulp mill producing about 80,000 tons a year of bleached chemical pulp and one paper machine using half of this pulp for the production of medium-weight papers.
    At this stage, the remaining output of pulp will be sold within the Wiggins Teape group and to other paper producers. For the second stage, which should be reached sometime in 1968, the company will install a second paper machine which should come into production in 1970 and which will then effectively absorb the second half of the pulp mill's output. The whole project is estimated to cost about £19 million to bring into production, inevitably there must be a slight speculative element in the forecasting of costs towards the end of the period, depending upon our success as a nation in maintaining the current values

    1379
    of our money. But the commitment of public money is not open-ended.
    The process which will be used is the very modern Stora process which has been developed in recent years by a Swedish firm. It is used in two large Swedish mills and in a new Canadian mill, and is just being installed in a French mill. It has a number of advantages over the so-called Kraft process normally used in pulp mills; for example, high yield, adaptability to all species of timber, full recovery of the chemicals for reuse and absence of air pollution. The latter feature is particularly important in that it should ensure that the mill is a "good neighbour".
    In full production the pulp mill will use about 12 million hoppus feet of timber a year. If there is any hon. Member who does not know what a hoppus foot is, I will explain that it is a measure of timber. In the vernacular, one could say that it squares the circle and that one hoppus foot is 1·273 cubic ft. Four million hoppus feet will be imported hardwood and 8 million will be Scottish softwood, most of it from the Highland development area. It is planned to bring most of the imported hardwood direct by sea, up Loch Linnhe to the mill where a jetty will be built. Practically all the chemicals needed for the mills will be available in Britain; the main digestion chemical will be sodium sulphite. Much of the pulping equipment will have to be bought abroad, but the paper machines and most other equipment for the paper mill will be bought in this country, and so will the boilers. The total cost of buying the Stora machinery is estimated at £2 million, but everything else will be bought in this country.
    A modern pulp and paper mill is not a major employer of labour in relation to its capital cost. This mill will employ about 750 people to start with, rising to about 1,200 by the early seventies. But the undertaking will create in the forest and in the transport of the timber even more jobs than those created in the mill. Fort William itself is not a district where there is heavy unemployment but these jobs will be filled very largely from development districts in Scotland and especially from the Highlands.
    Furthermore, this project will undoubtedly bring additional employment
    1380
    to the area in the fields of commerce and of personal and community services. It is impossible accurately to quantify the further employment which is likely thus to arise. When one considers what the annual wage and salary bill for 1,200 employees may amount to—say, £2 million—one gets some idea of the multiplier effect of this project upon the economy of this area of the Highlands.
    When Wiggins Teape and Company approached the Government with a request for a loan for this project we decided that a thorough investigation of the project was necessary. With the full co-operation of the company, the Board of Trade's accountants have made a detailed study of the capital cost of the project and of the estimates of costs of production, level of demand, prices and profits. On the basis of their report the Government are satisfied that the commercial prospects are good. As my right hon. Friend told the Committee of Ways and Means last week, there are strong economic arguments in favour of an up-to-date and fully integrated pulp and paper mill in this country.
    The Fort William site has been chosen as being the best possible. The timber is immediately available and supplies coming forward will increase steadily over the next few years as the mill becomes established and gradually builds up to full production. Rail facilities are there—[Laughter.] Wait for it—although the project includes building new facilities at Crianlarich for handling timber. Crianlarich will be used as a railhead for the collection of timber from the forests of Argyll and Perthshire. To help the flow of material to the mill, the Forestry Commission will accelerate its programme for the construction and improvement of the forest roads within the area of supply.
    There is the necessary supply of fresh water, which is an extremely important factor in the siting of a mill of this sort, and facilities for disposing of the effluent. There is a good deep-water anchorage. As for sales prospects, there has been a steady upward trend in consumption of all types of paper planned to be produced at Fort William and all market forecasters indicate that this upward trend will continue. Estimates indicate that this mill's output should be fully competitive in costs with imported paper. The Government are satisfied, therefore, that,

    1381
    regarded purely as an industrial enterprise, this project is soundly based.
    I have confined myself to the industrial and commercial aspects, but these are not [he only consideration, of course. The jobs created in the mill, in the forests and in transportation will draw back to this district labour which it has been losing. It will be the source of new economic activity which the Highlands need. The Forestry Commission `s operations and those of private forests in the Highlands will benefit greatly from the new demand created by this project. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is to wind up the debate, will be speaking more fully of these.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On the subject of labour and employment, in view of their interest and the substantial help which they are giving to this firm, are the Government to lay down any sort of conditions about the firm employing labour from the Highlands area itself as far as is possible? This has been done in other cases. Is it being done in this?
    Mr. Price: I cannot give the hon. Member a categorical assurance on that, but the firm intends to employ labour from the Highlands. It will be appreciated that a number of skilled technicians will have to be employed and may have to come from elsewhere, but, so far as possible, labour will come from the immediate district.
    However, it is obvious from the numbers involved, and from the ancillary employment which will arise, that it will also have to come from a good deal further afield than the immediate Fort William area. I understand that the firm is already receiving applications from natives of that part of the Highlands who wish to get jobs because they would like to return to the Highlands, which is something which the House will welcome.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: I agree that this is very important, but is any proportion of the loan, or grant, being devoted to augmenting the provision of houses in that area? The local authority concerned is a small one, and obviously could not do the job off its own bat. Will the firm help in this aspect of the project?
    Mr. Price: I understand that the firm has come to terms with the Inverness-shire County Council. My right hon. Friend would rather give the details himself, because he will go into the wider implications for the social infrastructure of the area consequential on this project.
    I turn now to the reasons why, commercially interesting as this project is, it is necessary for special Government help to be given to finance it, and, in particular, why this is being done by special legislation instead of through the medium of the Local Employment Act. As my right hon. Friend explained last week, this is a big project; it is a new type of venture, never before undertaken in the United Kingdom, which can be carried out only on a substantial scale.
    To operate economically a pulp mill must be large and, though this is not one of the largest size as pulp mills go, it nevertheless requires a major investment of capital. As will be seen from what I have said about the timetable of this project, it also takes a long time to bring it into full production. The pulp mill and the first paper machine at Fart William will not be fully in production before 1966. We are hoping that it will start at the end of 1965, and during the early months of 1966 gradually build up to full production. The project is novel. The time needed to get it started is inevitably lengthy, and it requires a lot of capital.
    The Board of Trade's accountants have examined the position very carefully and have been satisfied that, given the level of the company's resources and of its other commitments, it could not finance this very large undertaking without some Government help. We are clear that in the light of the commercial prospects of the undertaking and of the more general contribution it will make to the Highlands, it is right that this help should be given.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House in greater detail than the President of the Board of Trade did why the project is not being financed under the Local Employment Act? The motor car industry investments in Scotland are on a comparable scale, and yet they were so financed.
    Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me by about 200 words.

    1383
    I was proposing to develop that further. We are satisfied that the Local Employment Act is not the appropriate instrument for this purpose. In determining how to exercise its powers under that Act, the Board of Trade is required to have regard to the relationship between the financial assistance that is required from public funds by any particular project, and the number of jobs likely to be provided by it.
    We can all do the simple arithmetic. The Bill asks for £10 million. The number of people who will be directly employed at the end of the project is 1,200. That gives a figure of just over £8,000 of public money per job. The point about some of the other big projects is that, although they are big capital ventures, they are more labour intensive than this project in relation to the total cash outlay.
    This is the major reason why this could not be financed under the Local Employment Act, and I assure the House that even given the amendments to the Local Employment Act which were forecast by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in respect of which the necessary legislation will be introduced, the amount of money that would be available to the company would be substantially less, in fact by about a factor of five, than the financial assistance which we are proposing the company should have if the House gives us the Bill.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Gentleman having made that clear, will he also make clear why this is the only firm involved? He said earlier that this firm had applied for this project. I assume that no other firm applied so there must be reasons, either economic or technological, why Wiggins Teape applied for the project.
    Mr. Price: If the House wishes, I would be happy to go back a little over the history of the project. As Scottish Members know, this has been discussed in the Press in Scotland for quite a long time. It is known that Wiggins Teape looked into this project a long time ago.
    Mr. George Lawson: How long ago?
    Mr. Price: Over ten years ago. The firm did not reckon, at that stage of
    1384
    forestry development, that the timber was available on a sufficient scale. The project was then re-examined and it was shown that a small-scale mill which was originally talked about would not be economic. This is one of many cases in modern production where one does not go up on a smooth curve, but in a stepped curve, doubling and quadrupling the sort of economic minimum that is reckoned can be worked—
    Mr. Manuel: Like I.C.I.
    Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman has the point.
    Originally, other paper companies were involved in this matter. But they withdrew when it became clear that the amount of timber available would be sufficient only to maintain a medium-sized pulp mill if it were to be integrated with the production of paper and board, and also that the types of paper to be manufactured in the paper mill were attractive principally to the firm which has gone ahead. The types were in the middle ranges of paper, carbon paper and ordinary white paper. The company concerned was most interested in producing this range of paper and the other companies dropped out because it did not appear to them that there was room for them all from a technical and commercial point of view.
    Given this situation, and given what, in our view, are the special social features of this project, we decided that the proper course was to ask the House to consider this an exceptional case justifying special legislation.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has referred to an exceptional case. Does he know anything about certain negotiations and the prospect of a similar mill in the south of Scotland?
    Mr. Price: Rumours have reached me. But I do not think that they are particularly relevant to the argument which I am deploying tonight. We have no objection to firms within development districts—presumably they would get local authority planning permission—putting up paper mills, if they think that those mills would be successful. But this case has particular and very special features.
    Coming to the Bill itself, the total amount of public money which we are

    1385
    seeking authority to lend is £10 million. We are not seeking lending powers beyond the end of 1972. In fact, the intention is that up to £8 million will be lent for the first stage of the project. That is for a pulp mill and the first of the two paper mills. This amount will be lent during the next two to three years. The remaining £2 million is intended for the second stage of the project, whose construction is expected to begin in 1968. It will, however, be lent only if, at that time, the Board of Trade is satisfied that the company needs further Government money to complete the project in the light of its financial position.
    The Bill goes on to provide that the rate of interest is to be 5½ per cent. But it empowers the Board of Trade to make grants to the company in respect of interest falling due up to the end of 1966. That is up to the end of the period of the build-up of the first stage of the project. Our purpose is to make the £8 million to be lent for the first stage of the project free of interest during the years of construction and running in. The reason for empowering the Board to make grants in respect of interest, instead of simply providing in the Bill that there should be an interest-free period, is that the waiver of interest is, of course, equivalent to giving a subsidy of the amount of the interest that otherwise would be paid.
    It was thought right that this subsidy element should be quite clearly disclosed in the Bill. There will, of course, be no actual payment of interest by the company, and balancing payments of grant by the Board of Trade, during this period. Only bookkeeping transactions will be necessary. But the effect will be that the subsidy element will be clearly disclosed to Parliament in the Estimates. The actual amount of grant needed will depend on the exact timing of the company's drawings on the loan. The figure of £1,300,000 in the Bill is a long-stop. The actual figure may well be considerably lower.
    The Bill goes on to provide that the other terms of the loan may be negotiated between the Board of Trade and the company and that the resulting agreements will be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Thus, at a later stage, the House will be fully informed on all the detailed
    1386
    aspects of the loan. Clearly, it is not possible for any agreements to be made before the Bill has become law. But the terms of the loan have been discussed with the company and I think that it would be useful if I indicated to the House the broad lines of agreement which seem likely to emerge.
    It seems likely that the repayment of the loan will begin at the end of 1968 and will take place over ten years on an annuity basis—that is to say, there will be ten equal annual payments including repayment of both capital and interest. This method is familiar as the normal way of repaying a house mortgage. While this is still under discussion it seems likely that the amount of the loan will be secured by a fixed charge on the Fort William premises themselves and that the Board of Trade will take a debenture on Wiggins Teape and Company.
    There is one other point with which I should like to deal. During the course of the Budget debate last week it was suggested by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that this was another illustration of the way in which private enterprise was failing to do the job in the Highlands, and that since the Government are intervening to lend money for the project they should take a share in the equity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not at all agree that private enterprise is failing to do this job. On the contrary, I think that what I have said earlier makes it clear that this is an extremely enterprising and forward-looking undertaking.
    For special reasons which I have explained, it is not within the firm's resources to finance this very large mill entirely unaided over the considerable period which must elapse before it is earning. But the fact that the Government feel themselves justified in making a comparatively short-term loan is not, in our view, any ground for seeking to play a permanent part in the company's affairs, which cover a very much wider field than the Fort William mill.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: May I ask whether this company has made any attempt to go into the market for the money?
    Mr. Price: We were quite satisfied that the company would not have been able to raise the necessary money.

    1387
    I hope that I may have persuaded hon. Members opposite to my way of thinking on this issue, but, even if I have not, I feel sure that both sides will agree that this project is worthy of our support, first, because it pioneers a fully integrated, large-scale and competitive pulp and paper mill in Great Britain, and, secondly, because it brings to the Highlands what we trust will be a new and permanent centre of prosperity of a substantial order. Tonight, we are not merely legislating about a pulp mill and a paper mill. We are bringing new opportunities to the Highlands.
    For many generations now some of the best sons of the Highlands have had to leave their homes to earn their living. The flow of brains, courage and ability from the Highlands has been the Highlands' loss, but it has also been Britain's gain. One can go further and say that it has been the world's gain.
    I like to think that in approving the Bill tonight we in this House are doing something material to pay back that debt which the remainder of Britain owes the Highlands. As the son of a Highland officer, I am honoured to propose that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
    8.44 p.m.
    Mr. William Ross: There is no doubt that the establishment in Scotland of the first integrated pulp and paper mill has already received a resounding welcome in Scotland, and that welcome will be echoed from this side of the House as well as from hon. Members opposite. There are three reasons for that. The first is that it will be using our indigenous resources of timber, resources which have been built up and husbanded over 40 years and longer by the Forestry Commission and State forests, and by private woodland owners, too—with, of course, generous support from the Treasury. If the Minister doubts me, he will find proof in the Estimates—at the moment £1¼ million a year.
    I remember a debate of four years ago in which the view was expressed very forcibly by my hon. Friends that there was a certain measure of urgency about what we were to do with our timber. In other words, we grow timber to use and to sell. I remember the Secretary of State for Scotland, at a time when he
    1388
    made more speeches than he makes today, making this point in the Scottish Grand Committee. It was said that we required to secure markets for the increased output of both thinnings and mature timber.
    There is the very serious matter of the fall in population in the Highlands and all the forestry areas. It seems to go with forestry that forestry has come in after the men have gone. To see industry now creeping back to the Highlands should be welcomed by every Scot in the House. We have, at tremendous expense, a point which I shall discuss later, a new growth point. We hope that it will not end with the pulp and paper mill. We hope that it will go on. I hope that other industrialists will note that certain people are not worried about the relative distance from what they consider to be their markets.
    It will also have an effect upon local wages outside the pulp mill. It is shocking to realise that the basic wage in forestry for the people who do the original and hard part of the work in Scotland at the moment is about 172s. a week. As the Secretary of State knows, the rents of these workers are very much higher than many other rents in the area, certainly higher than those of agricultural workers. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned this point before he was converted to the idea that the salvation for Scotland lies in raising the rents.
    While our immediate congratulations are due to the Chancellor on his sensible decision and prudent expenditure, there are others who merit our thanks. The last few generations of Forestry Commissioners toiled on despite the set-backs they experienced in 1932, when the Tory Government of the day decided to cut back on expenditure. It did not matter what kind of expenditure is was. Millions upon millions of young plants were burned. We could have done with that timber today. The Secretary of State will find this fact set out in the Forestry Commission Report of 1932.
    There was a very considerable loss, certainly at national need, during the war. We should recollect the decision taken in 1943 greatly to expand over a long period the build-up not only of reserves but of resources of timber so that near the end to the extent of one-third of the timber we of this century we should be self-sufficient

    1389
    require. One man who deserves considerable credit for this is an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, Tom Johnston. He not only continued this work but he also made possible by his concentration on building up the power supplies of the Highlands through the Hydro-Electric Board the fact that we are able to have this mill. We could not have a pulp mill without the power which will come from the Hydro-Electric Board.
    All those who sneer at nationalised industries, including the Glasgow Herald, which has talked about the unbusinesslike ramifications of nationalisation, should remember that it is nationalised power which will make this possible. It is the nationalised Forestry Commission and the over-subsidised private owner. More thanks are also due to Dr. Beeching, who has laid aside his preoccupations with profitability and said that this line will stay.
    It is worth considering what would have happened had Dr. Beeching been in his job a year earlier? We have public enterprise in the raw materials, the power, the haulage of the goods and in the financing of it. When we suggest that there might also be a certain measure of public responsibility in the control of it we are told, "Oh no". Where is the Liberal Party tonight? What about its ideas on co-ownership? It is only a fortnight ago that we had another bit of nationalisation in the transport industry of the Orkneys; but I must not get out of order in pursuing that matter. Nevertheless, I think that the Leader of the Liberal Party might have graced us with his presence.
    In this case Dr. Beeching has spared the line, so that the woodmen can get on and they need not spare the trees. I hope that the Secretary of State appreciates that because we got this response on this railway line we are able to achieve this changed location of industry. He will, therefore, equally appreciate the relevance of the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), because I do not think that this will be the last of these special Measures. I certainly hope it will not.
    In this connection, I believe that the Town Council of Girvan has been doing a bit of visiting and pressure grouping about what we hope will go to the
    1390
    south-west of Scotland, perhaps to Girvan. I am sure that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) will wish to put forward some ideas, particularly about the railways there—that is, if he can persuade the Minister of Transport to put the axe on Dr. Beeching in relation to the line in that part of the world. Hon. Members generally should consider the effects of Dr. Beeching's present and, perhaps, future plans for the whole of Britain because I know that other hon. Members have constituency interests in other pulp mills in other parts of the country. For this reason we should not be entirely denuded of the possibilities of getting the goods to the necessary places because of the lack of transport.
    Having handed out the prizes I trust that I will not be accused of churlishness if I look the gift horse in the mouth. We should remember that this is an expensive gift we are making. We all want it done and it will be done; but should it be done in this way? It is certainly not the only way it might have been done. The firm could have built it themelves. I believe that it has 47 subsidiaries, mills all over Britain, some of them in Aberdeen. The company has mills all over the world—in Pakistan, Rhodesia and elsewhere—and has an authorised capital of £25 million. I am sure that the company could have raised the money in the City, although it would probably not have got as reasonable a deal as it has got from the Government.
    However, the firm decided not to do it that way—probably because it realised that the Government were anxious to rehabilitate the area and to secure a growth point there. Failing that, was there any real reason why we could not have gone into partnership with the firm? It is a realistic and reasonable company. This is obvious if one reads the brochure it sent to hon. Members. That document stated:
    "It will, at least for one corner of a neglected land, dam the steady wastage of manpower to the south and overseas".
    Thus we realise that it is a realistic and progressive company—and that it knows the Government for what they are. That "one corner of a neglected land" is, of course, the land over which this Government have had full dominion for the past eleven years.

    1391
    We might well have gone into partnership. I am perfectly sure that a Labour Government would not have ignored the advantages of this company's sales organisation and industrial know-how, but I do not think that our financial conditions and terms would have been exactly the same. I am sure that this country might have accepted partnership. Was that even considered? We are entitled to know.
    Everyone is enthusiastic about this being the right thing to do, but let us remember that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, there were four starters but only one was left by the end of the race. Suppose there had been none—what would the Secretary of State have done then? This is where we differ from the party opposite. We say that in such a case there must be public enterprise, as there is in every other aspect of this project. We could have gone the whole way in public enterprise.
    This project is so important for Scotland, and for this part of Scotland in particular. That is our whole argument in relation to bring industry to Scotland and giving the neglected land, as Wiggins Teape describes Scotland, valuable help. The State contribution is £10 million, and there is to be this £1¼ million to cover the interim period to 1967. This may be a novel project, but it is not a novel Bill—it is familiar. The Cunard Measure was exactly the same, and I hope that Scotland will fare a little better out of this Measure than we did out of that last one, of exactly the same kind. There was a grant of £18 million to Cunard, made up, once again, of one part loan and one part to cover interest charges. I sincerely hope that we shall do better this time.
    The Parliamentary Secretary is quite right in saying that the cost per job rules out the Local Employment Act, but that is just one of the other weaknesses of that Act—that in order to do a necessary job we have to come constantly to Parliament for special legislation. I hope that he learns that lesson. And when he is worried about costs per job, let him remember his last decision in regard to Kilmarnock, when he wrote me a really delightful letter which stated:
    "Our advice was that in view of the relatively high present rate of unemployment in
    1392
    the Kilmarnock area the company would be likely to obtain most if not all of its workers, from the Kilmarnock group of Employment Exchange areas. This being so we have no powers to accept an application."
    We have too high a rate of unemployment in the area, so we cannot get help, not of £10 million but of barely £10,000. However, we have not to judge this enterprise by the cost per job but by what it does to this area and to other areas.
    Let us appreciate that this mill will probably denude still further many parts of that very Highland area. Do not let us under-estimate the task of getting an extra thousand people, perhaps 2,000 people, into the Fort William area. It means that certain other parts of the Highlands will be further denuded and the Secretary of State will have a greater problem than ever before. Much of the labour will be in forests far from Fort William, but we must not close our eyes to the still further need for industry—indeed, industries based still on the products of our forests—in these other areas far from Fort William. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the public investment stops at £10 million he is quite wrong—it only starts there.
    Let us not minimise the difficulties. The Scotsman carried this comment from Dr. Frankel, the chairman of the new company:
    "More work will need to be done on the roads. Getting them into shape will cost as much as the mill itself."
    Mr. T. Y. Gibson, who is also connected with the firm and is also on one of the advisory committees to the Forestry Commission and, therefore, is not entirely ignorant of the position, said:
    "Unless there is a new approach to the road making, I do not know how we are to get the timber into the mill."
    Who will pay for the road making? It will not be Wiggins Teape. The local authorities will pay for the public highways and the Forestry Commission will pay for the forest roads.
    A community of an additional 1,000 to 2,000 people cannot suddenly be built out of nothing. This will mean tremendous expenditure by the local authority. The Secretary of State for Scotland nipped round that one quickly by giving it to the Scottish Special Housing Association. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will nip round the rent question as well. There will be tremendous

    1393
    local expenditure on the roads, housing and schools, and the regional hospital board will have to spend on hospital services.
    This is all the more reason why we should have an element of responsible partnership, because the prosperity of the whole area will depend on this one firm. A decision by the firm can cause blight. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) knows that there was one firm which was to have established a large-scale industry in the Highlands. It failed. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury told us the other night that one reason why the Government did not take equity shares in this venture was that there was an element of risk. If there is an element of risk, it is blight. This makes it all the more desirable that there should be a partnership, and parliamentary responsibility, not for day-to-day management but on questions of policy.
    I should have liked to have seen this great enterprise placed under a Highlands development authority. If the Secretary of State does not accept the need for such an authority today, he or some other Secretary of State will eventually accept it. This is the proper approach to the planning of the whole area. This is a pilot scheme which is important not only to the area but to the whole of Scotland. It is not the first scheme that we have had for the Highlands. It is slightly novel only in that it has come about 200 years after the last one.
    This is not the first London company which has taken an interest in the Highlands. It was in 1719 that the Governor and Company of Undertakers for Raising the Thames Water in York Buildings, whatever they were, decided to purchase forfeited estates in the Highlands. One of the estates leased was the Abernethy pine forest of Sir James Grant of Grant. The company set up sawmills and an iron foundry. It had 125 working horses dragging trees to the banks of the Spey. The trees were floated downstream to establish an industry. It has taken 200 years to do anything like it again.
    I sincerely hope that this venture will be the success that it deserves, and which this part of the country certainly needs. Let us not minimise the difficulties nor maximise them, but let us appreciate that apart from the prosperity which the
    1394
    scheme can bring to the area there is, above all, a lesson in it for other pans of Scotland. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has shown his interest and his knowledge of this subject in the past, will not stop and be satisfied with this. The forest areas of the south and south-west of Scotland, too, will require a mill, be it a pulp mill or a paper mill.
    I sincerely hope that, in giving a welcome to this Bill, we can look forward to the next one very soon.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has spoken a little of the needs of forestry, and I am very glad that he has. He said that there was a lesson in the Bill for other parts of Scotland. My theme will be that there is a lesson in it for other parts of the United Kingdom, too. My reason for intervening in the debate is that I regard the Bill as in some ways a forerunner of what we hope will happen in other places. Indeed, I wish that the Long Title had been a little wider in its terms.
    Fort William is a long way from Dorset, rather too far for Dorset to draw any benefit from this new scheme, but I should be the very last to begrudge the Highlands any financial benefit. I have spent too much of my life there and seen its needs too plainly to feel otherwise. However, I should like to think that we can regard this scheme in a wider context and see what lesson there is in it for other areas of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary spoke a great deal about the Local Employment Act, and, of course, it is very important at present, but there are many rural areas in the United Kingdom which could well do with a new industry of this kind.
    The hon. Member for Kilmarnock dealt at some length with the principle of giving a loan to this firm and having an element of subsidy. I personally approach anything of that kind with some caution. I do not pretend to understand exactly what is proposed in the Bill and how big the element of subsidy will be. However, in any case, I am very glad that someone has been found to establish a big mill of this kind in a part of the United Kingdom, and a part which needs it very badly indeed.

    1395
    I am very glad that the railroad to Mallaig has been saved. It is, I suppose, really the "Iron Road to the Isles". I only wish that someone would come to my constituency and stave off Dr. Beeching for a few years.
    The Bill is of great interest to areas such as mine where the forests are, perhaps, less concentrated than they are in Scotland. It is important, particularly, because of the growing problem of forestry output in this country. There is a very large public commitment in forestry and there is a considerable private one. The thinnings are coming along very fast, and the problem of marketing is real.
    It is often forgotten that the United Kingdom has the lowest forest area of all the countries of Western Europe and that we now import 90 per cent. of our timber requirements. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock talked of a day when we should have to import only one-third of our requirements. I wish that that day were very much nearer than it is.
    Mr. Ross: Two-thirds.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Two-thirds—I am sorry. One striking fact is that the vast imports of foreign timber which we make do not always redound to the advantage of our own exports. We have an unfavourable trade balance, so far as one can determine it, with the four countries which send us most timber, Canada, Sweden, Finland and Russia. We certainly have an unfavourable balance of visible trade with three out of the four. With Canada we have an unfavourable balance already of £154 million. With Finland it is £33 million. With Russia it is £26 million. So it cannot be said that we derive advantage for our own industries by taking these prodigious imports of their timber.
    Some of the imports come in the form of raw timber, but more and more are coming in finished products. The E.F.T.A. Agreement will probably make this problem worse. Therefore, the disposal of our own forest production is of economic advantage, a fact which has not been mentioned very much this evening. These four countries alone send us imports of timber worth £141 million, which is a considerable sum at a time when we are always considering our balance of payments.
    1396
    Woodland output in this country has grown and is growing. The Forestry Commission is planting about 60,000 acres a year and people with private woodlands have planted no less than 345,000 acres since 1946. At present, prices are low and many of the traditional outlets for forest products are no longer open or are diminishing. I think specially of railway wagons in respect of which the demand for second-rate oak is going down very rapidly. The demand for pitprops is declining. The National Coal Board is a rather tough bargainer when it comes to buying home-grown timber for that purpose. The demand for sleepers is declining.
    Mr. Bence: Good old Beeching.
    Mr. John Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that nothing but Scottish timber is used in coal mines in Scotland?
    Mr. Digby: I am delighted to hear it. I only wish that that were the case in the whole United Kingdom.
    There are other ways in which this timber will be valuable, because the need for timber in Europe as a whole is increasing. It is estimated that there will be too little timber in Europe for the needs of Europe as a whole in about ten or twenty years' time.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he is beginning to stray a little far from the Fort William pulp and paper mill. Perhaps he could indicate how what he is saying is related to the Bill.
    Mr. Digby: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am trying to show the need to find an outlet for this timber. This mill will find an outlet for a very large amount of timber in the north of England. But in other parts of England the outlet is less secure, and there will be a surplus of this timber unless we are careful.
    Mr. Ross: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, Fort William and Scotland are not in the north of England.
    Mr. Digby: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
    Some areas like the Fort William area are suited to a really large mill like a paper mill. Some years ago Canadian experts reported on the use of timber for

    1397
    pulp mills and hardboard mills. Their two excellent reports made clear that a very large forest area was needed in order to establish a pulp mill of the kind we are discussing. My contention is that there are also grounds for establishing more hardboard and chipboard mills. Some of these are in existence already. Hon. Members saw one at Brandon, in East Anglia, not very long ago and were impressed by it. In order to get more of these mills established, help and interest are necessary from the Board of Trade and the Government, and that is why I welcome their action today.
    I do not know the details of this particular scheme, but I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I only wish that the Bill took rather wider powers and did not relate to a single place and a single firm.
    9.14 p.m.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) delicately pointed out to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that they must not be satisfied in thinking that they have done everything necessary for the development of industry in Scotland.
    I propose not to follow my hon. Friend's hints, but to turn to the rather broader aspect of this problem and to consider what this mill means to Scotland. I welcome it unreservedly, for the reason that I am very glad that the Government have at last done something to show that what they do for the Colonies and for Malta can be done for Scotland: in other words, that the Government are prepared to put money into Scotland to stimulate private enterprise.
    We have always taken the view that we are not against private enterprise doing the job in the Highlands. Tonight, in fact, the Secretary of State, the President of the Board of Trade and myself agreed to a development area being established in the Highlands for the very purpose of inducing private enterprise to come there. We have always taken the view that the simplest way of getting development is to start with private enterprise. If private enterprise does not come in—and it has not done so very much until now—we have taken the view that public instruments such as the
    1398
    Forestry Commission and the Hydro-Electric Board should be used to stimulate industry in the Highlands. If all these fail, the State itself has a duty to maintain the population in that part of the country by putting industry there.
    I quite agree that to find a ready-made agency such as the firm in question to go into the Highlands is the simplest way, because it has its marketing arrangements, the scheme fits in with its already-established business and this is the quickest and simplest way of getting it done.
    I cannot work up any passion about an interest rate of 5½ per cent. being easy money. If I had had to borrow the money to build my house at 5½ per cent., I would have felt that I was being "sweated", even by the local authority. We take exception to these high rates of interest, because they are one of the handicaps against anybody starting business in the Highlands or anywhere else.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock forgets, I am sure, that we are partners in this industry. If it makes profits, the Chancellor will take 50 per cent. of them. Therefore, if it makes profits, we shall share in them. This firm is nationalised, but does not know it. Nowadays, the distinction between private and public enterprise is a great deal of nonsense. Hon. Members opposite should give up all the humbug which they talk about private and public enterprise. Today, the country is a mixed economy, as the late "Nye" Bevan called it. It is working as a mixed economy and the State has a share not only in the financing, but in the profitability of every firm in the country.
    There is no reason why we should not get a bigger share, but I am quite willing to be generous to get firms into the Highlands. I am quite willing that the Government should spend a little more money on them and a little less on Cunard aircraft and other enterprises which are not necessary. No objection is raised when this kind of thing is done down here in this part of Britain. We can allow the Government to be a little generous, and even extravagant, if they are bringing industry into the Highlands.
    That is tremendously important. In the past, when the trees left the Highlands, the people left the Highlands. When we were the Government, after the war, we

    1399
    were convincd that the one way to get the population back to the Highlands was to bring back trees to the Highlands. When we start planting a forest such as the Forest of Ae, we establish a village for the workers who will plant the trees. By the time the trees are 20 years old, the families of the foresters in the village are growing up and work is already waiting for them in the thinning of the forests twenty years after their fathers have planted them. A forest automatically creates work for generation after generation. This is one of the most hopeful things ever to have happened to the Highlands. If we can go on planting trees, we will make it possible for more and more people to live in the Highlands.
    It is true that this project will involve roads. I have no worry whatever about who will pay for the roads. I was pleased that the hydro-electric people came in and had to build roads. I will be quite pleased if the Forestry Corn-mission has to build roads. So long as the Highlands get roads, we will get arteries on which the Highlands can live. If the new project brings roads, we will welcome them. Somebody will have to pay for them, and I hope that it will be the Government, through the local authorities, rather than leave it to everybody else.
    One of the advantages of Fort William is that it does not altogether depend upon roads, because trees can be brought by sea. A great number of them, as well as the hardboard, will be brought in. If there is any failure in our own timber, it is almost as easy to bring timber from Newfoundland to Fort William as from Ross-shire or even Ayrshire. Therefore, this is a very good place for such a mill. It need never run short of timber because timber can come by sea, as some is already destined to come. I hope that the project will be a great success and will carry the prospect of a greater development of forestry.
    The Labour Government, after the war, were so convinced of the importance of forestry that a programme of fifty years' planting was established for the Forestry Commission and private woodlanders. Here again, there is a combination of the community and private woodlanders. I pay tribute to
    1400
    private woodlanders. Most of our knowledge of the science of forestry arises from the fact that in the past rich men made a plaything of growing forests; they loved trees and experimented with them in the Highlands for generations.
    As my hon. Friend said, these people are very generously treated by the State to encourage them to continue with tree development, but it is a very important contribution to the general realm of forestry. We sell them the seeds and also the trees. The Forestry Commission grows the plants and sells them to private woodlanders, who thus become agents for the growing of forests.
    Mr. Brewis: Would it not be fair to say that Wiggins Teape also brought to the project 200 years of experience of paper-making, which was very valuable?
    Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman is taking a ready-made instrument instead of having to establish it and gain experience. It is very useful, and one does not want to throw away skill and enterprise. If we were doing it ourselves, we should still have to bring in people with experience and skill. Whatever may be the agency—a nationalised board or a firm—it is a matter of convenience and not of principle. All the contest about nationalisation is the biggest bogy that eve' afflicted British politics. I wish that we would stop it and get on with the common sense of the business and help to develop Scotland.
    Mr. Manuel: My right hon. Friend is talking to hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Woodburn: They have humbugged themselves and everybody else for a generation. Every General Election has been fought on this nonsense. A former Secretary of State for Scotland started nationalising shipping just after he had won a General Election by opposing nationalisation.
    One or two problems arise about which I want to ask questions. Reference has been made to sawdust, a very great byproduct. One of our problems during the war was to discover what we could do with sawdust. The Germans devised a process to combine it with certain byproducts—nitrate, I think—from munitions manufacture and turned it into a

    1401
    food for animals. I do not know whether such experiments will be conducted in Scotland, but it is important to get the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to go into the problem of what we can do with the sawdust. I should like to know whether it is capable of being used in the pulp mill, or, as it is sawdust, has the fibre been destroyed so that it can serve no useful purpose in the mill? This is a problem which should be tackled.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that we should get plenty of fresh water. But how long will it be fresh after the mill has been established? Some of my hon. Friends and I live on rivers where the salmon have been completely wiped out by the pollution from paper and other mills. Is the whole of Loch Linnhe to be polluted? What will happen?
    Mr. D. Price: I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance on this point. This is one of the advantages of the new Stora process as against the Kraft process. The Kraft process gives a great deal of effluent and air pollution. I shall be happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about the slightly more technical details which I feel it would not be appropriate to give here. I can assure him that the local objections which arose when the idea of a paper mill was first broached have been satisfied, and I understand that even the fish in Loch Linnhe are reasonably content about the project.
    Mr. Woodburn: If we could get the German process we might convert it into food production.
    Is all the quality timber to be eaten up by this mill? There is beautiful quality timber there. One of my projects was to establish a Remploy factory at Cannich, in the middle of a huge area of forest, to produce furniture. Could we not approach Sir Isaac Wolfson, or someone else who has a good market for furniture, to see whether he would take a furniture factory to this area?
    This project is only a growth point and we want it to grow still further. This will be a centre from which other industries could spread out, using the timber of the forest. Certainly, quality timber could be used for furniture and other products. I believe that larch is used for bobbins in mills and there are certain side products of timber.
    1402
    Then there is the possibility of developing industries for women. If one is to have a population of men working in this factory one must provide industries for the women. I had an arrangement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that most men have—which I thought would come to success. This was with the Wilton carpet firm, for these carpets are capable of being made domestically. This is an area where there are sheep as well and, certainly, carpet manufacture would be a good ancillary industry. A man in Drumnadrochit developed a Celtic pattern and I understood that it could have been a success.
    Perhaps the people of the Highlands will develop a passion for the factory hooter, which they have never had before. An Indian maharajah once saw a crowd rushing along the street to the sound of a whistle. He thought that this was magical, for he had great difficulty in getting people to work in the morning. It seemed to him that all one had to do in this country to get them to work was to blow a whistle. People in the Highlands, however, have never experienced that whistle. Now that they are to get it, will they like it? They are now to enjoy what we call modern civilisation. Up to now, they have been content to hunt, fish and shoot even though this did not give them much of a living. But perhaps modern machines and factory life will draw them, and in that case the women should have a share in the prosperity.
    I welcome this project. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, I hope that the Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade will not feel too satisfied and will not grow weary of well doing. I hope that they will not think that the job is finished with this project. This is just a swallow which I hope will herald a little more summer for the Highlands instead of the wintry blasts from the Government and industry that the Highlands have experienced in the past. Perhaps here will grow a nucleus which will act as a magnet to attract other industries to it. I wish it every success.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. W. M. F. Vane: My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Wingfield Digby) has spoken of this as being an enterprise that will

    1403
    clearly be of great advantage to this area. My hon. Friend has spoken, too, about it being not just a local issue, even though the Title of the Bill leads us to believe this. This is a very important national decision. I think that we in the House of Commons this evening ought to try to see it in its true proportion.
    Large sums of money are involved, and that, in itself, had cast doubts on the long-term soundness of the future of the timber industry in this area and beyond. Furthermore, there are important policy decisions here concerning the whale of the United Kingdom, not just Scotland, which we should consider, because, of course, the House of Commons has its duties. I think that we are entitled to know more about, and have full answers to, a number of questions, some of which hon. Members opposite have asked the Secretary of State, before we leave the Bill this evening.
    In broad terms, what I think that we would all like to know is what is the policy for the utilisation of home-grown timber in the United Kingdom, which will increase rapidly in quantity every year, and which is already in far too great a volume 'to be absorbed by many existing rural industries.
    Secondly, what are the full commitments under the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has already spoken about the possibilities of a large outlay on roads. As we are considering large sums even in the initial stage, I think that we ought to think beyond that, because the costs of nearly everything—not just 10, Downing Street—in the end turn out to be very much larger than the estimates first represent. Then we have the secondary development to consider. Perhaps the roads are the biggest item, but there will be housing commitments, and, what I think is the most important of all, what precedents are we here setting, because the problem within 100 miles of Fort William is not unique to that district.
    The problem repeats itself to a large extent in other parts of the country. Here I think that I should declare my interest according to tradition. An hon. Member referred to the fact, and I think that it
    1404
    is well-known, that I have been interested in timber problems. I am a woodland owner and, at one time, I was a member of the Forestry Commission Utilisation Committee—and a good Committee it was, although on too small a scale to deal adequately with this very large commercial problem now facing it. I am also a small shareholder in Wiggins, Teape. I did not buy the shares when this Bill was proposed. I have had them for a very long time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you sold them."] I have not sold them. Although I am not a Scotsman, I may stand to gain some small things from this project if it is successful, that is to say, if it reduces the competition in the north of England for the Scottish timber now flooding over the Border, dumped timber as we call it, because there cannot be found a sufficient outlet for it in Scotland.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us tonight what is the Government's policy for the home-timber industry which, I think, it is admitted on both sides of the House is not in too good a state. Every Government in turn since the war has hedged upon this point. They have talked about planting. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire did so today. All the emphasis has been on planting and very little attention has been given to what would happen at the end of the day—and the day was not such a long one. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has done more, I think, than any other Minister since the war on this commercial side. There was a conference of timber interests in his Department not long ago, but that ought to have happened thirty years ago and we would by now have been a long way further ahead than we are.
    Only the other day the impression was being given that we in the forestry world ought, like farmers and fishermen, to be thinking much more about the marketing side of the industry than has been the case to date. However, unlike farmers and fishermen, there was no money to help any of these schemes or enterprises. But, suddenly, £10 million is written into a Bill and we are asked to approve it.
    Why is there this lack of interest in the marketing of timber? I think that all are to blame, private foresters and

    1405
    the timber trade. If I may use the word, the infrastructure of the timber industry is probably very short of working capital. The Forestry Commission has used its great influence to date almost entirely in the growing of trees. I stand behind no one in my admiration of the technical and silvicultural achievements of the Forestry Commission, but the organisation of the commercial and salesman side is a long way behind a normal commercial undertaking with a capital of about £180 milion, a long way behind what Unilever or Shell, for instance, would think necessary to deal with such big business. Hence we have the present situation, and it is not limited to Fort William and the neighbourhood.
    I exempt the present heads of the Forestry Commission from any charge which may be read into my sentences. I know that they are working hard to make up for lost time, but meanwhile there is a lot of unsaleable timber on their hands and on the hands of private woodland owners, or the Government would not otherwise be coming along and suggesting that we should approve the expenditure of about £10 million on one project.
    In a certain sense, whatever great advantages it will bring to this neighbourhood, the Bill is a rescue operation rather than part of a properly considered policy. Nor does it fit in entirely with my right hon. Friend's Answers to recent Questions, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine), who is not here at the moment but to whom it was suggested that the setback in the market for timber was only temporary or short-term. If the set-back is only temporary or short-term, is it really necessary for us to start joint financing of a scheme in the Highlands on this scale? It looks as though the setback is more serious than it was represented to be the other day.
    Those who follow these things will have noticed how in the last year approaches for help by different sections of the industry in various projects, modest help, too, have been turned down. The Timber Merchants Co-operative—and the word "co-operative" is magic in this connection—wanted a very small sum of money, between £5,000 and £10,000 a year for three years, to try to educate
    1406
    merchants and consumers about the qualities of our home-grown timber.
    The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) will be interested in this, because the furniture trade looks automatically to supplies from overseas, and the good oak such as we have around us here panelling this Chamber is used in the trade only for work of this very high quality. The normal Ministry of Works type of desk is mostly made of Japanese oak or some such equivalent. However, the suggestion that there should be some help with the sort of work which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind was turned down on the ground that it did not have the support of a sufficiently large section of the trade, although it had the support of most of the trade, and because it was not usual for Government aid to be given to middle men or processors. It is strange having had those reasons that out of the blue £10 million should be provided for one firm of processors.
    Mr. Bruce Millan: I am very interested in the arguments of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) in this respect, but was he not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture at the lime? What did he do about it when he was there?
    Mr. Vane: I took a lot of interest in this subject, but the hon. Member does not understand the constitutional relationship between the Forestry Commission and the Minister of Agriculture. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for doing something which none of his predecessors had done. In any event, surely the House of Commons is the place where hon. Members are expected to say what they think about issues which come before them for discussion. Here we have something quite inconsistent with what has happened before, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to give us something of a broader picture as well as answering the more local questions.
    It must not be thought that pulp is the one and only outlet needed in the marketing of softwood timber. There are many others. Nor must it be thought that Fort William is the one and only area where this problem arises. Can we be told what the position would be if a similar case were put to the Government for the

    1407
    North-East of Scotland, where the circumstances are similar, and in the South-West where there is an area of timber which could be deemed appropriate to some such development?
    The north of England is better prepared, but Devon could claim that from the timber marketing point of view it was the worst area in England, and possibly in the United Kingdom. Are we to understand that, if we give the Bill a Second Reading we are committed to spending about £10 million to £12 million every time another area can represent a similar case? If so, I think that we ought to have this cleared up.
    It is no good talking about this as a first step. We ought to judge this most important proposal against the broad background of policy decisions. If my right hon. Friend is not able to tell us tonight what these policy decisions are. I hope that he or his hon. Friend will be able to do so before we part with this Bill and it goes to another place, because it is putting things in the wrong order to present us with this Bill without our knowing the broad lines of policy. This should have been done in the reverse order. I say that without any criticism of this project. I think that this has been presented to us in the wrong order, and I am sure that there are other hon. Members who feel the same as I do in this regard.
    9.40 p.m.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I think that most hon. Members on this side of the House have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane). Certainly, many of the questions which he asked will help to shorten our speeches.
    When my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was speaking, I was reminded of a story of the Korean war, when an American officer met an aged Korean who had had all his clothes blown away in the heat of battle. The American asked this old Korean, "How does it feel to be liberated?" The Korean replied, "I can only say that we are like a blade of grass which does not care very much whether it is eaten by a horse or by a cow".
    1408
    When it comes to the choice of employment being provided by private enterprise, or public enterprise, my right hon. Friend seems to be driven to very much the same conclusion. If people are desperate enough for jobs, and there is no other prospect of them being provided, they will grab the first prospect that comes along and hail it with the enthusiasm displayed for the Bill by my right hon. Friend.
    My right hon. Friend had, of course, some reservations about this project, just as I have, and as I am sure that even the Secretary of State for Scotland has. But people suffering from job hunger are rather uncritical on the amount of expenditure per job created. On the other hand, here is something happening in the Highlands which has not even faintly looked like happening for a long time past. We had almost given up hope of any sort of relatively large-scale employment projects coming to the Highland areas.
    I am glad and I welcome this project for the employment it will provide, for the relief from the desperate need for employment it will bring, and for the better standards it will, I hope, provide for at least a few thousand people out of the 100,000 and more in Scotland who are still looking for jobs. The total number of jobs estimated to be provided by this project is not large against a background of the present figure of around 120,000 to 130,000 unemployed in Scotland, but in the Highland areas it will make a big contribution to an extremely difficult situation.
    When I say that, I add that we must aim at keeping the natural and proper distribution of population in the Highlands by the proper distribution of industry, and not permit gross over-centralisation. This project, as one part of a wider pattern of Highland industrial development, is welcome; but it is only the beginning and not the end of such things. As the hon. Member for Westmorland said, there are other areas, like the Scottish North-East, with great forestry resources, and there will still be difficulties in that area even in supplying Fort William with timber, because one comes up against difficult and costly transport problems. So we in the North-West in spite of our own difficulties would wish to be a little unselfish and ask more for the North-East and also

    1409
    than that it should be used merely to supply material for a project of this kind in the Fort William scheme.
    I hops that Fort William will recruit in and from the Highlands population as much as possible. On the other hand, we must bear in mind the importance of not attracting populations away from other areas wholesale. The Secretary of State may smile at this, and it may sound contrary. But he knows that dilemma; and we must be sure that we shall not wholly denude areas which, because of their own lack of industrial development, have been losing population so rapidly that they are reaching the point of no return. The right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, do a lot of other things in a lot of other places very soon if the Fort William project is not to drain other outlying communities in such a way as to cause much harm.
    Mr. Vane: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that there are other paper-making ventures in different parts of the country which may feel that this affects their business.
    Mr. MacMillan: I quite understand that. I must put in this reservation. That there is sometimes the selfish point of view as well. In areas where there is little unemployment, it is possible to find people who will object immediately when there is a sudden drawing on the labour force in their area locally or by other areas. I came up against this in connection with another less creative development project, the proposed South Uist rocket range project, which eventually collapsed. There were some local employers who objected that local labour would be in great demand for the range, and the reason they gave was it would mean that wages would be forced up by Government employment and competition for workers. But still there is a case for the North-East and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, for the South-West of Scotland as well.
    This has been a most interesting debate so far—perhaps I had better be modest and underline the words "so far". The essential long-term work here has been done by responsible public planning. Planting is planning and when we plant we are planning long term. It is a thirty, forty, fifty or sixty years'
    1410
    job—a job spread over generations before anything more than the first results in thinnings are discernible. Fundamentally afforestation, it has been a State undertaking and there is no getting away from that.
    I should like the Secretary of State to tell us more about what was mentioned by the hon. Member for Westmoreland when he spoke of the difficulties about disposing surpluses, existing internal surplus. Our difficulty in connection with the supply of timber in two world wars taught us something rather different from that problem. In the First World War about 4 per cent. or 5 per cent.— possibly 6 per cent.—of the total requirements of the country were provided from our own domestic supplies. Immediately after the war the Acland Committee was set up and everyone was enthusiastic about big scale afforestation. Then the economy axe fell in 1931–32 and there was a recession in planting and reafforestation. In the middle of the last war, in 1943, we went into another planting timber supply panic when we realised that we could again supply from our domestic resources only about 4 per cent. of the war-time timber needs. The rest had to run the blockade. A 30-year scheme was put into operation, and we have good reason to be grateful that it was.
    I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether he is satisfied that this Fort William project will meet all or most of its requirements from domestic supplies? Are we not to import, and to what extent from, say, Scandinavia? In passing, may I ask whether, if the Ministry of Works is using Japanese timber, as the hon. Member opposite has said, for desks, the Ministry of Labour does the same creating less home jobs than it might? Perhaps the Ministries could set an example. What will be the position regarding imparts for Fort William and to what extent is the Minister satisfied that suitable timber will be available from Scottish and United Kingdom sources?
    I wish to ask the Secretary of State another question which is vital to the Fort William area and (the North-West. What is to be the position regarding transportation of timber from, say, around Kintail and that area? I have no doubt that the hon. Member for

    1411
    Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) will have that question very much in mind. It is in the county which we both represent.
    This will be a big question. We want to know exactly what the effect of the Beeching policy will be in that area upon railways and therefore in the new burden cast upon the inadequate single-track roads. The Secretary of State has gone so often on record recently with the assurance that it is only over his dead body that anybody will close the Highland railways before the roads and other services are suitable to meet the requirements, that I hardly dare ask him to underline it again tonight. I take it from what he said that no question can possibly arise, with his agreement at any rate, of the closing of railway lines in our north-western part of Scotland until an adequate service by road has been provided. In other words, the roads and the services must be provided before any railways are closed down. Not that I agree with any closure in that area.
    Once the mill has been built we shall have a fairly heavy weight of traffic, additional to the present traffic upon the roads almost right up to Kyle of Lochalsh. This is now to serve and be part of a developing timber-using and supply area, and if this project means as much as the Minister said it did, and as everyone is convinced it ought to mean, the railways and roads and the transport question will take on far more importance even than they have now. I therefore urge the Minister to give urgent priority to retaining the North Western railway line as well as the rail route to Fort William and Mallaig. Quite apart from the route to Fort William, the rail line from Kyle will be in many ways as important, and I hope that the Secretary of State has this very much in mind.
    The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that Government spending on this project in direct assistance to the firm is only the beginning of the public expenditure. Local authorities will be responsible for putting in the public services such as new and improved roads, water supplies and other services. In addition, the housing problem will only partly be solved by the housing association, which cannot solve it all. The Hydro-Electric
    1412
    Board will be called upon to make a contribution by making supply extensions in various directions, because additional electricity supplies will be needed for many purposes.
    I hope that in his enthusiasm for this project, which with certain reservations we share, the Secretary of State has had regard to forest conservancy considerations, which are extremely important. We cannot chop down forests all over the place without care, without expecting detrimental results from these activities. There are many lessons from history in every continent along these lines—the creation of great dust bowls and deserts, for example. We cannot knock forests down and expect there to have no effect. We must have regard to the whole ecological cycle and background and implications. Within that, we must adopt a very careful conservancy policy, bearing in mind the long-term effects and needs. There must therefore be a substantial and early stepping up of afforestation and planting programmes at the same time as we speed up deforestation.
    I should like to think of the Bill as the act of Governmental charity it has been called by some; but it is nothing of the kind. The trees happen to be there in the Highlands. They do not happen to be somewhere else. We therefore have to develop in this area. In the same way, the water power is in the Highlands and we must develop the hydro-electricity industry there. This applies to many other things.
    We welcome the Bill, with the reservations which I have mentioned. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that this is only the first word and the first step, and not the last word and the last step in industrialisation, along appropriate lines, in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for which we have waited so long.
    The use of timber by-products could also be made a highly important source of employment, but I hope that any employment which is created will be under factory conditions and fully insurable conditions for the workers concerned. We want no more outworkers uncovered for unemployment and industrial injury insurance. We want people who are fully insured and fully covered by wages agreements and standards of employment no less than those in the industrial areas throughout the country.
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. John MacLeod: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), who represents the other half of my county of Ross-shire. I agree with much of what he said. As a Member for a Highland constituency, I am naturally, very excited that this pulp mill is to be built in the Highlands. It is one of the most exciting things that has happened to us since, perhaps, the Hydro-Electric Board was established in the Highland area. I have been talking about this scheme for twelve years.
    At one time I tried to get a pulp mill in the Invergordon area. The experts then assured me that it was probably better to have it, if it could be established, at Fort William. I am now glad that it has come to Fort William, because it will have implications far wider than the immediate area of Fort William.
    It is on these implications that I should like to dwell for a little tonight. They were dealt with fairly extensively by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). As the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and the Western Isles said, we do not want to see all the labour taken away from areas of large population, but the only answer I can give—I have always said this—is that it is far better to stop the people somewhere on the fringe of the Highland area itself than to see them drift right down to the South, as they have been doing for years.
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the company had been receiving letters from emigrants who want to come back to the region. This influx should certainly help. Other Highlanders who have gone abroad may want to come back. My own forebears went away from the Highlands because there was no work for them. I feel this very deeply. It is very encouraging to hear that the firm has received letters from people who want to return to the area.
    This project will certainly be a very good investment on the Government's part, because it will help to stimulate other industries in the area. The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) spoke of uses to which wood could be put. He mentioned furniture.
    1414
    One hopes that this will help to encourage other industries in the area to make use of timber. I hope that the company will use as many materials and as much equipment as possible which are produced, not in this country, but in Scotland, because after all we hope that this will benefit Scotland.
    The hon. Member for the Western Isles asked the Minister from what area this home-grown timber will come. Will it come from the whole of Scotland; or will it be necessary to go out of Scotland into the north of England to get supplies?
    As we know, the Forestry Commission and private owners will now have an outlet for their timber. I hope that this will encourage some people in the areas of the Highlands where it is questionable whether agricultural land is productive. I hope, taking the long-term view, that it will encourage some of these people to plant on land where it is questionable whether fanning is productive. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock said, this is a natural, indigenous raw material.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Proceedings on the Fort William Pulp and Paper Mills Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Noble.]
    Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Mr. MacLeod: There is no doubt that the lack of railways would disrupt the transport and communications of the area. This aspect of communications, particularly roads, was mentioned by the hon. Member for the Western Isles. My right hon. Friend has also said that more forestry roads must be built to bring out the timber.
    I hope that there will be more coordination with the local authorities when the placing of roads is considered before they are built, not only for forest roads but also for those needed by the hydro-electricity boards. There has not been this co-ordination in the past and if it were to exist greater use could be made of these roads by the local inhabitants.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will also consider the bridge at Fort William over the River Lochie and whether it

    1415
    will be adequate to take the weight of the transport across it. I hope, therefore, that the new bridge will be sanctioned immediately. Bridges lead me to sea communications, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire. In this respect, the hon. Member for the Western Isles represents a seafaring area and he will agree that it is hoped that we will be able to develop more of our sea communications.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend has looked into these questions—and I have discussed them with my friends in the north of Scotland—because I wonder whether it would be possible to build some small piers along the Western seaboard, from where the maximum amount of timber will emanate It might be possible for the timber to be transported from the higher ground to these small piers and harbours. I suggest that it might be possible to have a modern type of "puffer" which could call in at the small piers and thereby save a great deal of expenditure on new roads. These "puffers" could be used for other purposes, including the development of lime deposits, bringing lime back to the more remote areas from where the timber is coming; and that would help the farming land, which lacks lime.
    All this represents an exciting and intriguing development if the possible events are followed through to their logical conclusion. We hope that greater use will be made of the Caledonian Canal to bring more supplies from Invergordon and the Black Isle and Moray Firth areas, and I hope that the Secretary of State will say something about this when he replies to the debate.
    It is interesting to note that Wiggins Teape and Company has entered into a 20-year contract with British Railways. I wonder whether the mill would have been built there had the railway been closed. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of this fact and remember how important railways are north of Inverness. I hope that he will see that the railways are not closed until we have proved that we cannot get the industries we want in the area and we have tackled the problem of adequate alternative transport.
    A further practical question is the supply of electricity. The Minister has
    1416
    said that at some future date there will be an extension of the mill for the addition of another machine, and that will mean further use of electricity. I know that in Ross-shire, at least on paper, two projects have recently been put forward, but there still remains the vexed question of the Nevis scheme. I hope that the Minister will announce that there is to be a public inquiry into this scheme, without any more nonsense about holding up the electricity supplies that will be needed in that area.
    I have no doubt that this project will be of great benefit to the North. We all hope that it will lead to further development there. What must be remembered is that in the North we are no longer remote. One hon. Member spoke about the far North, but the Highlands are not remote. Nowhere in Great Britain is any longer remote. If we can go to Canada and America in six hours it is nonsense to talk about the Highlands being remote.
    I hope that business executives will note that they can get to Wick, Orkney, or Shetland in an hour or an hour and a half; that they can go to their parties in London and the South, if they want to, at the end of a hard day's work, and still manage their businesses in the North. With their increasing supplies of electricity, and by other means, the Highlands can and will play their part in the national interest.
    10.7 p.m.
    Mr. Archie Manuel: I welcome the interest shown tonight by English hon. Members, and I extend an invitation to them to attend more of our Scottish debates, as this debate essentially is. We do not have enough of them—we are too insular. I should like to see more hon. Members getting together to try to get the best from debates, representing the views of their own areas, and telling us their opinions about any aspect of a Scottish Bill. We do the same with United Kingdom Bills and English Bills.
    I warmly welcome this Measure, which will have a rich, rejuvenating influence over a very wide area, stretching west of Fort William and north-east to the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade spoke of a

    1417
    radius of 100 miles. I do not know whether that means that we shall be getting timber from Dumfries, which is about that distance away, but we shall be out at sea in every other direction.
    This is a project that undoubtedly catches the imagination. I know the area particularly well—better than any hon. Member now present. I was brought up in it. I fish there occasionally. I climb hills there—some of them have fences around them that I am not supposed to go through, but I go through, because I have always been against the idea of fences being put up to keep deer in and people out.
    I can remember in my younger school days seeing fairly extensive areas covered with fine timber, first reaching maturity and then very often going past it and being blown down by the strong gales we have in the West. It was a scene of chaos and confusion, and there was a great deal more trouble in getting the timber out of the forest than there would have been if the forestry had been properly regulated.
    I do not think that I can pay tribute to any woodland owner. After receiving money from the timber merchant, who took the timber from Arisaig and other stations on the Mallaig line and then floated it to Glasgow, the owner took no steps to replant the area properly. I started as a forestry worker as a youngster and my father was employed in the industry. Therefore I know something about it. There was a great lack of planting in the areas once the money had been taken out by the lairds and woodland owners. I would not pay the tribute which my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) paid to them in this connection.
    The consequence was that the Forestry Commission had to do the job. It has done it very well, but it has been curbed and crabbed in its activities and its programme is behind schedule. I do not know what views the Secretary of State for Scotland holds on this subject or whether he intends to obtain more capital from the Treasury to keep the planting abreast of the times. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade mentioned that a million tons of timber were imported into the country and 8 million were home-grown, or some such figures of that kind.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): The figures mentioned were 8 million hoppus feet homegrown, and 4 million hoppus feet imported.
    Mr. Manuel: How long will this continue? Will there be a greater percentage of imported timber in future? Thinnings have not been used economically in the more inaccessible areas. I have asked Questions about this, but I have had no satisfactory answers and I do not know what is happening to them.
    I hope to say something about the transport problems involved in this project when we come to debate Dr. Beeching's Report, but I wanted to men-lion a matter which was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles in connection with the public money which will be spent, quite apart from what is to come from the taxpayer in the shape of the £10 million loan and the interest-free percentage over the first three years. Undoubtedly a great deal of public money will be spent in the area on providing houses. It will not be easy to find sites, and when sites are found building will be much more expensive than it is in the South. There are no brickworks there and building components will have to be brought in over long distances. I hope the Secretary of State will recognise that it is not enough to say that the Scottish Special Housing Association will undertake this work. He must not put too great a financial yoke around the necks of the county council or the borough council as such. The rents of the S.S.H.A. houses will be very high indeed in that area.
    Wiggins Teape is receiving substantial help. In my view, if the Government are providing more than half the capital outlay and public money is to be used to pay the interest on the loan over the first three years, the Government ought to have representation on the board and have something to do with policy. This is the way it ought to have been done. I warmly welcome this venture at Fort William, but it is monstrous that, if this company had dropped out along with the other three which were in the bidding at the beginning, this project would not have gone on because of the ideology of the Government. It is monstrous to condemn an area to decay, neglect and further depopulation because of their views.

    1419
    Now, a few words about the forestry workers themselves. I know quite a number of the workers in the forestry areas of Inverness and Argyllshire itself. It is fairly young timber in parts of Argyllshire, fairly young plantings, but it is interesting to think of the young plantings down at Lochshielside where there is not even a road. There is MacBrayne's little vessel serving the 21 miles of the loch between Glenfinnan and Acharacle, but there are no roads at all. There will be much more public expenditure necessary than the £10 million, and this will fall on the local authorities to a great extent.
    I want the Secretary of State to bear this in mind and to remember, also, that far more workers will be required in the actual forest areas for the extraction of thinnings and getting out the matured timber. There must be an augmented forest labour force, and, if the wages in the factory areas are to be fairly high compared with the £8 or £9 a week of the forestry worker, the Secretary of State will have to pay careful attention to this social aspect of the matter. The forestry workers will have to be paid a sufficient wage to meet the rents of the houses which are to be built in the forest areas for the augmented labour force which will be required.
    I know of several places where very great mistakes of policy have been made in the provision of houses for forestry workers. I have in mind an area at Loch Doilet on Lochshielside where there is no road, no connection with anywhere, and no social amenities, but where the Government have provided 15 or 20 forest houses and expect people to live in them. It would have been far better to put these 15 or 20 houses at Acharacle, Strontian or Salen, three villages round there, where forestry vehicles travel each day to take the part-time workers to and fro.
    Mr. J. Grimond: The hon. Gentleman is stressing the importance of good communications. The Forestry Commission has, in fact, done this in some places and done it successfully.
    Mr. Manuel: It is not for me to try to find fault where things have been done correctly. I am finding fault where, in the heart of the forest, 15 or 20 houses have been set down with no amenities
    1420
    at all, not even a road, where life is very difficult for the womenfolk and where the proper education of children is a great problem. The best thing to do is to build houses, when a small number of them is required in cases like this, added to one of the villages which are accessible to the forest area. If this had been done, there would have been a more contented labour force and there would not have been so many changes in it. Families would have been much more contented.
    One of the best aspects of the scheme is that is will put a stop, to some extent, to the number of school leavers who are leaving the Highlands. There is not much employment in Argyllshire to which school leavers can go. The job opportunities just do not exist. This scheme can provide the job opportunities and the focal point for people who are at present migrating to Glasgow and further South to remain in the Highlands. I warmly welcome this new industrial enterprise, but I am sorry that the Government have not taken a stake in it and have not made sure of having a say in policy because of the financial help which they are giving to this firm.
    10.21 p.m.
    Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: There were very disquieting rumours about last autumn that this eagerly awaited project was not, after all, to materialise. I am sure that Scotland owes a great deal to the Government, and, particularly, to the Secretary of State for Scotland for making it possible.
    The need for this project is emphasised dramatically if we consider the increase in United Kingdom plantings of trees during the post-war period. Figures were published in The Times earlier this year in a remarkable article by Captain A. L. P. F. Wallace of Candacraig. He showed that in the ten years 1940–49 the average number of plantings per annum was 27,000. In 1950–59, the average had increased to 83,000 and from 1960 to 1962 it had increased to 93,000. That means that there will be a greatly increased output of thinnings in the years ahead, for which there is a steadily contracting market.
    I should, as others have done, declare an interest in the growing of trees. Although we may not be able to send them as far afield as Fort William the whole market for thinnings will improve.

    1421
    The difficulty in Scotland in recent years has been that the National Coal Board, because of its policy of pit closures, and because of mechanisation at the coal face, has had a very small requirement for pit wood. The 250,000 tons a year of Scottish softwood which the mills will require will have a considerable impact on the forestry industry in North and West Scotland.
    The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) spoke about the contribution which public enterprise would be making to the establishment of the pulp mill. That is true, but it is also true that private enterprise is making a considerable contribution. The British Aluminium Company will supply process water, carried through three miles of pipelines, from the tail race of the Lochaber hydro-electric scheme, which it owns.
    I was talking not long ago to Mr. Gordon Chalmers, the commissioner of the British Aluminium Company, which owns 170,000 acres in the immediate vicinity of the proposed pulp mills which the company acquired to control the water catchment areas for the hydroelectric operation of its factories. The company has a 20-year forestry programmes which will involve the planting of about 300 acres of trees a year, with a 60-year rotation. Mr. Gordon Chalmers told me that with the coming of the pulp mill at Fort William, it will be possible to reduce the rotation to forty years. This will have a considerable effect on the aim, which we are all trying to reach in Scotland, of achieving the target of 5 million acres of afforested land which was set by the Government of the day in 1945.
    Not only in that way will the economy of the Highlands receive a useful "shot" in the arm. It is undoubtedly true that the increased planting of shelters could increase the inherent capacity of our
    1422
    hills to produce mutton and hardy store cattle for finishing on the lower ground. If more use were made of the Highlands as a reservoir of high-quality stores, less of the more valuable lower ground would be required for followers and more would be available for fatteners.
    I should like to make a suggestion. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to persuade the company—he has every right to ask it to heed his suggestions—to appoint a consultative committee, composed of representatives of the Forestry Commission, the Scottish Woodlands Owners' Association and the Home Timber Merchants' Association of Scotland, which could be called together when required to consult the Board about questions of supplies, prices, and so on, so that there may be broad agreement among the producers and merchants of timber throughout Scotland and the policy of the Board may be interpreted to and understood by them. With this two-way channel of ideas, the Board could receive greater acceptance among its suppliers and the merchants who will bring much of the timber to its doors.
    There are many things that I should like to have said, but I do not want to take up the time of the House at this late hour. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) was, however, possibly more critical than anyone else on this side of the House about certain provisions of the Bill, which he described as a rescue operation rather than part of a considered policy. It is true that it is not part of a considered policy in the sense of a forestry policy, of which my hon. Friend was speaking. I doubt very much whether the Government introduced the Bill as part of a coherent forestry policy. I am, however, certain that it is a highly important part of a considered policy for creating employment in Scotland and for stemming the drift from the Highlands.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. William Hannan: I agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley); no one would accuse the present Government of having any considered policy, particularly on forestry.
    I welcome the proposals in the Bill, with, of course, much the same reservations as some of my hon. Friends. Those of us who have been speaking and asking Questions about forestry since before the Secretary of State for Scotland became a Minister have been watching with great trepidation the progress of the talks and the prospect two or three times that nothing would come of them. Whatever the Government's intentions are, it has certainly taken them a long time to come to firm conclusions about it, and now they have done so, I believe they have done it in the wrong way.
    The Minister said that the company would be using the most up-to-date methods, as are employed in Sweden and France. This is to be welcomed. But in the very important process of the formation of the company they have fallen short of the modern methods which are employed in other countries.
    When I returned from Finland in 1954 and spoke in the House about forestry, I said how pleasing it would be if small pulp or saw mills could be set up in the north of Scotland. The Secretary of State has one, if not two, in his constituency. But at the moment Finland has a project to establish a mill in Lapland which will create 400 jobs. Besides those jobs in the mill, it is estimated that a further 3,000 jobs will be created in forestry and ancillary work.
    The point about finance is that it is the Government in Finland who have done this. The Government have representatives on the board. The mill is State-owned. But we have had 10 years' delay, and now the Government have acted at last for very much the reason put forward by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane)—as a rescue operation to create industry, making a virtue out of necessity. This may sound churlish, but the production of timber in Scotland is such that it is helping
    1424
    to create difficulties south of the Border, and so the mill project is being throttled.
    There are one or two points on which I should like some information from the Secretary of State. Am I not right in thinking that a pulp mill of this kind would provide an excellent opportunity for developments in connection with not only paper and paper bags but cellulose and fibreglass—things of which Scotland has been short? I am not technically-minded in these matters, but I think it important to ask for information about them.
    There is a second problem. What steps are the Government taking to guard against an increase in land prices which may develop in and around this area? There is never a honey pot but the bees are not so far away. I hesitate to go on using the insect analogy in case I am misunderstood, like one of my late right hon. Friends, but there is a certain well defined course which individuals so minded can take in an area like this.
    The whole project is very desirable. This is something for which many of us have wanted for this area for a very long time. Out of this will come the building of roads and other services. This means, apart from the advance of £10 million, that there will have to be further subsidies for the provision of roads by local authorities. Public enterprise will provide all the facilities and all the benefits but will get no return. That is completely wrong.
    It is silly to carry on the argument about private enterprise v. public enterprise in this context, but what is wrong with a partnership between the two? The Government have missed a great opportunity by indulging in this academic exercise, which will bring no satisfaction to the people who are unemployed; only the provision of jobs will do that. I hope that the Secretary of State will try to answer these important questions about the developments likely to arise out of this very welcome project.
    10.37 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I shall not detain the House long at this late hour but, at the invitation of an hon. Member opposite, as an English Member I should like to add a few words. I shall not ask my right hon. Friend any questions. I am fully confident of his ability both to deal with questions and

    1425
    get on with the job. He has been in this House a much shorter time than I, and he is a good example of the young men of promise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been choosing to place in high office in Government,, and I wish him well.
    As a Member for Bristol, a city noted for printing and other uses of paper, I want to say how much I value this Measure. I do not take any gloomy view, unlike some hon. Members opposite, about this project. If we can manage to produce paper in this country from homegrown trees to sheets of paper and the printed column, that is a good thing from any point of view.
    We have an unemployment problem in the South-West, although we do not say so much about it as hon. Members from other areas say about their problems. But we are anxious to help anywhere, and we shall be delighted to use some of the products of this factory.
    I am delighted to disagree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who said that some of these products would be difficult to produce and that perhaps we did not have the technical "know-how". When I was in Virginia they assured me that they have a process from which they can make paper out of any tree of whatever size, shape or colour. I hope that we shall be able to do that too. I hope that nothing will hinder the foundation of the factory and that we shall see an ever-increasing flow of paper from it. As an English Member, I would like to place an advance order for enough paper from which to print 55,000 copies of my election address as soon as possible.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the principle involved here, there is a deep gulf between the Secretary of State and myself, but the subject I want to raises tonight is of a non-doctrinaire nature. It is the subject of financial accountability.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was a novel project, and we all hope that in some form or another it will be repeated, but would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this sort of project is to be repeated it must not only be above board but be seen by everyone to be above board, because even if
    1426
    nothing goes wrong there are likely to be suspicions and all sorts of rumours?
    I see some of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers smiling, but I wonder whether they would smile if they had on their hands not the case of Wiggins Teape, which is a few hundred years old and a highly respectable firm, but the case, which is sub judice at the moment, of Baileys (Malta) Ltd.? The terms there were not entirely different, but let us leave that with the charitable thought that there may have been some misunderstanding.
    Once one accepts that there are anxieties about the situation which has been created by the Malta firm to which I have referred, it is not fair to assume that at some future date there may be worries if we continue the sort of organisation that is proposed here? I ask the right hon. Gentleman what form of responsibility is to be taken on by the accounting officer. Will he give full details annually to the Public Accounts Committee?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) raised the question of the social capital involved, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Perhaps the right hon, Gentleman will remember that when the B.M.C. factory was constructed at Bathgate the social expenditure by the West Lothian County Council far exceeded the expectations of the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly exceeded the expectations of the county council.
    I end by giving the Bill a welcome on behalf of people who might in the future be hit by the introduction of this project, the paper workers of West Lothian. Although they appreciate that they may be affected by this proposal, they are glad that this project has come to our country.
    10.43 p.m.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I shall be very brief. My hon. Friends have welcomed the Bill, and I join them in doing so.
    I shall not underline the point which has been made about joint public and private enterprise. I think that the point has been taken. We have had many examples in Scotland, the details of which are not clear. For example, we do not

    1427
    know how much the Treasury has spent on the Rootes project. We do not know all the complications of the B.M.C. factory, the strip mill at Ravenscraig, or the graving dock on the Clyde. All these are out of the same stable as this pulp mill, and it is interesting to think that these are all the result of "Conservatocialism". This is not a conversion to Socialism, but in these days of high taxation and therefore, so Conservatives tell me, shortage of capital, this is an enormous sum. At least, this is sometimes the argument that I heard when we were in power, and therefore the Treasury has had to be the recourse of this money.
    The right hon. Gentleman deserves to be congratulated on bringing in this Bill. I only hope that he brings in more Bills like it, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, there is an Act on the Statute Book which foundered in Parliament's intention because the company concerned could not fulfil the obligations imposed on it and did not wish commercially to pursue the matter any further. I refer to the North Atlantic Shipping Act.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock also asked what would happen if the company either did not apply, or, subsequent to the passage of the Bill, changed its mind. This is a very interesting point, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind.
    In the first place, he has done something useful in the Bill and, secondly, he has adopted an anti-Beeching attitude in relation to this part of the country which I hope he will pursue in relation to other parts. But thirdly, a new broom may be willing to sweep a little more cleanly at St. Andrew's House and to look at the constitution of the Scottish Development Department, because possibly in its recruitment of officers and staff lies an alternative to the prospect of this future Act becoming null and void if the firm did not pursue it to its logical end.
    I accept that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to urge on the Government a Royal Commission to go into the question of the recruitment and qualifications of the Civil Service, but he should look at the question of the kind of men being recruited by the Scottish
    1428
    Development Department or the kind of men who will be recruited by it, because it is my firm belief that under either party in the next ten or twenty years we shall have to adopt some kind of public enterprise, using the Civil Service, whether men of business recruited at large salaries to do the job for the State or men brought up within the Civil Service to be able to carry out a commercial function as officers of this country.
    I realise that this is anathema to the former Secretary of State, but his day is over in this respect. It is now the turn of the present Secretary of State and, I think, the turn of the newer Conservatives to try to face up to the prospects which may lie before them. I do not think that they have much of a future, but if they have a future at all they should prepare themselves for it. If we are to rely on our admirable Civil Service to carry out the wishes of Parliament and to exercise the instruments of Government as they should be exercised, it is inevitable that we shall have a Civil Service which has a training in industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock posed the problem of what would have happened if the company had not applied and what would happen if this future Act became null and void because the company did not pursue it. In considering this the right hon. Gentleman, I suggest, must not be doctrinaire and must not push such suggestions as I have made aside. He should leave the matter as open as possible. I believe that in the Scottish Development Department we have a Department which, with a sum of money of its own, independent of the Board of Trade, would be able to develop Scotland as it ought to be developed if it were staffed in the way to equip it for the future area of public enterprise which lies before it.
    10.48 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): The evening is wearing on and I know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House are wondering about their trains. I will try to do justice to the very interesting debate in which so many people have spoken, both from Scotland and from England, and at the same time to be reasonably brief.

    1429
    In recent years in the Highlands most of the projects which we welcomed have been largely constructional—hydro schemes, roads, piers, N.A.T.O. facilities and depots. We welcomed them, but we realised that once the work had finished there were very few jobs left behind. To this extent this new project at Fort William is of tremendous importance.
    If I may give the House a rough breakdown of the jobs which are estimated to arise as it develops, hon. Members will see what I mean. By the end of this year, with luck, we should be employing about 660 people in the area. Next year perhaps the total will reach about 1,800 and the year after that it should be up to about 2,400. Then it will remain steady for a year or two until Phase 2 comes into operation, and the total number of jobs created by the operation will probably reach about 3,500. In this respect it is a very valuable gain to long-term Highland development. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, the chance of industries thriving in the Highlands depends, at least to some extent, on whether they are using local resources. We have industries of all sorts in the Highlands, but where local resources are being used the chances of their continuing to be a success are that much greater.
    The credit for launching this project rests with Wiggins, Teape and with the Government of the day, but its success is due, as I freely admit, to all my predecessors for the last thirty-five years, and particularly, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock said, to Mr. Tom Johnston, who took such an interest in forestry, and to my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), who carried out a lot of the preliminary investigations and talks with Wiggins Teape.
    I should like also to join in the especial welcome for the Bill which will be extended by the forestry workers in the countryside round about. I know them very well, as does the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Working on forestry is not always the most exciting task, and trees grow comparatively slowly. If someone knows that the work he is doing is producing trees which are not going to disappear abroad but will go back into the Highlands to create more work, it is an encouragement to him, and
    1430
    we owe these men and the Forestry Commission a word of thanks for providing the possibility of the scheme.
    Mr. Bence: I appreciate the point that the workers in the forestry industry will be very happy to find their product going into this mill. However, as Wiggins Teape will be a monopoly consumer of the Commission's products, there must be a price factor. It is a monopoly consumer of the thinnings. How will the price factor be fixed? Will it be dependent upon the world price of timber? Will Wiggins Teape be free to buy a world product on a world market from a cheaper source?
    Mr. Noble: No. The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said that Wiggins Teape has made a long-term contract with the Forestry Commission to buy its timber and it will be at world prices. The incentive to the forestry people is there, because the market is there in front of them.
    The hon. Member for Kilmarnock raised many points. Most of them were interesting ones. I do not want to introduce any tone of controversy on the tricky subject of rents. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the rents of forestry workers are higher than the rents of agricultural workers, who in most cases have service houses. It is also true that they are a great deal higher than the rents in many large industrial centres where the wages are a great deal better. This point could be looked at from both directions.
    The hon. Member also said that the availability of hydro power was one of the prerequisites of this scheme. We ought to get the fact right. Extremely important as the Hydro-Electric Board's activities in the whole area of the Highlands have been and will be for many of the ancillary things which will grow round this enterprise, in point of fact Wiggins Teape is producing all its own hydro power.
    There is no dogma in the Scottish Office. We believe that public enterprise and private enterprise are right. After all, they have been combined in the growing of timber. They have been combined in manufacturing with Wiggins Teape. Hon. Members have pointed to the Highlands and Islands shipping

    1431
    services, which show that, though there may be some dogma on one side of the House or the other, there is certainly no visible sign of dogma in the Scottish Office.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Can my right hon. Friend say where the company will get the hydro power from which to produce the electricity it will use?
    Mr. Noble: The company will produce thermal power itself as part of the process in the mill.
    The hon. Member for Kilmarnock then said that the Highlands were a neglected land and he used for his quotation a paper put out by Wiggins Teape. Interesting and exciting though this project is, it is fair to record that there has been an even bigger development in the Highlands since the Government came to power—at Dounreay—and we should not forget this just because it happens to be further up the map near the right-hand corner.
    I was asked to speculate as to what might have happened had the company dropped out and the last of the "little nigger boys" had gone. It has been suggested by various hon. Members opposite that the Government should then have stepped in and run a paper mill themselves. Personally, I should be extremely scared of doing that. In my limited experience, Governments are tremendous users of papers, circulars and so on. I do not think, to be honest, that they would be very efficient makers of paper. I shudder to think, if profits were going down, that the Government might decide that the only way to maintain them was to use more paper.
    There is a serious point which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock made— as did his hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan)—about the problem of denuding the Highlands by "pulling" too many people into Fort William. This must always be a worry, but I do not think that hon. Members should become over-obsessed by it, because the whole of this project, by its nature, needs the combination of the growing areas for the timber and the people who are extracting and handling it, right down to the mill where it is processed.
    1432
    So the nature of the Industry seems to avoid the greatest dangers of too much concentration. Nevertheless, we will certainly watch this point.
    Several hon. Members spoke of the tremendous social expenditure which this mill will bring in its train. I accept this, but I honestly feel that the House must realise that if one goes in for development on a big scale, one must have the social expenditure to match it. That is as true in the Highlands at Fort William as it is at Linwood, Bathgate or any other place. It is desirable and it must be faced. One cannot claim that this is a hidden, extra thing because it is at Fort William. The same happens in any industrial area; and the Highlands have the right to do it, too.
    It should not be thought that, because we are achieving the pulp mill, I now believe that everything is fine in the area for the rest of time. There are other projects and, as the House knows, I shall do my best to help them in any way I can and to get them to Scotland.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) shortly and simply put a few points. I am glad that already there is some help from England and that the money going to the Highlands is not grudged. My hon. Friend raised the problem of the growing output of timber and how it was to be used. He contrasted it with the growth of timber imports. The importance of this mill is that it will use a great deal of the surplus which goes across the Border to England. This point worried my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), but the mill will stop some of the surplus from adding to his problems.
    The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)—who apologised because he had to leave—paid a very sensible tribute to the private owners of woodlands, and knew a good deal of what they were contributing. He asked one or two questions, which I will look into and let him know about, on the problems of sawdust and of quality timber. Big sawmills will almost certainly be set up in conjunction with this enterprise, and even if one cannot use the sawdust one will use the waste wood resulting. He said that the Highlands are not used to the whistle, but at least they have one at Kinlochleven; and that is

    1433
    not far away from Fort William. We cannot discuss the arrangements for women of which he told us, but there will be at least 200 women employed in the factory itself and, of course, an enormous number of extra women will come in on all the ancillary services.
    I should like to deal in great detail with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland, but I think that I should be very largely out of order if I did so. But I do feel that to describe this as a "rescue operation" is completely unfair. For once, this has come in at exactly the right time. Eight or nine years ago, Wiggins Teape investigated whether it was a possible project—and it was not, because there was not enough timber. There now is enough timber, and although, to begin with, as has been said, only two-thirds of it will be home grown and the rest will come from abroad, in a few years' time it will be entirely home grown, and that seems to me to be an excellent and correct plan.
    In considering this Bill, I do not think that we should worry too much about whether we are committed to accepting extra Bills for another £10 million if similar schemes come forward. If similar schemes do come forward, I believe that, if they are good schemes and viable schemes, the House would want the Government to bring in Bills, if necessary, to promote such development.
    The hon. Member for the Western Isles said that the project was rather expensive in terms of money for jobs. That is true if we take just the jobs in the mill, but a great deal will flow from it. I hope that at least some of the wages will go to the buying of the excellent tweed made in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    He also referred to planting in other areas, and this is very important. For the past ten or fifteen years, it is not easy, or it has not been easy, to persuade private owners, farmers and others to plant timber, partly because it is a very expensive operation and partly because, until there was a mill there to use it, there was no possible market for the timber if they grew it. That is an important aspect of this mill. It will encourage the planting of timber on a much wider scale and by a much wider range of people than in the past.
    1434
    The hon. Member also asked about the quantities of imported and of homegrown timber. As was said earlier, to begin with, 8 million hoppus feet will be home-grown softwoods and 4 million imported hardwoods, I think that the firm itself hopes to find some suitable hardwoods at home, but later, as the mill develops, the whole 12 million hoppus feet will be home-grown timber. I will certainly look very carefully at the problem of rail and roads in Kintail and other parts of the Highlands. This is a very difficult problem.
    I am perfectly certain that the conservancy problems that will arise will be watched, and we have the Nature Conservancy to give advice to myself or to my successors. I am confident, too, that the standards of employment to which he referred will be good. Wiggins Teape is a first-class employer, and this is important for the district.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) was very generous in welcoming this mill at Fort William. When the Mill was rather "wandering" round the Highlands, my hon. Friend and I, and others, all hoped that it might settle in our constituencies. I think it is very nice of him to be so generous about it arriving there.
    I think the point that the hon. Member for the Western Isles made about small people coming into forestry is a very good one. I should like to be forthcoming on the co-ordination of hydro roads and forestry roads, but I do not think that I should deal with that matter off the cuff because, if I did, I should run into difficulties about road safety, and so on, as some of the forestry roads are suitable for an experienced driver and a Land Rover but not for a tourist in a family saloon.
    The bridge over the Lochy at Fort William is a bottleneck and that and other road problems we shall have to deal with as quickly as possible. I have always believed that one could do a lot with sea transport for the mill and I know that the Forestry Commission and Wiggins, Teape are looking at this problem.
    The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who was interested in this part of Scotland, which I too know well, has an interest not only in forestry but in fishing. He raised two or three points. I think that he was a little unkind in some

    1435
    of the things he said about forestry villages, though the point in general is a good one. I think the hon. Gentleman was also a little unkind in what he said about private owners who do not always plant. I know that some owners have been better than others, but I believe that the present figure of 93,000 acres a year is being planted in the ratio of 55,000 acres by the Forestry Commission and 38,000 acres by private owners. That is not too bad a balance.
    My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) spoke about the reduction in the rotation of timber, and this is extremely important. Views have been changing fairly fast on this subject, even before the pulp mill came to fruition. I think that the extra rotation will give us a great deal of timber. I should like to discuss with Dr. Frankel the point about the consultative committee because that might be useful.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) has been to Finland, as I have, and seen the small sawmills, two of which we now have in Argyll. I am quite certain that some of these will develop elsewhere. I should not like to answer the hon. Gentleman's point about cellulose and fibreglass because I do not know whether the process is suitable for this mill, but I will rind out.
    The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked about control. I do not think that he would want me to delve into the control problem at this time of night, but the immediate answer is that all the facts and figures will be dealt with by the accounting officer. They will be in the Board of Trade Vote, in the annual Estimates, and will in that way be available to the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will all the accounts be subject to the general scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General?
    Mr. Noble: I think they would be.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman check this?
    Mr. Noble: I can find out about this and let the hon. Gentleman know.
    The social expenditure which he asked about by the West Lothian County Council is certainly a big thing. Inverness County Council is quite ready and eager to help in the supporting develop-
    1436
    ment for its own benefit, as it knows that it will be in the long run.
    The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) warned us about Cunards. I do not believe from the discussions which I have had that there is the least likelihood of Wiggins Teape pulling out of this operation. The company has shown tremendous determination to get into the operation and is very anxious to get started immediately and quickly.
    I am not quite certain that I can agree with the hon. Member about trying to change the whole nature of my Scottish Development Department. If I had to bring in people suitable for top management jobs in all the industries in which we might be interested in Scotland, I should have a very funny Development Department before long.
    We have had an interesting debate and the Bill has been welcomed. I welcome it for four main reasons. In the first place, it gives considerable employment this year in an area which needs it. Secondly, we have a steady build-up for the next three or four years. Thirdly, I believe that it will be an encouragement to other industries to come to Fort William and round about and will encourage industrialists of other sorts to think that the Highlands are not an impossible place in which to develop. Fourthly, and perhaps most important of all, I think that it will play a most significant part in the psychological effect it will have in the Highlands where people will think something really important has come which will provide lasting employment there. I recommend the Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

    FORT WILLIAM PULP AND PAPER MILLS [MONEY]
    [Queen's Recommendation signified]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
    [Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Board of Trade to make advances to Wiggins, Teape & Co.

    1437
    Limited in connection with the construction and equipment of pulp and paper mills in the neighbourhood of Fort William, and to make grants to that company in respect of interest on such advances, it is expedient to authorise the provision out of moneys provided by Parliament—

    (a) of sums not exceeding £10 million in all to be advanced by the Board of Trade to the said company by way of loan;

    (b) of sums not exceeding £1·3 million in all required by the Board of Trade for making grants to the said company in respect of the company's liability for interest accruing before 1st January, 1967, on sums advanced by way of loan under the said Act;

    and the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Board of Trade by way of interest on or repayment of such advances by way of loan.—[Mr. Noble.]
    Resolution to be reported.
    Report to be received Tomorrow.

    POLICE PENSIONS
    Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1963 [draft laid before the House, 19th March], approved.—[Mr. Wood house.]

    CHAROLAIS CATTLE (IMPORT)
    Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay]
    11.13 p.m.
    Mr. John Mackie: I rise to plead that the Minister of Agriculture should reverse a decision which he made a few years ago not to allow the breeding in this country of pure Charolais cattle, the French breed of which he allowed an importation of bulls in 1961. I propose to be brief because I have promised to leave the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) a few minutes to take part in the debate, but I should like to give a short history of this importation.
    In 1957 many farmers who were anxious to improve the crossing of cattle, particularly dairy cattle, in this country felt that this French breed would help. They made private applications to import them, but these were turned down. Then the Milk Marketing Board took an interest in the matter and the Ministry was forced to take notice of the applications. At about the same time as publicity was given to the Milk Marketing
    1438
    Board, the old breed societies, particularly the Shorthorn, Hereford and Angus, began to realise that this was a competition which they would like to fight. I do not blame them for trying to fight this competition—everybody tries to fight competition—but I feel that they fought it in an unfair way.
    The Minister's predecessor, in my opinion, lacked sufficient political courage to take a decision himself, and so he appointed a Committee to give him information which, I think, he had before him all the time. There was this delay caused by the appointment of the Terrington Committee, which ultimately recommended the importation of Charolais bulls, which recommendation the Minister accepted, but the Committee refused to recommend the importation of females at the same time so that the breed could be established in this country.
    I wish to persuade the present Minister that he can no longer shelter behind the Terrington Report. A lot of the opposition was based on the possibility of disease being introduced. This question has now been settled. We have in this country a veterinary service and a quarantine service which can give absolute certainty that no disease will enter when the animals are imported. It has been settled also in another way. Since the applications by individuals to have cattle imported, the Minister has allowed other cattle from Europe to come in, Danish Reds and Dutch Friesians. One lot of Dutch Friesians developed the disease leptospirosis. When the Charolais bulls came in and they took this disease in the quarantine station, there was a chorus of protest. I have in my hand the middle page of the Farmers Weekly, with headlines about "Charolais Shock. Minister receives Protests", and so on. There were calls to send them back to France, and what not.
    Two months ago, when the Friesian animal took the same disease, there was one small paragraph in the Farmers Weekly and the Minister receive no protests whatever. This simply goes to show that it was not the disease problem at all which worried the old breed societies. It was just that they were scared of the competition. I feel that that is proved by the fact that they have not protested when these other breeds have come in.

    1439
    The next fact that shows that the Terrington Report is now quite out of date is that people have changed their minds. Scotland, which, of course, is the home of many breeds, though not of Herefords, created a considerable amount of difficulty against the suggestion that the Charolais breed should be started in this country. When the bulls were allowed in, the Secretary of State for Scotland was persuaded not to allow any into Scotland. Then there was a report in the Farmers Weekly.
    "Angry Scots seek Canadian Bulls".
    They wanted to go to Canada for bulls. More recently, there was the heading,
    "Scots call again for Charolais Bulls".
    They have changed their minds since the bulls came into this country, whereas earlier they protested as the others did.
    Moreover, many breeders who gave evidence to the Terrington Committee against the importation are now using Charolais semen. They told the Committee that the importation would destroy cattle breeding in this country, but some of them were the first to use the semen when the Charolais animals came here. One gentleman, who is a personal friend of mine, was chairman of the Shorthorn Society. When I was speaking in another hon. Member's constituency recently—not on a political subject—he tried to persuade me that Silver Galloways were the best breed to cross with Charolais cattle. Yet he had given evidence against the importation of Charolais.
    If any further evidence were needed, it would be this. An ex-chairman of the Shorthorn Society, who went to France for the Highland Agricultural Society and reported to the Terrington Committee views dead against the importation of Charolais from the start, is now a member of the Charolais Society of Great Britain. This gentleman is a personal friend of mine. He has now seen the error of his ways; he must have done so before joining the Society. But we want to use this man's skills. He is one of the best breeders of cattle in Great Britain. We want his skills to develop the breed so that we can export the cattle all over the world, because there is a demand. It is obvious from what I have said that the Minister
    1440
    must no longer use the Terrington Report. In any event, when have Ministers sheltered behind Reports as much as the Minister has sheltered behind this one? Government Reports are usually pigeonholed and not used.
    Why do we want to breed these cattle, and what is the reason why I consider that we should not wait until the Minister finishes the experiments which are being carried out, and which will take eighteen months to finish, to see what these cattle can do? I will deal with the second of these points first. There is ample evidence for the Minister. If he does not have it, I have it and can give it to him.
    I should like to give the House a few figures. I have details of an experiment extending over eleven years, conducted not by any particular breed society, but by the Texas Agricultural Experimental Station, involving a large number of cattle. This experiment shows that the Charolais and Charolais crosses have an average daily weight gain of 2·8 1b. No doubt, the hon. Member for Hereford will be pleased to know that the next best is the Hereford, with a daily weight gain of 2·4 lb. Down the list with a daily weight gain of 2·2 lb. come the Angus and the Shorthorn. That is a considerable difference in daily weight gains.
    I have some Canadian figures also, which show daily weight gains of up to 3·1 lb. In case, however, anyone replies, "That is all very well, but what about the cutting-out figures", which are the important ones, I have had figures prepared showing a difference above the lowest figure of the other breeds of 22·8 dollars in return and killing out, which, at an exchange rate of 2·83 dollars to the £, represents a difference of something like £8 in favour of the Charolais cattle killed out.
    I can quote one of the country's best authorities who went to the Argentine to see the crosses. It will be apparent that I am quoting from all over the world—Alberta and Vancouver, in Canada, Texas and the Argentine—from countries whose climates are either comparable to or worse than ours. From the Argentine, Professor Cooper has quoted figures showing that at an average weaning age of eight months, the Charolais crosses had an advantage of

    1441
    1½cwt. over the Herefords and other breeds and an average daily weight gain of 3 lb. These figures are impressive. I have other figures showing that the Charolais have weight gains of 3·05 lb. and returns of 26 dollars above other breeds on sale.
    I should like to call attention to the figures for the calves now being born in this country. I have gone around collecting various figures and I find anything up to liveweight gains of 3 lb. in the first three months of the life of the calves in this country. A big breeder with fifty of them averaged gains of 2·52 lb. at less than 100 days. I am sorry to tread on the toes of the hon. Member for Hereford, but that same man has a batch of almost the same number of Hereford X Friesians, the figure for which is just under 2 lb., as against the 2·52 lb. for the Charolais. This shows the difference. I could go on quoting figures.
    Some time ago, the Parliamentary Secretary tried to persuade me that South Devons might be the answer, so I wrote to that society and got particulars, from which I was horrified to find that the highest figure which that breed could produce was about 1·5 lb. in one experiment and 1·85 lb. in another, coming nowhere near the figures of the Charolais. These figures for Charolais are really impressive and attention should be paid to them.
    What do the farmers think now that they have tried these cattle and since the first cross calves arrived? I have investigated the numbers of inseminations to find out what success there has been and whether there has been difficulty in calving. I find from Aberdeen, the home of one of the breed societies, that during the last three months, over the first seven months when Charolais bulls have been made available, there has been an 80 per cent. increase in inseminations. In another case in England, the area of which I was asked not to quote, the increase was actually double during the last three months since the first calves arrived. So there is proof that the Minister does not need to wait any longer. All the proof is in front of him that this breed is worth a trial.
    Why do we want pure breeding in this country? It is because we want pro-
    1442
    gress. There is no other word to use. I have heard the argument that there are too many breeds in the country already. But that is a measure of the fact that not one of them is the right one. It is the same with pigs. We have too many pig breeds. The import of Landrace pigs has almost solved that problem; and I think that the import of Charolais cattle will solve the cattle breed problem. There is certainly room here for the Charolais breed.
    Another reason is that there is a world demand for the cattle. This country has a name for breeding pure cattle second to none. As I said, I want to use the skills of the ordinary breeders. I am not a breeder of cattle; I am more of an arable farmer. But I mentioned my friend, and I want to use his skill to improve these cattle in order to get trade all over the world, I have been in Canada and the United States, and the demand is tremendous there. My brother, just back from New Zealand, says that they are dying for this semen or these bulls there. But the Minister will not allow the export. Ireland has gone to the length of getting American Charolais, and is beating us to it. So I could go on.
    There was a letter in the Economist from the hon. Member for Hereford speaking about the need to increase exports of cattle. He wants us to export the cattle that the world wants. The world wants this type of cattle more than any other. I suggest that he thinks about this.
    The Minister must agree that we have lost six years. We could have bought the cattle in 1957. The Minister may say another year or two does not matter. But that is what is wrong with this country. It is always later than we think. We ought to be getting on with the job.
    I wish to quote the Secretary of State for Scotland. I told him I would do so, but he said he had to leave. He told the Scottish National Farmers' Union:
    "In our thinking about the future we must be ready to question traditional practices and attitudes."
    I should like to think that he is not holding this development up in any way. I want to question the old breed societies about the old breeds not being the right ones for the country, and point out that the

    1443
    new one is not something from back of the Himalayas or a cross between a dromedary and a yak but a breed established in France and used all over the world. But one would think it was some curious breed of which we were scared.
    I appeal to the Minister. I appeal on behalf of our Canadian friends for one thing. Their importation was in 1933–37, and they have cross bred and had no fresh blood. They want us to help them. Why should we not help our friends in the Commonwealth? It is harmless to give them semen. Yet the Minister has refused it. I appeal on their behalf and for the sake of exports from our country. We would like Charolais direct from France if the Minister would allow it but would be content to import Canadian cattle. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that his right hon. Friend takes note of what I have said. He will never regret altering his decision. Even if we have wasted six years, let us start now and not waste more time.
    11.29 p.m.
    Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I am glad to be able to say a few words in this debate. It seems to have been somewhat of a Scottish evening. The main difference between the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) and myself is that my folk left Scotland 200 years ago while he still has one foot north of the Border.
    I am going to hit him pretty hard. I make no excuse. I just warn him before I start. On 30th January last year I raised this question on the Adjournment, and the debate was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), and it was also contributed to by the hon. Member for Enfield, East. I make no bones about the fact that I was one of those opposed to the importation of these cattle from the start. I want to explain why.
    I find it odd that the hon. Member should raise this matter tonight in an effort to get the Minister to allow the Charolais breed to be brought into the country more quickly than at present planned. Everyone knows his interest in the matter, although one can hardly call it a constituency interest. It is an interest he shares with friends of his, and I think it a little odd that an hon. Member should ask the Minister to make something go
    1444
    quicker so that a certain body of people can thereby do a great deal better out of it. I say that quite straight to him. I hope that he will understand me.
    Mr. Mackie: The fact is that the hon. Member and his friends are trying to prevent me doing so in order that they can have the thing to themselves.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: That is not the point.
    Mr. Mackie: It is.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Member refers to my friends. I represent a constituency which has the largest breed of cattle anywhere in the world, and I am proud of it. But the hon. Member is not making a constituency point. It is, rather, a personal point on something out of which he and his friends, the Charolais Society, might make a very good thing. If I say that he is rather like Oliver Twist in asking the Minister for more, then he will understand what I want to say.
    At the Perth sales this year I found a great number of his agricultural friends saying that the hon. Member would have better used his ability in boosting the export of our own cattle instead of asking the Minister to hurry up this experiment.
    Perhaps the most important question is one I raised last year in the Adjournment debate when I said that I had visions of unnecessary cruelty being caused by using large, heavy animals with animals which were very small behind.
    That was with particular regard to the crossing on Ayrshire cattle, and I asked what results there had been in this respect and what had happened in the experiment. There had been disturbing reports. The hon. Member was rash enough to quote from the Farmers Weekly. I shall quote from it also, from this week's edition. A letter from a reader said:
    "Seven of my Ayrshire cows have calved to Charolais bulls and to date I have only had one calving without complications. Except for that one calf all the animals have had varying damage to the pelvis."
    I will miss out a great number of other paragraphs and come to the last which says:
    " Of the seven calves born only three were born alive and two died shortly after."
    This is an important point. I ask my hon. Friend to comment on that report. As his Ministry is in charge of the

    1445
    experiment he must know a great deal more about it than one person writing to the Farmers Weekly. Those who concentrate only on the liveweight gains are not seeing the whole picture. We must not be blind to the problem of cruelty to animals. We must watch that very carefully.
    When the Minister initiated this experiment and opened the London Quarantine Station to let these animals in, he said it was the intention to improve the crossing of dairy breeds. He said that he would not hurry to introduce the breed itself. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that assurance.
    One of the Charolais colleagues of the hon. Member for Enfield, East, Mr. Wheaton-Smith, broke the law with regard to the importation of Charolais semen. Can we be told where he is at the moment, whether he is still abroad or whether he has come back to this country? Perhaps the debate tonight may have had something to do with him, and I think that the history of the Charolais importation has been somewhat chequered by events of this sort.
    To sum up, I ask my hon. Friend to recognise the cruelty factor, to carry out the tests to their logical conclusion, to give our breeds an adequate chance to compete, and not to be rushed into giving way. I quote my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland who wound up the debate last year, and, quoting St. Paul, said:
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
    11.35 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) for raising this topic tonight. I have not much time in which to answer the points made by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt).
    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said during his speech that the peg on which he wished to hang the hat of this debate was is Question about the importation of Friesian cattle from Holland, one of which reacted to the test for leptospirosis. There is no division of opinion about the need for effective safeguards over the health of livestock, and these are written
    1446
    into the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, which imposes a general ban upon imports of cattle from all sources outside the British Isles other than Canada, for which there are special arrangements.
    My right hon. Friend may make orders permitting importations from other countries, but we seek to minimise the use of these powers in order to reduce the number of occasions on which our animal health is at risk. The importation of Dutch Friesian cattle this year was the first for over twelve years, and they were allowed in because we were satisfied that it would continue the process of breed improvement which previous importations had brought about. The importation was organised by the British Friesian Cattle Society.
    One heifer reacted to a leptospirosis test and was returned to Holland, but the remainder were kept in quarantine for a further twenty-eight days. At the end of that time, after further tests, they were given a clean bill of health and went elsewhere throughout the country.
    The hon. Gentleman made the point in his Question to the House, and in his speech tonight, that this reaction caused little concern compared with the outcry which arose when some of the Charolais bulls showed a similar reaction during their stay in quarantine. When the bulls were brought into this country, there was tremendous public interest. The public were interested in everything that hap-pended, and when three of them reacted to the leptospirosis test this was a matter of tremendous public interest, and the fact was reported in the Press. There was not a public outcry, but there was certainly great interest in what happened. This is why the matter received such wide publicity.
    There have been no repercussions during the fourteen months since they left their quarantine. The Charolais experience therefore demonstrated the efficacy of the safeguards that we took, and it was natural that the Friesian reaction should cause less fuss.
    The hon. Gentleman made the plea that we could safely bring in numbers of Charolais females from France with the object of establishing the breed here. He makes the point that things have changed since my right hon. Friend's original decision. It is true that there is nothing

    1447
    to stop us bringing in cattle from France, if the veterinary requirements are satisfied, but this is not the dominant factor.
    I take the point about cruelty made by my hon. Friend. There have been about 60,000 inseminations, but I have no details of the amount of difficulty that there has been in calving. I understand that there have been one or two isolated cases of difficulty, particularly with the small breeds like the Ayrshires, but I shall look into the matter and let my hon. Friend know the position.
    These bulls were brought here for the purpose of experimental cross-breeding, and it will be at least another eighteen months before the results of this crossbreeding can be fully assessed. This can be done only on the butcher's slab, which is the ultimate test.
    The hon. Member for Enfield, East now says that he is bringing forward new evidence about the Charolais breed. He is bringing forward evidence of lightweight gain and killing-out percentages, but he quoted dollars, which made his argument a little confusing. All this is new evidence, and obviously we must study it very closely.
    The object of our own trials is to see how Charolais crosses perform in this country when produced by females of our breeds and reared in our climate. I think that the hon. Member recognises the importance of this. On the last occasion that we debated the subject he asked, "How can we test our cattle in France in a totally different climate?"
    If I understand him correctly, he is now asking us to make a fresh approach to the subject and to appraise the Charolais breed itself on the basis of the new evidence and data available from the various countries concerned with a view to its establishment here as a pure breed on its merits. He has made out a fair case on the evidence, but I have not that evidence at my command. I am willing to examine it for its authenticity and applicability.
    1448
    Whatever the outcome of such an examination—and obviously I cannot now forecast its outcome—the earliest practical date for an importation would be late in 1964 because of the vaccination problems in France. We shall also know a great deal more by that time about the outcome of our cross-breeding trials. I feel sure that there would be general agreement that if we are to establish the breed here it must be from the best possible available stock. This minimum timetable leaves my right hon. Friend time for consideration. We, will study the evidence which the hon. Member has presented and form a view in good time on whether there would be justification for an earlier decision or whether the Government should await the final results of the current cross-breeding trials being carried out with our existing breeds.
    The hon. Member spoke about importation of cattle from Canada. This is a very complex matter, and there are regulations which cover it. I hope that he realises that these regulations mean that only pure-bred cattle can be brought into this country for breeding. Only if they conform to our standards are they allowed in.
    I have no information on the point which my hon. Friend made about a gentleman whom he mentioned, but I will look into that matter.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, East will give me the evidence which he has so that we can study it closely and make up our minds on it. We have time to do so because of the timetable. We have time to evaluate it, and if it proves satisfactory we shall decide whether the Government should not delay their decision or whether we should continue to the end of the current tests in order to make certain of our assessments at the end of the day.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ROYAL NAVY
  Naval Establishments, Petersfield
  Naval Establishments, Petersfield
  Research and Development Establishments (Scotland)
  Research and Development Establishments (Scotland)
  Weapons Department (Head of Central Services Section)
  Weapons Department (Head of Central Services Section)
  Polaris Submarines
  Polaris Submarines
BRITISH ARMY
  Land, Petersfield
  Land, Petersfield
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Blind Workshops (Bedding Repair Contracts)
  Blind Workshops (Bedding Repair Contracts)
  Worthy Down (Electronic Computer)
  Worthy Down (Electronic Computer)
  Sheikhdom of Oman (Casualties)
  Sheikhdom of Oman (Casualties)
SCOTLAND
  Pit Bings (Tree Planting)
  Pit Bings (Tree Planting)
  Hospital Boards (Appointments)
  Hospital Boards (Appointments)
  Hospital Supplies (Contracts)
  Hospital Supplies (Contracts)
  Mobile Houses
  Mobile Houses
  Mackenzie Report
  Mackenzie Report
  Highlands and Islands (Transport Facilities)
  Highlands and Islands (Transport Facilities)
  South of Scotland Electricity Board (Power Station)
  South of Scotland Electricity Board (Power Station)
  Housing, Glasgow
  Housing, Glasgow
  Schools, Lanarkshire
  Schools, Lanarkshire
  Stornoway-Ullapool Ferry Service
  Stornoway-Ullapool Ferry Service
  Western Highlands and Islands (Rail Services)
  Western Highlands and Islands (Rail Services)
  Canal and Railway Bridges, Linlithgow
  Canal and Railway Bridges, Linlithgow
  Rates
  Rates
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Local Government Areas
  Local Government Areas
  Loch Lomond (Water Supplies)
  Loch Lomond (Water Supplies)
  Garrick Hospital, Stranraer
  Garrick Hospital, Stranraer
  Part-time Further Education (Girls)
  Part-time Further Education (Girls)
  North-East Fishing Fleets (Landings)
  North-East Fishing Fleets (Landings)
  Probation Service (Report)
  Probation Service (Report)
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Schemes)
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Schemes)
  Railway Reorganisation
  Railway Reorganisation
  Member's Letter (Linoleum Industry)
  Member's Letter (Linoleum Industry)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Sentenced Technicians
  Sentenced Technicians
ROADS
  Slough Bypass
  Slough Bypass
  Residential Streets (Lorry Parking)
  Residential Streets (Lorry Parking)
  Leeds-Sheffield Motorway
  Leeds-Sheffield Motorway
  Road Programme (Beeching Report)
  Road Programme (Beeching Report)
  Woodhead Trunk Road
  Woodhead Trunk Road
  Mortlake Road, Richmond (Pedestrian Tunnel)
  Mortlake Road, Richmond (Pedestrian Tunnel)
  Snow Clearing (Wales and Monmouthshire)
  Snow Clearing (Wales and Monmouthshire)
  Hyde Park Underpass
  Hyde Park Underpass
  Whitehall (Bus Stops)
  Whitehall (Bus Stops)
TRANSPORT
  Hall Report
  Hall Report
  Motor Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles
  Vehicle Test Certificates
  Vehicle Test Certificates
  South Eastern Area Transport Users Consultative Committee
  South Eastern Area Transport Users Consultative Committee
  Rural Bus Services (Report)
  Rural Bus Services (Report)
  Scotland
  Scotland
SHIPPING
  U.S.S.R. (Shipbuilding Orders)
  U.S.S.R. (Shipbuilding Orders)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry Commission (Grant)
  Forestry Commission (Grant)
  Marketing Boards (Appointments)
  Marketing Boards (Appointments)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  South Africa (Supply of Arms)
  South Africa (Supply of Arms)
WEST INDIES
  Federation
  Federation
  Fiscal and Civil Service Commissions
  Fiscal and Civil Service Commissions
GAMBIA
  Projects
  Projects
BRITISH GUIANA
  British Troops
  British Troops
BECHUANALAND
  Constitution
  Constitution
NORTH-EAST
  Lord President of the Council (Report)
  Lord President of the Council (Report)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Traffic Wardens
  Traffic Wardens
HOSPITALS
  Chronic Sick
  Chronic Sick
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rating, Dorset
  Rating, Dorset
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers, Aberdeen
  School Leavers, Aberdeen
  Aberavon
  Aberavon
  MOMBASA (U.N. TRANSIT CAMP)
  MOMBASA (U.N. TRANSIT CAMP)
  VIETNAM (MONTAGNARDS)
  VIETNAM (MONTAGNARDS)
  RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
  RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Industrial Development Certificates (Existing Premises)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Existing Premises)
  Advance Factories, Fraserburgh and Peterhead
  Advance Factories, Fraserburgh and Peterhead

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

ASCENSION ISLAND TRANSMITTER
2.35 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is anticipated that the medium-wave transmitter on Ascension Island for the B.B.C's Overseas Service, referred to in the debate in this House on March 26, 1963, is likely to be in operation.]
THR MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to make clear the Government's intentions in this matter, following what I said in the debate on March 26. Her Majesty's Government have recognised the value of medium-wave transmissions, and test transmissions are at present being carried out on these wavelengths from Ascension Island in order that an assessment can be made of the coverage which could be obtained from that site. The results of these tests must be awaited before any further decisions are taken. Meanwhile, we are much further ahead with our plan to install a shortwave station on Ascension Island, which should take about two and a half years to complete.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer, but I recollect his saying to me in his speech, "when the Ascension Island station is working", not "if it were working". He was categorical about it; and I asked him categorically whether he was referring to the medium-wave, and he replied, "Yes". Am I to understand, in fact, that the Government have not decided yet to have a medium-wave or long-wave transmitter there?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords. The object of the exercise is to establish a medium-wave transmitter on Ascension Island, and I certainly hope that will be done. But, meanwhile, there are certain further tests which must be made before any decision on it is taken, which I was not aware of when I made my reply to the noble Lord, and I am as hopeful as he is that all will be well.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. May I take it then, that if the tests are satisfactory the money with be forthcoming for the station?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly. So far as it is concerned with me, yes.

INDEPENDENCE OF B.B.C's EXTERNAL SERVICES
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the statement by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in this House on March 26, 1963, that in its external services the British Broadcasting Corporation "co-operates with the Government in producing the features which we agree will best carry out the aims of British policy and the needs of the Free World". is to be interpreted as modifying in any way the "independence of programme content" enjoyed by the Corporation, as reaffirmed in paragraph 9 of the White Paper on Overseas Information Services of July, 1957 (Cmnd. 225) in conformity with Clause 15(5) of the Corporation's licence.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, when I spoke of the production by the B.B.C. of features which carry out the aims of British policy, I had in mind the great value of the External Services of the B.B.C. as supporting the needs of the Free World, and the aims of British policy. I did not intend to imply that, there had been any change in the relationship between the B.B.C. and Her Majesty's Government. So far as the B.B.C External Services are concerned, that relationship remains as set out in Clause 15(5) of the Corporation's licence, as reaffirmed in the White Paper to which my noble friend refers.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reassuring reply.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is a fact that the B.B.C. receive certain funds from the Exchequer for the External Services? Would not the noble Earl also agree that it is of considerable benefit for the Free World that the B.B.C. programmes should appear to be independent of any basic Government policy or dictate? Would the Government not consider some other arrangement by which the B.B.C. could finance this very essential service which would clearly take it away from any suspicion that it is an instrument of Government propaganda or policy?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I will certainly consider that, my Lords. The first part of the noble Lord's question, which is entirely correct, was a reason for the distinction which I tried to make in my speech between External and Internal Services.

TESTING OF DRUGS
2.40 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 they will pay special attention to the Minority Report of the Joint Sub-Committee on Safety of Drugs, which represents the views of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, before establishing any non-statutory organisation which might be considered by the Pharmaceutical Society to be ineffectual.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, my right honourable friends the Health Ministers have noted the minority view, but do not agree that a voluntary scheme will be ineffective or that action should await legislation. As I informed the House on April 4, the Government have in mind a review of the law relating to drugs generally with a view to legislation.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that the plan suggested by the Cohen Commit-
972
tee is just what the drug industry want? It will preserve all their rights to make as much profit as they can without submitting any of their products to clinical test. Does the noble Lord know that the Pharmaceutical Society, which has a high ethical standard, has said that there are so many loopholes in the voluntary scheme that we shall have simply a return to the position which existed before thalidomide—a position, in fact, from which we have not moved? He surely cannot ignore an organisation which has as its secretary a Member of another place, an organisation which knows all about this subject but does not make, as I have said, the unholy profits of the drug industry. May I point out that in all these months other countries have been introducing legislation on the matter? I have put Question after Question, and I have been told to await this Report, and after months of labour this miserable little mouse has appeared.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think the answer is that, valuable though their advice is, the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain are not the Government of Great Britain, and we accept the views of the Majority Report. I would point out to the noble Baroness that she has, as she has just told your Lordships, complained about delay before the Government reached any decision. If we were to accept the recommendation of the Minority Report there would be still further delay.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, further to the point my noble friend has raised, is it not a fact that the Majority Report has the weakness that it favours the bad drug industry of Britain? The good drug industry, the progressive people, who really test their goods will in fact be penalised under the Majority scheme, as compared with the bad people who do not bother to test their drugs properly. Is that not the weakness of it? Is not the right thing to do to accept both the Majority and the Minority Reports and get ahead with legislation as quickly as possible in order to implement the Minority Report, which, I am sure, we all accept does need legislation?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not think we can debate the

973
Report by question and answer. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, began his question with the words, "Is it not a fact …?." The answer is, it is an opinion.
LORD TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that what I said is a fact, is a fact?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House, in his capacity of Minister for Science, whether this is going to be the only country in the world, apart from, let us say, the emergent territories in Africa, where drugs which have never been subject to a clinical test are still to be put on the market?—because if we leave the position now without accepting the Minority Report, that will be the situation.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this has nothing to do with me as Minister for Science because it is a political judgment which the noble Baroness is seeking to pass upon the matter. Secondly, she is persisting in debating something which can and, I hope, will be debated, but not, I trust, by question and answer.
LORD LINDGREN: But, surely, my Lords, a question of human life is not a question of political judgment; it is a question of correct organisation in order that there shall be public protection.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, what the noble Baroness put to me was not a question of human life, but of whether this country would be the only country in the world to conform to certain specifications.
LORD TAYLOR: Is it not one of the delights of this House that we are entitled to have something which, although couched in interrogative form, nevertheless resembles a debate arising out of Questions?
LORD REA: My Lords, the noble Baroness indicated that it was a very long time before this small mouse came into evidence. Could the Minister perhaps tell us the normal period of gestation of a mouse?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I shall have to inquire of the Agricultural Research Council.
A NOBLE LORD: Six to eight weeks.

BASUTOLAND POLICE AND SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the contents of any documents seized by the Basutoland police were communicated to the police or the Government of the Union of South Africa.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, it would be contrary to established practice to make public statements about the confidential relations which are maintained between the police forces of all countries in the prevention of crime. Whilst I have no specific information, I feel quite sure that the Basutoland police have not communicated any information which it would not be normal for the police of one country to pass to another. However, it should not be assumed from this that the Basutoland police have, in fact, passed information. They understand clearly that it is not part of their duty to pass information to the South African authorities in connection with acts which would not constitute offences under the law of the United Kingdom. In view of the situation, my right honourable friend has expressly reminded the authorities that it is not their duty to pass such information.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Duke whether he expects that I can be satisfied with an answer which suggests that we can neither assume that this information has been passed on by the Basutoland Police to the South African Police nor assume that this has not been done? May I ask the noble Duke whether he is not aware that in the minds of many people the fact that several hundred men have been arrested in South Africa, immediately after these documents were seized in Basutoland, suggests more than a mere coincidence? May I also ask him whether he would not agree that the growing tension between Basutoland and the Republic of South Africa is placing our Ambassador in South Africa in an impossible position? Does he not agree that it

975
is impossible for our Ambassador to have the confidence of the South African Government and of the people of Basutoland? If this is the case, should not the Government, at the earliest possible opportunity, separate the two posts, so that they may be held by different individuals? Finally, may I ask the noble Duke whether he will impress upon the Government the desirability of asking the Government of South Africa to negotiate an extradition treaty, such as we have with other foreign countries, which will distinguish between political refugees, such as members of a banned political organisation and offenders or alleged offenders against the criminal law?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer the noble Earl's series of supplementaries. I will certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to his last two points. On the question of the desirability of separating the two posts, I am sure that he will give due weight to what the noble Earl said. I shall also draw his attention to the matter of the desirability of negotiating an extradition treaty. As regards the wider question, I must confess that I can only apologise for not being able to give the House more specific information; but the fact remains that the position is not clear. My right honourable friend has been in urgent communication with the authorities to try to clear up the position, but at this moment I fear that, with all sincerity, I cannot yet give more specific information than I have done in my original reply.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, before arriving at any decision to separate these two posts, would the Minister consider most carefully whether it is not in the best interests of Basutoland, which is surrounded by South African territory and has to live on terms with the Union of South Africa, to continue the existing practice? I think that noble Lords who have occupied the same post as myself will agree that on the whole they have enjoyed pretty happy relations over Customs and all sorts of services. Before any decision is taken to alter what has been the existing practice, would the Minister carefully consider the practical convenience of having the two posts together, whatever the logical distinction may be?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I have no doubt whatever that, when considering this matter, my right honourable friend will give due weight to all questions. I hope that I did not mislead the House when I said that my right honourable friend would pay attention to what the noble Earl who asked the Question said. The last thing I wish is to commit him in any way. I meant merely that I would report to him the views expressed by the noble Earl opposite.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, if the noble Duke is unable, as he says, to answer a plain question of fact, is it not a reflection on the state of administration inside the Protectorate of Basutoland if that information is not obtainable?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have no doubt that the position will be clarified; but at this moment, in the interests of accuracy (the last thing I wish to do is to mislead the House), I can only repeat what I said: that on this particular issue I have no specific information.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I cannot ask any more Questions because we are rising this afternoon, but if I put down a Question for Written Answer will the noble Duke do his best to obtain this information for the week when we start sitting again? May I say that I am asking this Question because I think that, on reflection, he will agree that it is not purely a police matter but a matter of very great political importance.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I fully appreciate the wider implications of this question. I should like to thank the noble Earl for his very considerate attitude, and if he puts down a Question for Written Answer I will do all in my power to see that the Answer fully satisfies him.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—LIBRARY
Three reports from the Sub-Committee on the Library were laid before the Committee.
2.—The Committee considered the Report of the Sub-Committee set up to examine the proposal that a picture be painted of the House in session, and agreed with their recommendation that the commission be placed with Mr. A. R. Thomson, R.A.
The Committee have placed the detailed implementation of the proposal in the hands of the said Sub-Committee from which it will receive reports from time to time.
3.—PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of Mr. John Christopher Sainty as a Senior Clerk in the Parliament Office from 1st January, 1963.
4.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishments Circulars:—

(a) No. 4/63 Pay of the Higher Civil Service;

(b) No. 5/63 Pay scales partly or wholly between the Principal's maximum and the Assistant Secretary's minimum.

to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
5.—LORDS OF APPEAL
The Committee authorised the employment of outside typing assistance for the nine Lords of Appeal.
6.—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
The Committee authorised the employment of an additional Police Sergeant for permanent duty in the Palace of Westminster and sanctioned the payment of the proportion of the cost attributable to the House of Lords.
7.—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1962–63
The Committee approved a Supplementary Estimate for the year 1962–63 submitted to meet expected excess due mainly to the further provision required for increased rates of pay and allowances for shift duty, two new posts, increased outside assistance and revised charges for Police services; partly offset by savings on staff changes and vacancies and an increase in Appropriations-in-Aid.
8.—RETIREMENTS
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following awards under the Superannuation Acts:—

(a) pension and additional allowance to Miss Lilian Katherine Hammond, Personal Assistant to the Lords of Appeal, on her retirement on the 8th June, 1963;

(b) revised gratuity to Mr. Frank Austin Rideout, Senior Custodian, who retired on the 27th January, 1963;

(c) gratuity to Mr. Edward Bernham Weeks, Custodian, on his retirement on the 25th May, 1963;

(d) gratuity to Mrs. Nellie Louisa Pallot, Housemaid, who retired on the 16th March, 1963.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AIREDALE): My Lords,
978
on behalf of the Lord Chairman, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Airedale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. I think that, in accordance with the normal practice, I should do this formally; but, of course, if any of your Lordships have any questions arising out of the Report I will do my best to answer them.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Airedale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
2.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD rose to call attention to the economic situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the economic situation. I share the deep regret of the whole House that my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hills-borough is not here to move the Motion himself. I spoke to him on the telephone this morning in Manor House Hospital. He told me he is making good progress and hopes to go home for a rest at Easter. I feel certain that the whole House would want to send him a message of good wishes.
For years this Motion was moved by our dear friend the late Lord Pethick-Lawrence, whose criticisms of the Government were once described by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who I am glad to think will be speaking to-day, as "always fair, reasonable and consistent". In fact, the criticisms of my noble friend were sharper than noble Lords opposite were perhaps disposed to admit. Two years ago, for instance, he rtferred to [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 231, col. 623]:
"all the troubles that have afflicted industry since Conservative Governments have played ducks and drakes with the monetary system of this country."
But noble Lords opposite refused to be at all disconcerted by this. In fact, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer during much of the relevant period, referred to this as "just one small matter on which

979
he differed", but agreed that my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence was in particularly good form that day and said that everyone was delighted with his speech. So the matter was disposed of to his satisfaction. But, of course, that "one small matter" that "little local difficulty"—as the Prime Minister said of another Chancellor of the Exchequer who was also disposed of for a time, I am glad to think—was the total mishandling of our financial affairs by Conservative government during the last ten years. That was the main burden of my noble friend's speeches and has been our criticism from this side for a number of years.
My mind goes back to the time when we Labour people were in the Government for a number of years. These debates were opened by another old friend of many of us, whom we remember—certainly the Minister who is going to reply, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who I am glad to see is taking part, and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby and many of us—the late Lord Cherwell. None of his opponents ever referred to his economic speeches as "fair, reasonable or consistent". He would have been totally disgusted if he had produced that sort of comment. None of us doubted the depths of his convictions and, as one who had to reply to his speeches, I can testify to the brilliance of his epigrams. Here I am, devoid of Lord Cherwell's gift of biting phrase and Lord Pethick-Lawrence's wisdom, and I must emulate Lord Pethick-Lawrence in at least one respect and try to concentrate on one or two fundamentals.
I wish that I could hope to emulate the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who opened a debate on television in fifteen minutes or so, and set us a salutary example which I do not think any of us has ever tried to follow since. I shall inflict as few statistics as possible on the House, following Lord Pethick-Lawrence's very acceptable example, and I shall leave to other speakers some of the most vital questions—the whole issue of regional unemployment, for example, which, perhaps, from a human point of view ranks highest in our feelings at the moment. I shall not concern myself with the details of the Budget, though I do not want to discourage any
980
other speaker who feels disposed to do so. I want to take the Chancellor of the Exchequer at his own valuation and treat him as a man with a dominant theme, though it will take me a few minutes to reach it.
I have spent the week-end reading through the debates in your Lordships' House over the last few years—replied to with supreme assurance and an air of infallibility by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and other speakers, whatever might be the particular policy of the hour—and, no doubt with less profit, my own speeches, delivered as chairman of a clearing bank, until I retired from that post recently. Surely, all fair-minded citizens can agree that these last years have been profoundly disappointing; that is, if we believe in the potentialities of the British people, and if we believe that the British people are capable to-day of as great an effort as ever and as any other country in the world.
I will not go into details—these facts have been given so often—comparing our economic performance with that of other countries, whether capitalist, Socialist or Communist. I am not going to try to introduce new and crafty statistics to-day in order to take anybody by surprise. But, if I may take one illustration, of the twenty countries mentioned in the last Report of the O.E.C.D. we come out last but one in the rate of growth from 1950 to 1960. Then I might take the last year of that period, 1962. In that year our gross national product was stationary, to be kind about it: in fact there was a slight decline. The House is aware that there was a considerable increase in unemployment last year, even before the exceptionally bad weather, and more when the bad weather overtook us. According to the Report of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, published yesterday and reported in the Press to-day, our country has the sorry distinction of being the only Western European country in 1962—not last but one this time—whose volume of national output was practically unchanged for the year. (I am quoting from the international Report); and ours is the only country in 1962 of the countries covered where the unemployment situation has seriously deteriorated. Until last year, 1962, we were well and truly bottom of the class.
I appeal to Ministers particularly, but to other speakers opposite as well. Need we go on disputing these facts or brushing them aside as if they were not significant? Noble Lords opposite are not lacking in ingenuity. Surely they can accept what I have just said and yet fall back on what lawyers, I think, call alternative lines of argument. They will not, I hope, demean themselves by making a silly boast of the fact that the standard of life in this country is probably higher than ever before. With the unceasing advance of technology, here and everywhere, it could hardly be otherwise, even if our affairs were administered from Broadmoor—and I do not locate the Government in that institution. It would be impossible, I think, for them to drag down the standard of life that has been enjoyed in the last few years; but there are arguments they could bring forward, with varying degrees of plausibility—though most of us would not accept them, at any rate as a strong excuse.
They could argue that in recent years our country has been subject, through no fault of our own, to peculiar difficulties. There was an interesting passage about that in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, last April. I certainly do not underestimate the importance or difficulty of the point he raised in this passage, though I do not accept it as a sufficient alibi. He then said: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 239, col. 948]:
"Our economy and currency are unduly vulnerable, for reasons which are not discreditable to us, to fluctuation in international confidence … our material prosperity is higher than ever before, but it is too dependent on the will of others."
That, in my opinion, does not constitute a large alibi for the Government, but there is an important point there which we on this side of the House should be foolish to sweep aside lightly.
Noble Lords opposite might argue that things have not gone too well under their policy in the fifties, but that they might have gone worse under ours. Or they could argue that the old policies had not worked, but that if they were given another chance by the electorate they could produce some new ones for sale. None of these arguments would convince us on these Benches, but at least they would make a rational dialogue possible. But a rational civilised
982
dialogue is impossible if the facts of our comparative economic failure in the last ten years are simply denied.
The first spokesman for the Government in our debate last year (and I certainly do not want to pick on him individually: he commands a great deal of respect in your Lordships' House) used these words (col. 859):
"I have given your Lordships a pretty cheerful picture."
That was last year; and "I have given your Lordships" was how he was inclined to sum up his own speech. Noble Lords opposite were not, I think, very pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who I am glad to think will wind up for our side to-day, said:
"This speech makes me absolutely despair"—
he was referring, of course, to the speech about the "cheerful picture". I recognise, as I am sure does the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that despair must rank with spiritual pride as the gravest of sins, but the one is apt to follow the other, and I am afraid that I may commit that same sin of despair this year if the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, still claim that last year's Budget and the policies connected with it were well-conceived and, in fact, were successful. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said last year (col. 945):
"If what we want is re-flation, the Budget is wrong."
He then, very sensibly, said:
"The question is whether the appreciation upon which the Budget is founded is a sound one. If it is sound"—
and that means the appreciation upon which it was founded—
"the Budget is a good one; if it is unsound, it is not irrelevant, but bad."
That was the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, last year, speaking with his accustomed force and clarity. It is not a moral offence or a dereliction of duty to make a faulty appreciation, which, of course, involves a large element of prediction. Indeed, it is hard to make a good prediction, and one must not be too critical, because nobody is ever absolutely right in these matters. But it is, surely, now clear to everybody that last year's appreciation, on which the Government based such confident arguments, retailed to your Lordships, was

983
grossly mistaken. It is surely clear to almost everybody—perhaps to the Government themselves; I rather think it is from the way they have acted in recent times—that this policy of last year has had a lot to do with the further stagnation of our economy and the emergence for the first time since the war of a degree of unemployment which has caused, and is causing, so much concern and anger.
By and large, the Economist newspaper is more favourable to Conservative than Labour policies. It never says anything very good of any politician, but, by and large, it is much more favourable to noble Lords opposite and the Government than to our kind of person. So the comment with which it begins its leading article on March 30 is all the more striking. This was before the Budget. They quote Mr. Selwyn Lloyd in his Budget speech last year, in March, 1962, as saying:
"I am certain that events will prove the soundness of our policies and the wisdom of our actions."
They go on to say:
"Ever since, events have been proving precisely the opposite."
Poor Mr. Selwyn Lloyd—whom I respect highly as a man and sympathise with as a Chancellor. At any rate, poor Mr. Selwyn Lloyd!He and his advisers landed us in a sorry mess in 1961, and the country paid a shocking price in the restrictions of that summer, which we on these Benches voted against in July, 1961, with the notable assistance of the Liberal Party, and of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who made an impressive showing in our Lobby. But poor Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, his advisers, his team and colleagues, and all the rest of them—
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, may I say that it is nothing unusual for me?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am not sure whether the noble Lord refers to "an impressive showing" or to his appearance in our Lobby. In either case, I agree it is nothing unusual.
Poor Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, his advisers, colleagues, chiefs and subordinates landed us in another terrible mess last summer. This time poor Mr. Selwyn
984
Lloyd had to pay the price himself, which is in a sense, I suppose, kinder to the nation. But, in any case, it was a terrible fate for him. It would not be true to say that he went down with the ship; he was pitched overboard. However, that was the consequence of his second great miscalculation.
This brings us to Mr. Maudling and his Budget. I assume that noble Lords have read the pronouncements of my right honourable friends in another place, and I do not want to weary the House with a long recital of the views of the Labour Party on many of the features of the Budget. We welcome a good many things in this Budget. We welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a new ally in the campaign for world liquidity, in which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby—I mention him once again—has played so prominent a part. We welcome, as Mr. Wilson said, his acceptance of the principle of a discriminatory tax relief for industry in development areas, which, of course, does not mean that those proposals cannot be in any way improved on. We welcome the income tax concessions announced by the Chancellor. Mr. Callaghan said:
"I think that the reductions the Chancellor has made are in the right places. How could I say anything else?—we proposed them."
In general, we on these Benches feel that, within the Conservative framework, within the limitations of a Conservative policy, it is a fair and a not inequitable Budget. If we are critical of it from that point of view, it is because all this, in our view, should have been done much sooner.
There are, of course, a number of criticisms which we have made, and which I could make, and which will no doubt be made by other speakers to-day. Personally, I should have liked to see much more done in the way of direct export incentives. I may be more extreme than some of my own colleagues. My noble friend Lord Stonham will speak about exports particularly. We are all agreed on these Benches that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been too cautious (assuming that he was right to expand, as we do) in his approach to expansion. There is bound to be plenty of room for legitimate differences of opinion here. I do not know that it could be described as a

985
Party matter, but we agree with the genera] feeling of the Economist that
"the Budget as a whole is a signal for half-speed ahead."
To quote the Economist for the last time, they say:
"There is still a residual assumption that caution about expansion now will somehow make it easier to expand the economy more robustly later, without tackling these problems of cost inflation and export stimulation which is almost certainly the reverse of the truth."
We consider that, while Mr. Maudling is right to aim at expansion, he has not expanded enough.
But the right honourable gentleman laid the greatest stress on what he called the main theme and purpose of his Budget, by which he and, I have no doubt, the Government will expect to be judged. Mr. Maudling said:
"The main theme and purpose of a Budget should be crystial clear."
Can that be said of his own Budget? He has taken that test, but can it be said that the main purpose and theme are crystal clear? Well, the words seem definite enough. He went on:
"The theme of this Budget is expansion—expansion without inflation; expansion that can be sustained."
I do not want to quibble, but the distinction between the theme and the purpose will not be obvious to everybody. He went on:
"The purpose of the Budget can also be clearly Stated. It is to do the Government's part in achieving the rate of growth broadly described as 'the 4 per cent. target', which we have already accepted in the National Economic Development Council".
He added that he was confident that this target can be attained without any strain upon our currency (those certainly are bold, sanguine, words) if we as a nation have the will to achieve it. He denies that there is a conflict between expansion and a strong pound. He says sound expansion without inflation will not weaken sterling, but strengthen it. There I am not quoting verbatim, but in effect what the Chancellor said in the House of Commons.
Those are bold, heartening words, which we on these Benches and, I am sure, most noble Lords like the sound of. We like the sound of them particularly because we have used them, or words similar, very often. But they are new words—or some of them are—coming
986
from the Benches opposite. What we want to know is what will be the deeds to match them? As the Observer put it on Sunday:
"Do the Tories really mean it when they say that they are dedicated to economic expansion?"
Do they mean it when they say:
"They will risk a run on the pound to keep Britain booming"?
It has been pointed out in another place that some of these words, at least, have been used by Conservative leaders before now. They have been used by quite a lot of leaders. Mr. Butler, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in 1955:
"The Budget proposals must constitute before all else, a fresh incentive to the forces of growth and expansion."
So eight years ago these words were getting the air. Mr. Maudling in that same debate—he was already a Minister—said that Mr. Butler would concentrate on a policy of expansion, freedom and incentives, which had throughout been his policy, and throughout had been a successful policy.
It is not difficult to find the same thing in the speeches of Ministers in this House. For example, I quote the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in 1959. He told the House [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 215, col. 660]:
"I ventured to say last summer"—
that would have been 1958—
"that we were a Cabinet of economic expansionists …. Now that we have created the conditions for expansion … we can move forward again along the road of expansion, as we have always said we proposed to."
That was about four years ago, and I do not think anyone will claim that during those four years noble Lords opposite have moved forward on a road of expansion, taking the period as a whole. As in 1955, so in 1959, the Party opposite moved forward on a wave of temporary expansion to a victory at the General Election.
I can say this quite clearly and without any affectation—and I am sorry if I upset any noble Lord saying it—but I have worked for eight years in the City among friends and acquaintances, I suppose none of whom would be Labour in sympathy, and I have never found anybody to doubt that there has been, and continues to be, an important correlation between the electoral tactics and the budgetary policy of

987
our present rulers. I have never found anybody in any sort of discussion to say that there is no correlation. If anybody says that the Government make their economic calculations without any reference to electoral considerations I do not accept that as a statement, and I do not believe that anybody in his senses will.
Of course, the expansion soon wore off, once the Election was passed, until we reached the restrictive climax of the summer of 1961. But by April, 1962, the Government were perking up a little, in words if not in deeds—though not very much in deeds. Said Lord Hailsham last year [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 239, col. 948):
"We are … a Government of expansionists, and we restrict only to the extent that we feel necessary to combat inflation and maintain the value of our currency."
These sentiments, as we know, were accompanied by a Budget which, by common consent, can now be seen to have been too much restrictive in spite of their being a Government of expansionists.
The question that arises is whether Mr. Maudling, in his proclamation of expansion and growth, is saying anything that has not been said many times before by his colleagues. Is he saying anything which has not gone hand in hand with a policy of restriction whenever the balance of payments has begun to look awkward? Is he saying anything different, or is there at least an important new emphasis here, pointing to a different policy, as compared, for example, with the policies of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd? After he ceased to be Chancellor, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, speaking in this House, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 231, col. 663]:
"… our policy must be to seek the highest rate of expansion that is consistent with a sound balance of payments and reasonably stable prices."
I think that anybody who reads that speech as a whole—a speech which made a big impression on the House—would agree with Lord Amory's view that there might be a clash between expansion and ensuring a balance of payments, and that in that event the balance of payments should prevail. At any rate, in the summer of 1961 the noble Viscount,
988
Lord Amory, strongly supported Mr. Selwyn Lloyd in his restrictive measures and came to the conclusion, in fact, that expansion had to wait in order to make sure that the balance of payments was looked after.
These are very difficult questions, and I am not for one moment saying that anybody is lacking in elevation of outlook in forming one opinion. But, at any rate, what we want to know is whether Mr. Maudling is standing for something new and important, or is just repeating the old words, pointing to the old policies, when a difficult situation arises. Are we to assume that, if Mr. Maudling is allowed to continue at the Exchequer for a number of years, he is sure he will avoid the situation which led to the restrictive policies supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd? Or are we to assume, alternatively, that Mr. Maudling reckons that if these restrictive situations arose, we should be able to cope with them without interfering with expansion? You can take the Amory-Selwyn Lloyd philosophy or the Maudling philosophy; but one thing that is quite clear is that these are two quite different philosophies. The old were, of course, defended with great enthusiasm and eloquence by noble Lords opposite, and no doubt they will defend this lot of philosophies with equal enthusiasm; but I know they are nimble-witted (to use an expression which has come into common use) and I ask them seriously whether they are prepared to claim—because it would really be a farcical claim—that Mr. Maudling stands for the same outlook in economies as was presented by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.
Two years ago, I myself ventured, in a Chairman's speech, to argue for the need of a new approach to planning. In fact, even in 1961 planning and growth were words that had become fashionable in many quarters. But last April the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was belittling the increasing emphasis on growth, and he was being funny about growth. I do not know whether he will be quite so funny about growth this evening. Said the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, last April [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 239, col. 956]:
"It is for this reason that, although I would count myself an expansionist, I have never

989
wholly subscribed to what I can only call the growthmanship which is sweeping through the dry stubble of the economic underworld like a prairie fire,"
He went on to belittle the policy of aiming at growth.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think so. I went on to say:
"… with this talk of league tables and a lot of other bunkum."
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Viscount should read his own speeches, although I agree it would be a painful exercise. But I am not going to read the whole of the speech, for that would be an ordeal. The noble Viscount will be speaking for an hour or two to-night, and he will have his chance then. What he did say about growth was this [col. 957]:
"… my view is that it is efficiency rather than growth as such that I should wish to see this country pursue; and being by conviction an expansionist, I believe that if we do in fact achieve efficiency the other thing that matters in this field, desirable growth, will be added unto us."
I have taken what I think is the most relevant passage. It may sound all right to the noble Viscount but not to Mr. Maudling.
LORD LINDGREN: Or the unemployed.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Or the unemployed. Let me repeat what Mr. Maudling has said:
"The purpose of the Budget is to do the Government's part in achieving the rate of growth broadly described as 'the 4 per cent. target'".
That is the direct objective of the Government this year; it was not the direct objective of the Government last year; and that particular approach was belittled and derided by the noble Viscount last year.
What has happened in the meanwhile? A number of things have happened, some of them helpful suggestions, such as the strengthening of the assets available behind our reserves; and some of them very adverse, like the collapse of the Common Market negotiations. But the main thing that has happened has been the emergence of "Neddy", the National Economic Development Council, a force of great influence in our economic affairs. Since I have not been very kind about Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, let me at least say
990
this: that long after many of us have been forgotten it may well be that he will be remembered as the man who pointed the way to "Neddy". I think that he must be given credit for that.
Here we have a scheme, not of Socialist planning—it does not go as far as some of us would wish—but in certain respects it is an important development. It involves voluntary expansion of both sides of industry and co-operation in pursuit of agreed objectives. I have no doubt myself that if Mr. Maudling does, in fact, stick to this plan of pursuing growth by means of planning, he is, in fact, setting our feet on a new path; and I believe that he will be remembered very favourably in history if he is allowed to adhere to that path. It will depend on his success or otherwise in making progress towards an incomes policy. These are issues on which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, will speak with much greater authority than myself. We shall all want to hear him. It seems unlikely at present that Mr. Maudling will secure the co-operation he wants from the trade union movement. But are the employers and the classes they tend to represent any more ready for sacrifices?
Here I should like to speak very bluntly. I worked, until the other day, for eight years in the City, and in my opinion the true but boring thing to say about City people is that they are just like other people; they do not suffer from some peculiar mentality; they are ordinary, patriotic British citizens, like others. But I am bound to say that, whether in commercial circles or in industrial circles, so far as I know them, I have not found any readiness to take an initiative towards the kind of restraint which they are asking the trade unions to undertake on their part. It seems to be generally assumed by the more comfortable classes in this country that the trade unions, as a patriotic gesture, though possibly in their own self-interest, should somehow restrain from making full use of their bargaining position. While the business community are ordinary, patriotic, law-abiding people, ready to take what comes to them from the Government, I have never found any initiative from that quarter in making sacrifices themselves, and until they do so they will not expect and cannot expect much sacrifice from the trade unions. I believe, to put it bluntly, the well-to-do

991
classes in this country think they are now, through the taxation system, bearing more than their share of sacrifice. That is what one might call their moral approach; and if that is their approach the situation is a fairly hopeless one, unless there are sacrifices all round and sacrifices voluntarily undertaken, as distinct from those which the Government might seek to impose.
I am about to conclude. I do not want to give the impression that "Neddy" is a sacred text and that all one has to do is to turn up the Report and find out how to proceed. According to "Neddy" plans, accepted by the Government, we are hoping to increase the gross national output by 4 per cent. a year between 1961 and 1966 compared with 2·7 per cent. a year from 1956 to 1961. We have already fallen far behind that rate of progress because 1962 was such a bad year; so we must increase well above 4 per cent. for the rest of the period. "Neddy" makes it plain that even 4 per cent. will not occur automatically. There are many aspects of Government policy (I am quoting what they say) as well as many matters relating to management and labour that will help to determine the outcome. It is not something that will come about by itself.
I am afraid we on these Benches have no great reason for confidence in the ability of the Government to organise or inspire the efforts of the people. Nevertheless I—and I think this goes for my colleagues here—wish Mr. Maudling well. In a sense, I wish all his colleagues well, as individuals, and at the same time I should, of course, gladly consign him and all his colleagues, in a political sense, to perdition. But I wish him well in this particular way. His Budget could represent (I do not think it will) not only the acceptance of certain economic ideas—expansion, growth, planning, and so on—which have seemed obvious to many of us for quite a while; his Budget could also, if it were given effect to in times ahead, bridge quite a large part of the gulf which at present exists between the economic and social thinking of capital, on one side, and labour, on the other, Conservatives, on one side, and Socialists, on the other.
This gulf, of which I have been very conscious, working in business for a num-
992
ber of years, cannot be altogether terminated—in fact I do not think it is desirable it should be while we remain a strenuous democracy—but the depth and extent of it in the thinking of the nation has made it impossible for quite a number of years now to find common assumptions in Britain on which to found a common policy and to pursue and achieve a united national effort. Good luck, then, to Mr. Maudling if he sticks to his plan!
While I was chairman of a bank for eight years I served—if that is the right word—under six Chancellors. I think that is a better proportion than the nine Defence Ministers in eleven years. I served under six Chancellors, all men of ability and character. Two of them flourished for a while but then, as in the parable of the sower, withered away for lack of economic roots. Two were tipped, or tipped themselves, overboard. The only one of Mr. Maudling's predecessors who enhanced his position was the present Prime Minister, who saw to it that if there was any tipping to be done he was going to do the tipping. It is no good pretending that we on these Benches have any great belief that the good old leopard has changed his bad old spots, or that the Maudling type of policy would be supported when things got difficult. We hope that there is a firm purpose of amendment, but we should like to see signs of contrition first, and perhaps they may be expressed by the Ministers during the debate—I shall be agreeably surprised if they are.
But the matter may never be put to the test. Mr. Maudling has shown himself a highly intelligent and friendly person, with a good grasp of economics. I see an excellent future for him. A year from now, or thereabouts, he should make an ideal chairman of a bank, when another Government comes in, a Government who really believe in planning and a Government who are genuinely devoted to social justice.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, does my noble friend really think that any Chancellor of the Exchequer can impose his will upon the Treasury?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I do not know whether a Chancellor of the Exchequer could. A Government which cannot ought to clear out. I do not

993
think one man can, but he requires the backing of the Government as a whole. I know what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will tell us about Mr. Lloyd George, but I think of a better man in our own Party, or maybe even on the Cross Benches. There it is. I think there is a lot to be said in favour of Mr. Maudling's ideas. We very much doubt, in view of past experience, whether they will be given effect to, but we ourselves consider that a different approach is necessary, and we are confident (and almost everybody seems to believe this—even the Government, when they are not putting on too much of an act) that it will not be too long before we are given the chance to prove what we say is true. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, may I also express my regret at the absence of the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition and particularly for the reason for it; we should like to join in wishing him a speedy and full recovery.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, is a great authority. I am not as convinced as he is of what can be secured in a positive sense by any Government. He has posed very wittily a number of questions to which none of us can pretend to know all the answers. After all, we are not dealing with an exact science in government. Much in any policy must be regarded as experimental, and on this basis surely the fullest co-operation should be given by all involved in positions of responsibility.
Having said that, I want to make some rather simple observations. It is unusual when economic matters are discussed nowadays to hear words to which we are accustomed in our daily lives. The jargon is not so developed or so incomprehensible as that of the scientists. This is no doubt because less money is spent on research in the economic domain than in that of science.
In our schooldays we used to refer to science, perhaps with some foresight, as "stinks". We had no similar expression for the study of surpluses and deficits, above or below the line, as instruments of economic policy, balance-of-payments crises and the like. But in those far-off days we did know that the way to earn
994
more was to work harder or more efficiently; that if you spent more than you earned you would soon be "broke"; that if you "played the fool" you were likely to get the sack; that there were such things as "rainy days" against which it was desirable to provide by saving as a habit; that if you went a-borrowing you were likely to come back a-sorrowing, and anyway you would be expected to produce security and evidence of ability to repay. By and large, in those days, the same rules applied to the Government as to an individual.
For me, that misery which has overtaken the country, out of which the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House was trying to shake a week-end audience, started with a lecture from my father on what I should have to forgo because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised income tax from 11d. to 1s. Perhaps his conviction that the country had been set on the slippery road was not entirely wide of the mark. Capital was what we accumulated by not spending all our income, and had to be at least ½d. out of every 1s. It is difficult for those who were born after 1914 to appreciate what the necessity for personal struggle inculcated into Victorian generations meant for the building up of the resources upon which we have been drawing and building ever since.
Since the end of the last war successive Governments have fostered the illusion of their superiority, both in wisdom and in action, so it is not surprising that the harassed individual leaves his problems to the Government; and the expectations of industry, expressed in headlines such as we had last week—namely,
"Industry expects a boost from the Budget"—
show how far the country has travelled along the road of diminished responsibility. Somehow, we have to bring home to the individual not only that what he does matters, but that no one is wise enough to relieve him of all thought and of personal effort if he is a normal, healthy citizen trying to earn his living and to get on. After all, few businessmen know much about businesses other than their own in which they are working; and I have never understood how Ministers or Government Departments can be expected to

995
know the answer to every citizen's problems, personal and business. The theoretical advice which economists give has often not been tested in action.
But there is a great deal that could be done to make life less difficult, by cutting out overlapping procedures in different Government Departments and discarding out of date regulations. One has only to listen, for instance, to those engaged in building and construction to realise this. The Board of Trade is involved in industrial building, and when their officials have cleared a scheme I understand that it goes to a new Department concerned with industrial policy at the L.C.C. Architects complain bitterly about the difficulties of getting plans approved, and to get approval they sometimes come away with a plan they hardly recognise as their own work, but which they accept so that the job can be started. It is in matters such as this where government is involved that much could be done to help speed and efficiency, and so to keep costs down.
To give him his due, during his ingenious but rather dull lecture last Wednesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did make a timid plea for something we could call "interdependence," when he said that the Government needed the co-operation of all to achieve the desirable aim of expansion without inflation. I would make a plea to Ministers to use the old, simple, direct words to preach the merits of the sterner Victorian virtues. I think the noble and learned Viscount our Leader is often very good at this, and if I may say so, I wish he would do more of it.
What other matters could, and should, be explained in simple terms by Ministers? Surely, that our competitive position has been weakened by a number of restrictive measures taken in other countries, such as the subsidising of building and operating ships, ties upon loans and grants requiring the money to be spent in the country making the loan and the goods to be transported in ships flying the national flag of the exporting country. Commonwealth countries have been setting up industries within their borders and protecting them, if they are uneconomic, with a
996
tariff sufficiently high, after allowing for British preference, to keep out any British imports.
This kind of action has depressed our merchants, who watch foreign and Commonwealth countries taking measures about which they can do nothing, giving them a feeling that their own Government are not doing sufficient to help them. This is understandable. But, fortunately, these obnoxious practices do not yet extend over the whole field of production. Some of them will, no doubt, be considered at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. But the most unfortunate effect of these practices is perhaps that they distract attention from action which could be taken to secure greater efficiency in production, modernisation of union rules and procedure, and the elimination of practices which impede efficiency and competition.
But, we have to ask, who is going to tackle the difficulties, to work harder, show initiative and take greater responsibility, except he see the prospect of adequate reward? When Gladstone said, "Let the people's money fructify in their pockets" (quoted by the Prime Minister last week), his Government practised retrenchment, not living with an unsecured overdraft of £687 million over and above an expenditure of some £9,000 million raised by national and local taxation, and with £1,000 million of debt to redeem this year. Nor was the Government of those days guilty of devaluing, as did the Labour Government, or of debasing the currency by increasing the issues of Treasury bills to cover over-expenditure, as all postwar Governments have done on a number of occasions.
To come back to the individual, today if the husband decides to work a little harder or longer so as to make up for what his wife might like to forgo so that she can brighten the home, the family is penalised by higher taxation. If for religious or personal reasons he wishes to educate his children outside the standard State scheme, he feels that he is called upon to pay twice: once himself and again in taxation. With all respect to the noble and learned Viscount's weekend oration, I must say I understand some of the moaning. I believe it is rooted in a sense of being

997
harassed and a sense of inability to act for oneself, so that the natural British "pep" evaporates into ineffectiveness. Paying someone else, chiefly Government officials, to do everything for you and for your family is not only more expensive than doing it for yourself, but tends to take the interest out of life. Even the capital gains tax is designed to fall upon the individual only if he acts for himself. Taxes levied for political reasons do not make much sense, but if there is any sense in this tax a little less exemption and a lower rate might make more sense.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed us that he is starting some inquiries, for example an inquiry into gambling, into the merits of an added value tax and other matters. His predecessor did the same a year ago when referring to the necessity for a revision of the structure of taxation, but so far we have heard nothing of this report. I should have thought that the merits or otherwise of the added value tax might have been studied during the long-drawn-out Brussels negotiations, as this is one of the changes which would bring taxation practice in this country more in line with that in some of the Continental countries. While referring to inquiries, may I be a little facetious and ask whether it has occurred to anyone that, to help a reconciliation with President de Gaulle, Mr. Gordon Richardson might be enrolled to deal with M. Pompidou?
I was particularly interested in an article by one of the directors of the World Bank in this month's Lloyds Bank Review. He describes the experience which the World Bank has gained in dealing with governments in the less developed countries. He writes:
"In the process of learning … both suppliers and recipients of technical assistance have suffered great frustration and witnessed colossal waste of time and money … governments and international agencies are required to continue to operate in ways that the professionals know to be ineffective, comparatively unproductive, if not completely useless."
He continues:
"The World Bank believes an essential condition for the success of the Development Bank is that whatever the source of its capital it should be privately controlled. There is a mass of evidence to indicate that Development Banks both financed and controlled by governments show a strong tendency to become diverted from the paths of sound development and finance."
998
Emphasising the key role in development that the businessman plays, he goes on:
"The forgotten man in the international technical assistance effort is the struggling businessman trying to make something useful for his fellow countrymen."
The one thing Governments must do if they wish to promote private initiative for industrialization—and this, in his opinion, is the only satisfactory road—is to establish a climate in which private enterprise can operate and prosper. I would ask the noble Earl who has spoken for the Labour Opposition on the merits of Government planning to bear in mind this testimony from a director of the World Bank. Of course, it is all to the good if the Government can bring together the leaders in industries which have worked out their own plans so that they can be given all available useful information and exchange views between themselves. Co-ordination of this kind is useful and essential to-day.
In offering discriminatory inducements to industries to develop in particular areas, the first pilot schemes should help to show what can be achieved by such means; but care must be exercised. We must beware of increasing costs by adding to the difficulties of management and supervision. Tax inducements are of no avail to a company in the absence of sufficient earned profit. It is the men in each industry who must plan their expansion, the key to which is held by those who sell and who can estimate demand and potential demand.
It is relevant also to ask whether the Governments of the rather more developed countries are being any more successful in the direction of industry or finance than what we hear from one of the directors of the World Bank of results in less developed countries. It is significant that the internal purchasing power of the pound since 1938 has fallen proportionately to the increase in Government involvement and expenditure. In 1938 one pound purchased goods to the value of 12s. 10d. as compared with a pound in 1914. To-day it has fallen to approximately one-third of the 1938 level—less than 4s. 5d. In 1938 governmental expenditure was less than £2,000 million. To-day it is £9,000 million. This fall in purchasing power is not a result exactly calculated to enhance confidence in Government promises to pay inscribed on every pound note; and there are

999
citizens in real misery who cannot multiply the number of their pound notes as they fall in value.
It may be that the arrangements existing between Central Banks may prevent any attempt to undermine a single currency. But it seems to me there is not sufficient concern over the possibility of a gradual depreciation of all Western currencies, as a result of unsound measures while the levels of their exchange rates are maintained as distinct from their internal purchasing power.
There is one other matter to which I should like very briefly to refer. This is the practice of holding the reserves of Central Banks in gold and convertible currencies—what is called the gold exchange standard. An article recently appeared in a French journal, written by a very eminent authority, pointing out the dangers he saw building up under the present gold exchange standard. The collapse of a similar standard in 1931 brings back poignant memories to all of us. The article was headed "The Western world awaits a Statesman who will give it back a currency". The writer made a plea for a study of this problem as a matter of urgency, and I should like to repeat his appeal here. He wrote:
"In this century of scientific research and planning, is it really too much to ask that those responsible for monetary systems should agree to an objective survey of the ridiculous system under which the United States are exempted from paying most of their debts to other countries?"
This is of course a reference to the returning to the United States of dollars held as part of a national reserve, instead of asking for payment in gold to which they are entitled. My Lords, although I have ended on a difficult theme which calls for study, I should like to return in conclusion to the simple statements with which I started. For the purpose of communicating—I think that is the word to-day—what is needed is the use of simple words, plainly spoken. There is no short cut to ever-increasing prosperity, and it will be achieved only by greater effort of thought and hand on the part of all involved.
3.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on this side of the House we deeply regret the absence of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, who had put this
1000
Motion down in his name on the Paper. We are glad to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that he is going on well in hospital. We all send him our best wishes and hope that we may soon have the pleasure of welcoming him back again.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Earl, Lord Longford, also said how much we miss, in these annual debates on the Economic Situation, the late Lord Pethick-Lawrence. Oddly enough, two noble Lords said exactly the same thing on my way into the Chamber this afternoon—which indicates, I think, the high regard in which he was held. I was glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Longford, quote some words I once used about Lord Pethick-Lawrence after he had spoken, to the effect that his speeches were always "fair and reasonable and consistent", as I think indeed they were. The noble Earl pointed out that they were also strongly critical of the Government, which is also true. But, of course, the fact that an argument is fair and reasonable and consistent does not always mean that it commands universal assent. Conversely, it is quite possible that a speech or a document may contain a great many things which are quite true and may yet be unfair.
I noticed this morning that the Report of the United Nations European Committee on Economics has just been published in Geneva—I have a copy here—which I am sure is well worth studying when we have time to do so. I do not think either the noble Earl or I have yet had time to do this. But my attention was drawn by a phrase of the Report—because it happens to be on the first page—which refers to British economy becoming ground to a virtual standstill during the latter part of 1962. I think that to talk about our economy grinding to a standstill when, although it has failed to increase as we should like it to increase, it is running still at a record level of employment and production, rather undermines one's confidence in the rationality of those economists, however eminent they may be, who use language of this kind.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether this paper is available in the Printed Paper Office?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know whether it is available in the Printed Paper Office, but it was published in The Times this morning.
LORD SHACKLETON: A summary.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not see why it should not be available. I do not think there is any difficulty about getting it, except for the time factor; it was published only this morning. But I have no doubt the noble Lord will have every opportunity of getting it in a few days.
LORD SHACKLETON: I want it now.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord can have my copy now if he likes. I have finished with it. Perhaps later on, when he has finished with it, he will give it back to me.
If I may now say something about the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I hope he will not mind my saying that I thought his speech in moving this Motion was remarkably moderate and fair—not that there is anything unsual about that—but I rather got the impression, in listening to his speech, that the noble Earl was struggling manfully against an almost irresistible temptation to be unfair. But he successfully overcame it, and I appreciate the tone of his speech very much. The only really untrue thing he said, was when he stated that I was nimble-witted, but it was also a very kind thing to say, because I have always longed to be nimble-witted, and it is nice to hear people talking as if one of your most cherished but unrealised ambitions had come true.
The only really unkind thing the noble Earl said about me, I thought, was when he suggested that I was inclined to talk with an air of infallibility. I do not think I have ever made any pronouncement excathedrâ on any matter of faith or morals, and on the subject of economics I have always wished to try to appear to be very humble and diffident, because I really think that, in this modern world, it is a subject on which no one ought to be dogmatic. I remember once a few years ago comparing the efforts of both political Parties to work out an economic policy for this country to the efforts of two small children trying to ride a bicycle. I sometimes still feel that this is not an altogether inappropriate simile.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the noble Earl. I withdraw the suggestion that he has spoken with an air of infallibility: but he has an air of such authority that one in inclined to assume that infallibility goes with it.
LORD BOOTHBY: And, on the subject of the bicycle, if I may interrupt the noble Earl for one moment, may I say that you turn the wheel in the direction in which you are falling?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: So many people turn the wheel to the right when they want to go to the left, and vice versa, with results not always in accordance with their political convictions. My Lords, the noble Earl said that he thought I might try to use what he called alternative arguments (a legal phrase, I think he said it was) in reply to his speech, and I confess that I had brought with me a large number of these alternative arguments which I hoped might counter the perhaps tendentious and partisan allegations which I thought the noble Earl might make. But, in view of the noble Earl's speech and of its tone, I have discarded them all, and I shall try to reply to the noble Earl's Motion in not only what I hope will be a short speech, because there are twenty of your Lordships who would like to take part in the debate, but in what I hope, even more, will be an objective speech. I shall try to be as objective as the noble Earl was.
My Lords, the aims of our economic policy are a faster rate of growth combined with stable prices; full employment combined with a better distribution of industry between different parts of the country; and a trading surplus which will enable us to make our proper contribution, both to the defence of the Free World and also to the aid of those less developed countries which we all want to help, in Africa, in Asia and in South America. I should like to begin with a short word about economic expansion in general; then to speak shortly about the local employment question in particular; and, finally, to say something about our ability to help the rest of the world.
When my right honourable friend the Chancellor introduced his Budget last week, his opening theme, as the noble Earl mentioned, was our desire to

1003
achieve the N.E.D.C. 4 per cent. growth target without inflation. My right honourable friend then went on to point out that we could neither achieve this growth target nor, he said, avoid another "Stop—Go" sequence in the management of our economy unless the country was willing to co-operate with us in the voluntary observance of an incomes policy. I think, my Lords, that this has been the most continuous and the most outstanding failure in the 17½ years of our post-war economic history.
Of course, there are other obstacles to economic growth, such as blind and stupid adherence to out-of-date restrictive practices, or slowness in adopting up-to-date methods of production in many industries; but the chief enemy, the main hindrance to a faster economic growth, has been, in my view, our incorrigible determination to pay ourselves additions to our incomes, too often and too much—except, of course, for a few underprivileged classes like probation officers, university dons and Members of Parliament. This has lowered our competitive power; and, of course, the more dependent a country is on exports—and we happen to be more dependent on exports than anybody else—the more damage is done to its economy by this wage-cost spiral from which we have never been able to escape.
All the official statistics which are published about price levels, wage levels, production and so on, alter their basic year every now and then. They do not always have the same basic year, which makes it a little difficult and puzzling to co-ordinate and follow them. I thought that it might interest some of your Lordships if I had a table made showing movements in production, in incomes and in price levels, all with the same base year, the year 1950, for the last twelve years. Taking 1950 as 100, since 1950 our industrial production has gone up from 100 to only 139—not nearly good enough, as I think we should all agree. The gross domestic product is a little worse. Industrial production has gone up to 139, the gross domestic product to 133. If you take wages and salaries, they have gone up from 100 in 1950 to 223 in 1962. The total of all incomes is a little lower; it is 218—that is, only five points lower. Wages and
1004
salaries, which form the greater part of incomes, have risen to 223. Now the price level has gone up from 100 in 1950 to 161 in 1962, and I suspect (although, of course, I have not got any figures to show it) that this rise in price level would have been very much greater if it had not been for the change in the terms of trade which took place in the 1950's, very much to the advantage of industrial manufacturers and to the disadvantage of primary producers.
My Lords, the rise in wages and salaries from 100 to 223 is a rise of 123 per cent. When you take account of the rise in the price level from 100 to 161, that reduces the rise in real wages from 223 to about 70 or 75. By itself I should not object to that, although I am against inflation, as I think we all are. But, if you are only to take these two figures by themselves, a 75 per cent. rise in real value of wages in twelve years is not bad. If it were the case that in order to get that we had to pay the price of a 60 per cent. inflation, well, I think that is a price I should be prepared to pay. But, of course, that is not all there is to it. It is this inflationary wage-cost spiral which is chiefly responsible for the unsatisfactory movement in total production from 100 to only 133, or, in the case of industrial production, to only 139. And these nominal advances in wage levels would have been far more valuable if industrial production and our exports had gone up more rapidly than they have done.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships with further examination of figures, but you will have noticed, probably, that the Economic Report this year gives figures of hourly wage increases for the last three years: 6·6 per cent. in 1960; 5·2 per cent. in 1961; and 4·8 per cent. in 1962. You can see from the table, going back to 1950, that there have been two periods in particular when industrial production was fairly satisfactory, when it was going up by four or five points—and in one case eight or nine points—in two years. If you compare the inflationary wage-price spiral with that, you always find that the benefits of this in crease in industrial production have been checked by inflation, which means that we buy too much from abroad; we cannot sell our exports because of costs which are going up and we are unable

1005
to get the imports we need. We therefore have a financial crisis and this wretched "Stop—Go" restriction. That was particularly bad in 1960, after 1958.
There was a very big and satisfactory increase in total production from 1959 to the end of 1960, but the increase in incomes was so excessive that it led to the very favourable trade balance of 1959 of £350 million being converted into a large deficit in 1960, and this led to the restrictive necessities of 1961. Unless we can manage to keep the increase of incomes a little behind, and not a little in front, of the increase in production, I do not see how it is possible to avoid the same thing happening again.
Some of your Lordships may be inclined to ask: instead of aiming at an increase of wages combined with stable prices, would it not be better still to aim at stable wages with falling prices? That would perhaps strengthen our economy even more. It would mean, too, that the receivers of stable wages became a little better off, because with falling prices their wages would be worth more and would have this additional advantage: that all these 3,¾ million people to whom the Chancellor last week gave relief from paying any income tax at all would go on not having to pay income tax at all. Whereas the probability is that very soon most of them, owing to wage increases, will come back again over the exemption limit.
But the Government feel that an attempt to prevent any nominal increase in wages in order to bring prices down, though it might strengthen our economy a lot, is psychologically impracticable. Everybody has got into the habit of looking upon it as a divine right that he should have some increase in his nominal income every two or three years. And since an incomes policy can succeed only by general consent and by voluntary action among all the different sections of industry, I think your Lordships will agree that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right in the target he set last week: that is to say, wage increases with a limit, he hoped, of 3½ per cent., combined with an industrial growth of 4 per cent., which we hope will result in stable prices and a strengthening of our economy.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was good enough to admit that if we have
1006
economic planning at all we must expect some errors to occur in it. You cannot expect human beings to estimate with unerring accuracy facts which will govern our economic policy for one year or two years ahead, or whatever the period may be. The noble Earl rather tended to suggest that the policy of Mr. Selwyn Lloyd last year was flatly irreconcilable with that of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should rather put it this way. In 1962 we had economic estimates of what was likely to happen. For the first half of the year they were right. We thought the economy did not need any monetary stimulation. During the second half of 1962 it turned out that those estimates were wrong; the demand and foreign trade declined when we expected them to increase. I would only comment on that that we very soon began to take remedial action.
First of all—I am not arguing whether it was enough or whether it should have gone sooner—we did take off the regulator. In September we first of all remitted special bank deposits amounting to £160 million. I went into this in our debate on February 19 and I am only briefly reminding your Lordships of the summary. There were reductions of purchase tax on cars from 45 per cent. to 25 per cent., and then reductions of all 45 per cent. class purchase tax articles down to 25 per cent. Then there were post-war credit repayments of £42 million; a reduction in bank rate from 4½ per cent. to 4 per cent.; private investment allowances last November in anticipation of the Budget; a £70 million increase immediately undertaken in public investment, and, after that, at the beginning of this year, the Chancellor decided to increase public investment by £200 million. Now, in last week's Budget, he has further stimulated the economy by a tax remission of £269 million, which is designed partly to increase purchasing power among those people whom he carefully defined, but which is also weighted in favour of the development areas, because a good deal is in the shape of special tax remission for people to set up factories there.
These measures must be combined with plans to smooth the industrial changes which are taking place. The Government believe that they are taking the necessary action to fulfil the N.E.D.C. growth target of 4 per cent. growth without inflation. But this is National Productivity

1007
year. Productivity does not mean more employment; it may mean less employment. It means producing more goods with fewer workers. That, in itself, is a good thing for our economy, but it means that we must take special measures to deal with the position, to meet the shortage of skilled workers in some trades and to deal with the redundant workers whose jobs cannot be continued in other trades. We must have measures not only to deal with redundancy, to which the Minister of Labour referred the day before yesterday, but also more expenditure and a great deal more thorough administration in industrial training, which my right honourable friend also spoke of on Monday. Your Lordships had a comprehensive and, I think, valuable debate on this subject on February 11.
This expansion of productivity must not be confined to the congested conurbations of the South East and Midlands. I do not accept the disparagement, of which we have heard a good deal lately, of the Local Employment Act. It has done a great deal of good, and it was very favourably received when I had the duty of piloting it through your Lordships' House a year or two ago. But we all agree that it has not kept pace with the need for further stimulation in the development areas and that additional measures are necessary.
I remember your Lordships discussing all these questions thoroughly, as it is our duty to do. I remember the debate on Scottish economy on January 23, initiated by my noble friend Lord Polwarth, who very fairly paid tribute to the Local Employment Act. He mentioned what it had achieved in Scotland, but said it was not enough. The phrase he used was, "We must make the carrot more juicy." Four or five noble Lords urged strongly that we should have a pulp mill at Fort William, which could be done only by Government aid, and I am glad to think that since that debate both these things have been done. £10 million have been allocated as a loan to Wiggins Teape for a mill, a new venture which will mean a great deal in future to the economy of the Scottish Highlands and in the Lowlands I hope the new grants and free depreciation allowance will make the carrot juicier.
The more we examine into them, the more we feel that both the standard
1008
grants, 35 per cent. for buildings and 10 per cent. for machinery, and the very attractive provision for three years' appreciation all being put into one year, as the management desire, are strong and powerful inducements and will be a great stimulant throughout Scottish industry, and I hope in other development areas, too. The Scottish economy cannot be brought into full modern maturity in a few years, but if we add up the measures taken—at Bathgate, one new growth point, an additional 6,500 are going to be employed, and another 10,000 in the Paisley area; the start on the new Tay Bridge (and I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, started the building of this bridge with his own hands, an appropriate thing, since it was he who for many years was Chairman of the Tay Road Bridge Committee and did so much to bring this project to fruition), the additional £2 million on Scottish Road expenditure, the new strip mills coming into operation in Lanarkshire and the graving dock at Greenock—although all these seem little in comparison with what is needed, they are a powerful initial stimulant for starting growth points and for attracting other industries. I hope that more industries will come to Scotland, knowing that they will find there a good, hard-working labour force and a delightful place to live in. It will pay them well to come in larger numbers.
I will conclude with a word about the export position. The actual figures for the present moment are good, so far as they go. There has been a change of £140 million in our balance of payments. Instead of being £72 million on the wrong side, there is £67 million on the right side, and, when we bring in the balancing items, which have escaped being recorded, we have a surplus this year of £103 million. Besides the reduction of £61 million in the deficit in trade, exports rose by £123 million. This rise took place in the first half of the year. Imports rose by only £46 million, and the invisible account, which had deteriorated the year before, was reversed and the net surplus increased by £62 million to £138 million.
But on present form we do not think that there will be any great increase in foreign trade or in demand this year. Therefore, we must make a particular endeavour to make our own exports more

1009
competitive than they are now. I am not going to give any estimate of how much we hope to allow for the purpose of further expenditure overseas, because that depends on so many factors which are incalculable. I think it partly depends on what happens in the United States and whether President Kennedy can persuade Congress to stimulate the American economy by reducing taxes, and other measures. Another possibility of expanding world trade is the "Kennedy round" which, in the long run, if it is successful, may be more important, though its effects will take a little longer to show themselves.
But there are many factors outside our control which govern the possibility of our overseas earnings in the next year or two. The amount which we had expected to contribute in aid to underdeveloped countries last year was £180 million. I think that in fact it will not prove to be so much, although our commitments for the future appear to be going up. But our desire, subject to the export surplus which we can earn, is to contribute more. The Chancellor mentioned last week that he was going to try to increase our aid by an allocation of £10 million for connecting the demands for British goods for underdeveloped countries with under-capacity in Great Britain. He gave several examples of what he was proposing to do in providing loans for Pakistan and India. Another example where both our trade and that country's interests might benefit from this scheme is Chile. Our Ambassador at Santiago has recently approached the Chilean Government with an offer to make them a loan of £1½ million, to be spent on capital goods by British industry where there is a surplus capacity.
Our desire is to do more than we are doing now to help under-developed countries, both by capital investment and by technical aid. In particular, we should like to do a little more to help the United States in associating ourselves with the alliance for progress. But that all depends on what we can earn. It is no good saying we are going to devote 1 per cent. of our national income to foreign aid or Commonwealth aid, giving them 1 per cent., whatever it may be—£250 million—and then not earning that in export trade, with the result that we have a balance-of-payments crisis. That
1010
will do no good to anybody. We must earn the money first. But we must keep that object of increasing our help to the countries which need it before us.
We must remember at the same time that, apart from the United States, we have more military commitments overseas in the defence of the Free World than any other country. That is an unrequited export; we do not get anything for it in return. Our expenditure on military forces overseas in 1962 was £249 million. That, of course, is only a small part of our total expenditure on Defence, but it represents that part of Defence expenditure which has to come out of our overseas earnings, and to that extent reduces our ability to give the larger sums we should like to give in foreign aid. I should like to put on record that our desire is to increase aid when we can sufficiently increase our overseas earnings.
As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, you cannot expect your calculations always to be right. I am very far from claiming dogmatically that ours are; but, to the best of our belief and according to the information at our disposal, the Government are doing what they can to achieve the 4 per cent. growth target, to keep prices stable, to distribute industry better in this country and to provide for the discharge of our obligations, both military and economic, to the Free World.
4.33 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, we should be grateful, I think, to the noble Earl. Lord Longford, for submitting this Motion on the Order Paper, which gives us an opportunity of discussing what is a very serious economic situation. I join with my noble friend in sincerely trusting that the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will soon be fully recovered and back in full health in your Lordship's House. I have listened carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I was pleased to hear him speak so confidently of the increase in our exports and improvement in balance of payments, because if one factor had to be singled out as differentiating our position from that of some other countries, I think it would be the recurrent and dangerous weakness of our balance of payments; and to a large extent this

1011
derives from the inadequacy of our exports. It is on this that I should like to address your Lordships this afternoon.
We are 50 million people crowded in these Islands, producing only half of our food and having very few of our own raw materials. Therefore, imports on a vast scale are essential, and these must be paid for by an almost ever-increasing scale of export. When we talk about increased growth, which presupposes increased imports of our raw materials commensurate with that growth, it is axiomatic that we cannot afford to grow unless a way can be found of greatly expanding our exports, or unless we can find some other way of correcting our balance-of-payments problem. The right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 675 (No. 91), col. 477] that the main conditions of a successful export drive are clearly a general expansion of world trade. And the right honourable gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the following day, said [col. 654] that our national prosperity is dependent on world trade. Of course, this goes without saying; it is not a new concept; and it has applied with equal force certainly during the past twelve or fifteen years.
The first point to which I would draw your Lordships' attention is that world trade in manufactured goods has been expanding steadily every year since the end of the war; and, secondly, the plain, indisputable fact is that we have been consistently losing our percentage share of it during the same period. The average rate of growth in the volume of world exports for manufactures during the past ten years has been about 7½ per cent. per annum. This is a substantial increase, and here was the opportunity for the United Kingdom to secure a reasonable share of it. But, for whatever reasons, we have failed to do so. I apologise for giving your Lordships these figures, but they are alarming, and they are figures which have been discussed over the last ten or twelve years at the National Production Council on Industry, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Chair, and at the National Joint Advisory Council to the Ministry of Labour.
I will not start at 1950, because there were some countries which had been
1012
devastated and had had little time to rehabilitate themselves up to 1950. If we take 1953, which is eight years after the war, our share of world trade of manufactures was 22 per cent., and it has fallen each year since then until in 1962 it reached the low percentage of 15·2 per cent. But what is more disconcerting, by contrast, is that in 1953 the share of Western Germany was 13·4 per cent., and Western Germany has built up her exports and increased them every year until in 1962 her share was 20·4 per cent., which is 5 per cent. more than ours. France and Italy have also increased their shares in the same period, but less substantially.
The question, therefore, is: What are the reasons? We listen to expert economists, and we read their writings, and when we have finished we are more confused than when we started. I say to the noble Earl opposite that although we have been increasing our exports every year during the past ten years, we have not been getting our share of the increase in world trade. I have the figures from the Board of Trade, and perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for quoting them. I speak of the period 1958 to 1961. The increase in exports were: Germany 44 per cent.; France 44 per cent.; Italy 82 per cent.; Holland 41 per cent.; Sweden 42 per cent.; Japan 40 per cent., and the United Kingdom 16 per cent. It should be borne in mind that this failure in exports has taken place during a period of a highly prosperous home market. Surely, it is not outside the range of possibility to examine and find out the specific reasons for our shortcomings in this field. So far as I know, no real effort has ever been made, or, if it has, we have not been given the results. Unless something on these lines is done, how can we attempt to apply the remedies or find the correct solutions?
There are constant exhortations to industry to export more. But why not try to find out, industry by industry, the facts, the relative prices, quality, delivery dates, design, sales techniques, credit facilities and commercial policies generally. Some sections of British industry have a creditable export record, and are constantly seeking new markets. But there are some thousands of smaller firms which do no exporting at all, and do not even attempt to do so. Of course, small firms have neither the resources. the

1013
administration or the know-how, and this can be readily understood. But why cannot they be encouraged to get together in group associations for export selling as, indeed, has been done with considerable success abroad? The Government might well examine this technique and, if they find it justified, take the initiative in encouraging this type of collective association. Smaller firms, exporting only a little, could, collectively, make a substantial contribution to the volume of our exports. In any case, the time has surely arrived when industries or firms which could export but make little or no effort to do so should be reminded of their obligations, especially those which make calls on imported raw materials but prefer to take the easier road of selling on a prosperous home market.
The National Economic Development Council have estimated that a rate of increase in exports of about 5 per cent. per annum is required, and that this should be reasonably possible to achieve. The Council go on to say that this rate of increase is required to secure an improvement in the balance of payments from a deficit of £77 million in 1961 to a surplus of £300 million in 1966. So far as economic growth goes, we have fared no better than we have in exports and, as my noble friend Lord Longford has said, we are at the bottom of the league.
I do not apologise for bringing out these facts in your Lordships' House, because they are certainly being discussed outside, often in a more serious vein. Only yesterday, Dr. Beeching is reported to have called attention to our economic malaise, and given his opinion in forthright language as to what ought to be done. He is reported as having said that some industries are being propped up, and that unless we take steps to re-shape our economy, ultimately we may be forced to do so. With regard to the more rapid use of modern techniques, over the past fifteen years or so a great deal has been accomplished by co-operation between management and unions. In 1948, we had operating the Anglo-American Productivity Council. We sent 60 teams from British industry to the United States, who came back and issued their reports. This was followed in 1952 by the British Productivity Council, with 100 local associations or committees spread all over
1014
the country. This work is constantly going on and, this being Productivity Year, an intensive campaign is in progress. Nothwithstanding that, some of the local committees are not as active as they might be. On the other hand, the overall success of the Council's efforts ought not to be underestimated.
Of course, one fact that cannot be overlooked (and I say this to the noble Earl opposite, following his reference to efficiency, new machinery and new methods) is that there is still a great underlying fear in the minds of work-people that new techniques, work study and redeployment of labour may result in some of them being thrown on the scrap heap. There have been some unfortunate instances of redundancies, without any form of consultation or adequate notice, or any efforts to rehabilitate those affected. And these have not helped. There are cases on record of firms who, having planned the introduction of new methods of production, including labour saving devices, for months and months, have given notice only at the last moment that hundreds, and sometimes thousands of men would become redundant within a week or a fortnight. It is this sort of inefficient labour relations that places great obstacles in the way of better cooperation between management and labour. It creates suspicion and a lack of confidence which are an impediment to the work of a responsible British Trade union leader.
I am glad to see that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Labour made a speech on this matter yesterday. There is plenty of evidence to show that many firms and industries have carried out their redeployment of their labour force, have introduced modern techniques and labour-saving devices without any worker having lost his employment. By suspending recruitment and, where necessary, retraining, it has been found possible to accommodate those displaced from their normal occupations. I say to your Lordships that one bad employer can do more damage to industrial relations than many good employers can do good. It is the incidents arising out of backward labour relations which receive the publicity, whereas there is a large field, the major part, where excellent joint relations exist, and where

1015
there is the fullest confidence between management and labour.
My noble friend Lord Longford asked me if I would say a word on the incomes position, and I am pleased to do so. The first point is that the Trades Union Congress, and the trade union movement generally, are agreed that an incomes policy based on increased productivity is essential. I sincerely trust that that is not disputed, because it is on record. It has been declared constantly that if consumption exceeded the national income it could only end in disaster, and the wage-earners would suffer most. This means that an incomes policy should apply with equal force to all sections of the community, and not only to the lower paid sections. It is a great pity that the whole of the White Paper applies to wage-earners and salary earners, and talks of 2· per cent., and then says that continued restraint in profits and dividends is a necessary corollary. Does anybody expect the trade unions to cooperate in these circumstances?
I have already said that it is in the interests mainly of the wage-earners and the workers that there should be an incomes policy. What happened in 1961? The first attack of the wage freeze was on the lowest-paid workers in the country, Government industrial workers and the workers in hospitals. I do not want to take very long on this point, but I say to your Lordships that I am perfectly certain that if an incomes policy could be propounded which would apply all round—and so it should—I am perfectly certain that the Trades Union Congress and the trade union movement would co-operate. I have here a list of 157 industries, and in 130 of them the basic wage is £10 or lower—and these are the latest figures up to March, 1963. It is all right to say that earnings are increased by overtime and bonuses, but there are many of these work people who have no opportunity of receiving bonuses or overtime.
My Lords, I come to my last point. There is a growing volume of opinion in the country which believes that one of the great disabilities affecting our industrial and economic progress is the absence of reliable information from time to time of our available resources, manpower, investments, raw materials, and
1016
so on. In the absence of this information, and in the absence of any sort of planning, the deployment of our resources must be a hit-and-miss affair. With regard to manpower, we do not know, with a few exceptions, what are likely to be our requirements in the various industries for a few years ahead. I understand that in the United States its Department of Labour has done this in considerable detail for 1970. We ought to have some idea, surely, what are likely to be our investment resources, and, from that, some idea of the directions in which they should be deployed to the best national advantage. This presupposes some sort of planning, though for some unknown reason the word "planning" is not a good label.
I was very pleased to read that a Conservative Member in another place, Mr. Gresham Cooke, last Monday said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 675 (No. 94), Col. 1022] that for the best use of our technical resources in future, whatever Government are in power, there will have to be more planning. Any efficient business must look ahead and plan; any prudent family must mind its income and expenditure. So what is the difference so far as the nation is concerned?
France, Italy and Japan have formulated long-term policy programmes with targets to aim for. The French plan, which I have studied on the spot—and I do not overrate what they are doing in France—is formulated by commissions of civil servants, industrialists, trade unionists and experts. There are no compulsions or directives, but a voluntary co-ordination of plans in which all those party to them concur. All the evidence is that the French economy has had remarkable success. France has secured a growth rate of 5 per cent.—a rate about double that in the United Kingdom—and the actual production targets set in the plans have been achieved with remarkable accuracy.
We are living in a world of change and we must be prepared to shed some of our outmoded methods—including the trade unions—and adopt other policies more in keeping with the world as we find it. We are a great nation, rich in inventive genius, technological and manual skills, a nation capable of reaching great heights of performance

1017
when put to the test, as two world wars have shown. It is said that we are at our best when we have our backs to the wall, and if that time has not arrived why should we daily until we reach that undesirable position? What is really at stake is our capacity, not only to raise our living standards but to maintain the standards we have so far achieved; and, of course, it is important in the world to help other peoples to raise theirs more rapidly. If this fact is accepted, out-dated and out-moded conceptions should be relegated to the dustbin. In their place should be substituted new ideas and a great co-operative effort to back them, so putting the nation in its rightful place as one of the most advanced and, potentially, one of the most prosperous nations in the world.
4.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, having come but a little way up the passage to this place, I do not know whether it is proper for me to claim the indulgence of your Lordships for one who addresses you for the first time. One of your Lordships has been good enough to say that he thinks it might also be the last time. I regret that I cannot say to-day that I will not disappoint him. I am grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. A long time ago, when I was feeling very much younger than I do now, and when he looked exactly the same as he does today, we sat together in another place. And may I say that I enjoyed listening to him then, and I enjoy listening to him now? It is one of the fascinations of this place that you arrive here and meet the same people all over again. It appears that all roads lead to Rome and that it is a case of Plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose.
I should like to speak under three headings this afternoon. The first is about the balance of payments, and if I am a little direct I hope that no Rules of procedure governing a first speech will prevent my noble friend, the Leader of the House, Lord Hailsham, from dealing in his reply with these defects. I must confess that I am fundamentally nervous of the whole sterling position. This is shown up in the very figure to which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has referred: the balancing item of £128 million in
1018
Table 12 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 1984—incidentally, a very sinister figure. This £128 million is made up of £25 million adverse balance of current and long-term capital transactions, and £103 million adverse balance of monetary movements. In 1962, the gold and currency reserve fell by £183 million; and in the months of January and February this year, according to the document Economic Trends, they fell again by £24 million. This figure would have been very much worse had not the Government borrowed £90 million in these particular months, last month and the month before "from other central banks". The Chancellor told the House that he had done that, in column 472 of Hansard.
In these circumstances it is very doubtful in my mind whether the Chancellor was wise to inject so much money into the economy in this Budget, particularly as it came immediately after the fairly lavish concessions which he bestowed in the autumn months. It is difficult in reading the Financial Statement to find out in the total of the concessions made in tax this year how many of them are caught up with the concessions made last autumn, but I should think that the total sum realised must be getting on or for £700 million or £800 million. The borrowing requirement of this year's Financial Statement of £687 million is the highest since 1959, and, as we all remember, the Budget of that year was followed by a Budget which imposed very drastic new taxation, particularly in profits tax and in tobacco duty, in order to overcome the disadvantages caused by that distinctly inflationary Budget.
This is 1963, another famous "off" year. In 1961, in the early months, just where we are to-day, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd borrowed substantially and secretly from the central banks. That is what Mr. Maudling has just done, although not so secretly. A run on the pound took place in the summer of that year, and in July Mr. Selwyn Lloyd was forced to borrow another £750 million from the International Monetary Fund and institute a crash deflationary programme. The parallels are not very pretty. I know that the present Chancellor has categorically stated that the country's fundamental economic position is much better than it was then, but I am afraid I find myself incapable of following his arguments. I

1019
am afraid that again an unwise political expediency is shrouding the truth.
I have for a long time held very precious what is called the Colin Clark thesis; that is, that if in a free society in peace time the expenditure which the Government manipulate rises above 25 per cent. of the gross national product inflation is certain and cannot be stopped. All the figures, so far as one can adduce them, and our experience over the years since the war seem to prove the accuracy of this theory. Of course, in war we are saved from the consequences of it because millions of people voluntarily sacrifice the good things of life for the sake of winning the war. And in a Communist or totally controlled autarchic society the same principle prevails because everybody is anxious to co-operate to the full—and there are sanctions if one does not—to achieve the peace-time national target. But in a free democracy the quality of life is absolutely vital and precious to people and they are not going to sacrifice it no matter what the Government do; they are going to demand higher wages through the trade unions, as we have continuously seen since the end of the war; they are going to disinvest if they have any capital at all. They are going to beg, borrow or steal the money in order to live in the way of life to which they are entitled.
The aggregate of this total private expenditure comes on top of the aggregate Government expenditure and, in circumstances like these, promotes an inflation. High taxation receipts encourage the Government to spend, but leave the aggregate of private expenditure untouched. So I have ventured to take out the figures for the combined central and local government expenditure for the five years 1958 to 1962. They do not include the expenditure for which the nationalised industries are responsible. Add that to the figures I am about to give and you will have a stupendously larger total. I propose to express them now as a percentage of the gross national product in each of those years, 1958 to 1962, and you will see at once how far these figures are elevated above the minimum figure to which Colin Clark referred of 25 per cent. The total State plus local government expenditure
1020
for these years is 36·2 per cent. for 1958, 36·6 per cent. for 1959, 37 per cent. for 1960, 38·2 per cent. for 1961 and 39·2 per cent. last year. Your Lordships can at once see that the situation continues to deteriorate. I venture to make the assertion that, unless drastic steps are taken to off-load about £500 million or £1,000 million of public expenditure on to the private sector, inflation will continue and devaluation cannot be avoided in the long run.
Last year I gave to the House of Commons the methods by which I thought the enormous reduction in expenditure should be achieved, but I will leave further reference to that for another occasion; I do not think it is appropriate for the debate to-day. I should, however, like to do my best to convince your Lordships that we do not now live in a Keynesian era; we live in a post-Keynesian economy. Pump priming by pouring out money to individuals in the form of increased pensions or National Assistance, establishing advance factories in development areas to make what is by no means certain to be sold—the very word "advance" is frightening in this respect—allowing trade unions to put up wages by even the 3½ per cent. to which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has just referred, will all be of no avail; depreciation of the value of the pound and ultimate devaluation is absolutely certain. Therefore I find the Chancellor of the Exchequer's engaging optimism in his Budget speech utterly misplaced.
I come now to the reform of the tax structure. Here I believe a very great opportunity has been missed. By-elections have been lost over the last year or two precisely because the professional and administrative classes, from the top to the bottom, feel themselves to be underprivileged beside the swaggering and arrogant world of business. Nothing is done, either in this Budget or outside the Budget, to restore the pre-war salary and pension differentials in order to place these people alongside capital profiteers with their free services and expense accounts. I believe that some urgent things ought to be done in this regard, and I am very distressed that we do not find them even hinted at at the major economic moment of the year. Income tax and surtax should be combined and

1021
scaled down to a top limit of 10s. Turnover, or added value tax on goods sold at home on the home market, should be instituted to provide the necessary money, together with a 10 per cent. tax on all home advertising. The Beveridge system of universal insurance hand-outs should be abolished, and generous and immediate benefits substituted on a simple test of needs and means. There is no sign in the Government to-day, even of thought being given to this, much less action.
I find, therefore, that the concessions made in income tax merely tinker with the problem that is involved here. A married man with three children earning £2,000 a year gets £30; one earning £1,000 a year gets £20; one earning £900 a year gets £7; and below that nothing, for the clear reason that at that low salary he has worked himself out of the tax scales altogether. The married man without children at £2,000 a year gets £13; at £500 a year he gets £11, and below that little, for the same reason. The single man earning £2,000 a year gets £6; at £500 a year he gets £3, and then—the surprising one—at £300 a year he gets £5. Nobody seems to get more than £30 per annum, even the fabulous £100,000 a year man who is always provided for in the tables but whom one never meets in the flesh.
I do not think the principle here is entirely clear, although the Chancellor has talked generally about aiding the family man. The people helped the most, and then only to the extent of one-sixtieth of their incomes, which is not too generous, are married men with three children, earning over £1,000, and youths earning £6 a week. I agree that these benefits are to be welcomed; but, like the parable of the rich man who could not get his neighbours to the feast, the very meticulousness of the preparation exposes its gross inadequacy.
There was a great deal of heartsearching throughout this bitter winter—a winter so reminiscent of 20 years ago, when we were losing ship after ship and battle after battle. Letters and leading articles in the newspapers expressed the bewilderment of the ration at what was going on, the snubs we were receiving and the inadequate way in which society responded, and they urged our leaders on to imaginative action. Even to-day, the leading article in The Times returns to the same theme. Much grace has to
1022
be extended to a Government which leads a nation into an economic cul-de-sac like the Common Market. People are generous at heart, and they expect a time to elapse before spectacular advances are made in any other direction. But about one or two months, perhaps three months, would, one would have thought, be the time limit. In that time it was hoped that the Government would resile from its defeat, and people thought that the Budget might be the first occasion on which a major advance of some sort or another would take place. Yet here we are again, with, this time, a new and enlarged Chancellor, but with the same old Treasury mills grinding exceedingly small and giving, at the same time, the same fudged reliefs that Mr. Gladstone gave.
Let us take, for example, some of the cross-headings of the Budget statement—land tax, match duty, tobacco dealers' licences, mineral depletion, stamp duty, foreign spirits, home-made beer. Gambling is mentioned and conveniently avoided: how Mr. Gladstone would have agreed with that! Tax reform is mentioned and conveniently avoided—and no doubt Mr. Gladstone would have agreed with that, too. The significance of the Gladstonian red box rests not in the fact that Mr. Maudling failed to take it into the Chamber of the House of Commons, but that the Treasury retained it in Great George Street. They are the masters now, and Ministers increasingly seem to dance to the tune set by the Civil Service.
My noble friend Lord Hailsham the other day said that the machinery of government was creaking. It is not even moving sufficiently to emit a noise of any kind; the inertia is complete. Although we may joke about it, it is quite a serious question. Many men in all walks of life, not only where you might expect informed criticism, in the highest circles of the City perhaps, or in the universities, but generally elsewhere throughout the country, consider it a serious question. People are asking themselves whether Ministers are now no more than cogs in the machine, creatures that move in predestined grooves. I am sure that one day in this House my noble friend will have the opportunity of carrying further his happy and carefully-thought-out remarks about the machinery of government.

1023
Finally, may I do what the Budget does not attempt to do—namely, turn overseas. Sir Winston Churchill said yesterday that Britain, with the Commonwealth, was a great sovereign Power. I believe that the Government should pay Sir Winston a compliment by proving the truth of this in the coming months. I should myself greatly like to see four things done: first of all, to institute bilateral tariff talks between members of the Commonwealth, with the object of discovering whether it is not possible in some commodity or another to lower tariffs mutually between them; then to engage in a search to see whether those lowered tariffs could be extended, under a sort of "most favoured Commonwealth nation" device, to other members of the Commonwealth; and if this were possible to present the issue to GATT, and to say to GATT, "We want to make amendments in your rules sufficiently to allow of an internal discriminating scheme for the Commonwealth, such as you allow for the Common Market and for other trading arrangements." That is the first thing.
The second thing I should like is for the Government to make extremely clear, in speech after speech, that Britain is not troubled by the tariffs that certain Commonwealth countries have put up against her products; and deliberately to pour coals of fire on the heads of Commonwealth Ministers who have arranged those tariffs, by saying that we welcome in this country the arrival of products from certain industries manufactured in the Commonwealth; that we can always leap over the tariffs that Commonwealth countries charge by making the sort of machinery and apparatus, and supplying the technical "know-how", that they cannot manufacture and supply for themselves. There are no tariffs on bridges for Sydney Harbour; no tariffs on aircraft, on automation to make motor cars, on turbo-alternators, on thousands and thousands of different and more modern devices in the electronic world. We could easily manufacture those and send them to sophisticated members of the Commonwealth, and we ourselves ought to be prepared to accept the secondary products of the Commonwealth.
Thirdly, as I ventured to state in a short letter to the Daily Telegraph last week,
1024
it is time the Government began to think about what it is going to do, from the long-term point of view, about British agriculture. If we had gone into the Common Market our food costs would have risen roughly to the level which Europe pays for its food: about one-third or one-quarter of the family income. What about doing it anyway?—allowing food prices to rise, and instituting a tariff on all imported foodstuffs, including those from the Commonwealth, because otherwise the British farmer would never be protected, and then handing back to the Commonwealth countries the proceeds of the tariff on their food, provided that we can get the Commonwealth to agree that this very large sum—which I think would be of the order of £200 or £300 million—would be spread over the underprivileged members of the Commonwealth, and used to buy British products and the products of those nations like Australia and New Zealand which had passed the money on.
Finally, is there no hope of setting up a Commonwealth Bank and Payments Union which would have the same effect as the European Payments Union, now abandoned, and which could be used to enable Britain to send large loans to Commonwealth countries overseas for the purchase of our goods without bringing about a terrible minus figure in the balance-of-payments White Paper and causing the Zurich bankers to rush for cover? If it is possible for the mass industries and centres of capital in New York and Washington to send capital to New Mexico and California, anywhere inside the 48 States of the American Union, without incurring a balance-of-payments crisis, why is it not possible for Britain—which, with the Commonwealth, according to Sir Winston Churchill, is a great sovereign Power—to do the same thing, although its Commonwealth is maritime?
I implore my right honourable friend and members of the Government to think in more imaginative terms about the decade into which we are moving and to think in terms of using the vast resources of the Commonwealth for the purpose. It could be made the most wonderful vehicle possible for the revival of Britain's greatness. It is larger than China in population; it is larger than Russia in territory; the members of it,

1025
it being a maritime Commonwealth, are instantly in touch with any situation in the world, and it can, if properly directed, use its influence for pacification and amelioration.
I was looking the other day at the famous words of Lord Balfour's great Declaration of 1926. His words appear to me to be more true to-day than ever, even though independence has come to all but a few members of the Commonwealth. May I remind your Lordships of his words?:
"Autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in respect of their domestic and external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
That is the road to Britain's destiny, and ultimately also, pace the United Nations, the road to world order.
5.25 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to me to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, upon his splendid maiden speech. I am sure it held, and often riveted, the attention of you all. We have been friends now for over 30 years, and throughout that period I have always found myself either in ardent agreement with him, or in passionate disagreement. It is exactly the same this evening. I agree with him about the Treasury; I agree with him about the legitimate and deeply felt grievance of the professional classes of this country when they see the "racketeers" rolling around from suite to suite in Bentley motor cars, apparently oblivious of what they spend, and nobody getting at them at all. On the other hand, I think that the Colin Clark thesis is absolute rubbish. So there we are.
All I would say to him at the moment—and I think I speak on behalf of all your Lordships—is this: may be never leave us, especially after his triumph this evening! I think it was the noble Lord. Lord Stonham, who remarked once that anybody who had come to the House of Lords and wanted to return to another place ought to have his head examined; and I would strongly commend that advice to the noble Earl. He will adorn this House, and he will also find it a great advantage to be able to speak whenever he likes without having to
1026
catch anyone's eye; and, even more, to know that he is going to speak.
This afternoon we have to consider our economic position in the aftermath of what I can only describe as the Brussels crash—for crash it was! It is no use saying that it has made no difference. British industry was being geared, and to a large extent was geared, to entering the Common Market; and now we have to change gear. But I think it is worth while saying just a word or two about the Common Market itself, because it is a powerful instrument in the hands of President de Gaulle, and certainly not one to be dismissed out of hand by this country or by any other. After only five years of full operation its gross national product stood at £78 million, and industrial production had steadily risen. It also has, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, pointed out, a greatly increased share of world trade. The prosperity of continental Western Europe to-day is without parallel in history; and we must face that fact. By comparison I want to suggest, in what will be a very brief speech, that the economic achievement of both the United States and the United Kingdom during the last five years has been pitiable.
At a time when underdeveloped countries all over the world, within the Commonwealth and without it, are crying out for capital goods, our industrial capacity is grossly under-used. In steel it is still running at between 50 and 60 per cent., both in this country and in the United States. Unemployment in both countries is severe; our share of the export trade in manufactured goods is declining year by year, whereas that of the Common Market is increasing; productive investment is sagging, one-fifth down since last year—and I am referring to productive investment in private manufacturing industry. When we should be thinking in terms of economic growth and expansion, we are talking about the danger of further deflation and depression on both sides of the Atlantic. Surely we have learnt by this time that deflation does not help the balance of payments in this country. Every time we have gone in for it, it has made the situation worse.
Now one word about the Budget. I take a slightly brighter view than the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I think it is not bad. I just think that it is wholly

1027
lacking in imagination—there is not one spark of it. A radical reform of direct taxation and of corporation taxation—and here I entirely agree with the noble Earl—has been called for for the last ten years. It is still not forthcoming. My Lords, if I had ever become Prime Minister of this country (and I still think it a great pity that I never did: and I privately mourn the country's loss), I should have appointed the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, thinking it over, I feel that I should have done him a great disservice, because the fact remains, as the noble Earl has just reminded us, that the Treasury never change: they have not had a good idea for half a century. They have beaten every Chancellor of the Exchequer, with, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, pointed out, the single exception of Mr. Lloyd George, who had to create his own Civil Service to beat them. I think that my noble friend Lord Eccles, if he had been appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have been sunk, as so many other Chancellors have been, without trace. The Treasury are too formidable and too powerful; and I have yet to find the man who can beat them. But I am sure they are the nigger in the woodpile. I am sure they are the Department who are holding this great country down the whole time, unless, as the noble Earl pointed out, we are in some frightful crisis.
There is at least one good thing in this Budget, the reduction of the stamp duty on Stock Exchange transactions. It is a constructive proposal; and I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee on his tireless efforts for this overdue reform. Because there is no doubt, despite what some of the economic pundits of the Labour Party say, that this duty has had the effect of discouraging foreign investment in British industry. I think it is high time that this change was made. I also welcome the steps (though I agree with the noble Earl that they are comparatively trivial) to increase employment in areas which have been hard hit during this hard winter; and particularly, if I may say so, in the North of Scotland. But I can find in the Budget no direct stimulus of any sort or kind to the export trade which is what we most need at the present moment.
1028
My Lords, before I sit down I want to put just two proposals to you. The first I have made before. We should, I think, take the lead in pressing for a substantial increase in the liquid reserves of the Free World. I suggested this to your Lordships in a debate which I initiated two years ago. These reserves are at present quite inadequate to support the volume of production and trade which the two major international currencies, the pound and the dollar, have to carry. This has a disastrous effect, not only upon the national product of the United States and the United Kingdom, but upon the national economies of underdeveloped and impoverished countries all over the world. I warmly support Mr. Harold Wilson in his advocacy of an international monetary conference—what he has described as a "Summit Economic Conference of the Free World." I disagree with him on one point alone. The new international monetary system, which I believe must replace the one that has clearly broken down, must be more flexible than that which was established at Bretton Woods. The present exchange rates are confined within too narrow margins to take any strain at all, and therefore too often result either in economic stagnation or, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has warned us, in devaluation.
After Mr. Kennedy became President of the United States, he said in his Message to the Congress on February 6, 1961:
"Increasing international monetary reserves will be required to support the ever-growing volume of trade, services and capital movements among the countries of the Free World. Until now the free nations have relied upon increased gold production and continued growth in holdings of dollars and pounds sterling. In the future, it may not always be desirable or appropriate to rely on these sources. We must now, in co-operation with other lending countries, begin to consider ways in which international monetary institutions—especially the International Monetary Fund—can be strengthened and more effectively utilized, both in furnishing needed increases in reserves, and in providing the flexibility required to support a healthy and growing world economy. I am therefore directing that studies to this end will be initiated promptly by the Secretary of the Treasury."
And, for good measure, Mr. Robert Triffin, a great economist in the counsels of the President at Washington, added:
"For a long time the monetary gold stock of the world has been rising much more slowly than the volume of trade."

1029
My Lords, this situation can be remedied by turning the International Monetary Fund into a true Central Bank for Central Banks, with adequate powers of credit creation or contraction. But, again, nothing has been done. The President said that he had directed inquiries to be made. But, if he did, we know nothing of the result. That is, I believe, one of the main causes, if not the main cause, of the economic decline of the United States and the United Kingdom during the past five years, in sharp contrast to the Common Market. Neither of the currencies which have to carry the main burden of international trade is on a solid basis.
My second proposal—and I think I might carry the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, with me here—is that we should do everything we can to extend and expand East-West trade. It is, I believe, the only hope of diminishing the rigours of the cold war. We should, I think, make long-term trade agreements with Russia, with China, with all the countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain. The strategic lists of prohibited goods which were devised by the United States may have had some validity ten years ago, but they do not make any sense to-day. Most of the things that are on the strategic lists they are now making just as well, and in some cases better, on the other side of the Iron Curtain. And, my Lords, I submit that we have nothing to gain, and much to lose, by making war on the standard of living in the Communist world; because the higher that standard of living rises, the greater the chance of peace will be. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government seem now to be giving every encouragement to this.
Finally, I would just say this. Our greatness in the past was built up on world trade. The Dutch, the Belgians, the West Germans, with nostalgic memories of the Hanseatic League, are beginning to turn away from the landlocked, inward-looking economic community envisaged by President de Gaulle, to the open sea. The rôle of Britain and of the Commonwealth, as I see it in the future, is to act as link and linchpin, not only between the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean, but between the Continent of Europe and the world.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE:
My Lords, in addressing your Lordships
1030
for the first time, I should like to ask for your usual indulgence. I should be rash indeed to follow so many distinguished political speakers into the realms of the pros and cons of the Government's economic policy. I am going to ask your Lordships to follow me for a few minutes in a glance at the industrial problems of our present economic situation, and particularly to consider what we may reasonably expect industry to do to co-operate with Government action in solving these long-term difficulties. I say "long-term" because I do not propose to refer to the emergency measures which obviously have to be taken to meet the present crisis. But the long-term measures should be aimed, I suppose, at reducing the frequency and the severity of the periodic crises, which have beset us for so many years, and possibly at finding means in due course to prevent them.
I have been following, not political arguments but the trend of public opinion, so far as one can judge it from the Press and other media, and it seems to me that the consensus of opinion is rather swinging to the idea that, whether the Government have struck the right or the wrong financial balance in their measures, there is a great deal that industry can do, and should be doing, for itself to improve the present situation. One of the encouraging things about the public discussion which has been going on so widely in the last month or two is that I think one can detect a reasonable measure of agreement on certain aspects of our economic situation. There is a certain measure of agreement on the nature of the present set-back; there is a certain measure of agreement on the long-term target at which we should aim for growth; and I think there is also a general agreement that this intractable problem is not going to be overcome by any single panacea, but will require a combined effort from a great many different people working from a great many different angles.
I think also that people feel that changes in organisation, changes in official policy such as we have been discussing, however good they may be—and, of course, they have their place—are not going to achieve our object unless they are accompanied by a real change in human attitudes. That means, a change, I think, for

1031
all of us, all of us engaged in the productive side of the economy and also consumers. To anyone who is familiar with the classical economist, one of the mysteries since the war is what has happened to the consumer. And some of your Lordships may have seen that only recently a publication appeared which referred to the British consumer as "an affluent sheep". Without subscribing to that extreme view, I would say it is surely a very severe come-down for Adam Smith's consumer, with whom many of us were once familiar and who was supposed to provide the regulator of our economy at home.
I think that fact is relevant to the question of our export trade, because if you have, as we seem to have had since the war, a market at home where it is much too easy to sell goods and services, whether they be good, bad or indifferent, because for some reason the consumer is not exercising his rights, and if at the same time you have the export consumer who has retained his selectivity and his independence of mind, then you are faced with exactly the position which we have had, where the attractions of the home market are very much too great. I think that people who have not actually taken part in the export trade are apt to under-estimate the difficulties which it involves, and to forget that these difficulties are very different from one industry to another.
There are, of course, many industries which obviously, by their nature, cannot export; there are others which depend on exports for the greater part of their trade; and there are still more where exports are really a marginal part of their trade, the overheads being largely carried by the home trade. If the home trade is uneconomically run, if we are getting poor production, rising costs, bad service and long deliveries, these quite obviously hamper our export trade, either directly or indirectly. It does not follow that these inefficiencies are in the export trade itself: many export trades depend for their components on numerous small firms which either do not or cannot export.
What I think people are trying to suggest is that, apart from the consumer end of it, we as producers must try to change our attitude from what it has been during the last ten or twelve years. It
1032
is usually described as a change from rigidity of outlook to elasticity of outlook. That sounds very nice in theory, but, of course, it is not nearly so attractive when it is applied in practice. But, in so far as industry is willing to meet new conditions of time, and in so far as it postpones the day on which innovations are made, so much more severe will be the shock when the time comes. It is really like physical health; the longer you put off taking treatment the more severe and drastic will be the treatment when it comes. That, I am afraid, my Lords, is what we are facing at the moment, and the railways are probably as typical an example as any. Therefore, I think we want to consider what can be done to change this attitude of mind in all parts of the productive side of our economy. If you study the reports in the papers and elsewhere, I think myself that you can get some encouragement, because I feel that there is definite evidence that leaders in industrial life, both on the management side and on the union side, are fully aware of the need for this more elastic attitude and are doing their best to fulfil it.
It is the next stage which is so difficult: to bring it home to the individual industry. I am afraid that for nearly all of us the rigid maintenance of the status quo is always more attractive, more easy, than the prospect of constant and unpredictable change. Therefore, it is a difficult thing to put across, and I think some newspapers I have read have tended to take the view that it is impossible. My Lords, I hope that is not so, and I do not myself believe that it is.
The only reasons I will give are these. In the first place, we have an increasingly well-informed and intelligent population studying these problems for themselves; in the second place, we have ever increasing facilities for the dissemination of information by Press, wireless and television which gets into the people's homes; and, thirdly, and by no means least, one must remember that we are constantly getting into the economy an infusion of young men and women who have a wide education; and I suppose it is true that the young have a natural aptitude for elasticity whereas those of us who are older must face the fact that we tend to be a little rigid in our outlook. But I think it is a hopeful

1033
prospect, and I would suggest to your Lordships that anything we in this House can do to convince the man in the street of the need for change, and for a generous attitude to changes as they take place, will be of great advantage and will certainly improve our prospects of achieving the steady economic growth for which we are all looking.
5.52 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am glad it has fallen to me to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, on the wise, informed and balanced speech to which we have just listened, a speech into which he managed, despite the subject, to enthuse kindness and warmth. I know we shall look forward to hearing him again. I said I was glad it had fallen to my lot, because for many years his younger brother was a friend of mine and of many others on these Benches in another place, and we always held him in high regard. I was very pleased also to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the most controversial non-controversial speech I have ever listened to. There was scarcely a sentence that I was not stimulated by hearing, and scarcely one sentence in three that I did not want violently to contradict. But I hope—and here I echo the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby—that the noble Earl will continue in his place, because his contributions are always stimulating. He mentioned that my noble friend Lord Williamson looked the same as he did fifteen years ago. I can assure the noble Earl that he, too, does. He does not merely look the same; he stands the same way and he delivers exactly the same ideas that I heard 18 years ago in this very place. He has not changed a bit, and I think that is a very good thing, because I think he is the one remaining fount of the pure milk of ancient Tory doctrine.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: So does he.
LORD STONHAM: Then I have found another point of agreement with the noble Earl. Indeed, towards the close of his speech he made some observations on agriculture which I hope he will take the opportunity to develop at another time, because I feel that, at least on some of them, revolutionary as they appeared to be, it seems likely I shall find some points of agreement with him.
1034
Having dealt with two maiden speeches, I have to confess that, unlike my usual feelings in economic debates, I speak tonight "under the influence"—under the influence, in fact, of the best piece of economic writing that I have read this year. I am not referring to the Beeching Plan nor to Mr. Maudling's Budget, but to The Times editorial "The Tide does not Wait". I read it again last night, and I think that if it were stuck up in every board room, every factory and every Government Department, and read frequently, it would be a far more powerful weapon in our economic recovery than either the Beeching Plan or the Budget. No one can dispute that the
"crisis inherent in the political and economic situation of Britain is a moral one."
—or
"if dynamic leadership is to replace pragmatic apathy, it will not be because of the fear of the dole or the hope of a douceur. It will be because Britain has once again become a nation caring about the state of its society."
I wish I had been able to write that, and I wish I felt able and competent to follow that advice in an economic debate. If one were to follow such advice one must reject recrimination and back-tracking and look forward, or, to paraphrase the same leading article:
"The Government cannot in isolation spend a nation out of its growing crisis without a balance-of-payments debacle sooner rather than later. We can only succeed by building up a morally healthy, efficient Britain, innovating and exporting to its fullest capacity."
I believe that is absolutely the case and whatever has happened I feel it is imperative for those of us (and I suppose that includes everyone) who firmly believe in the future of our country to try to make some contribution as we see it.
I must say, before I entirely leave the possibility of controversy, that I agree with what has been said about the Treasury, but I would ask both the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, to take heart this year about it: because this year, for the first time for some years, the Treasury "boys" have refrained from making a forecast about prospects of trading this year. That should give heart to all of us; because when they confess in this way that they do not know, then there is a chance that those of us in industry might be left to get on with the job. For that reason

1035
I should like now to make a few modest suggestions regarding exports. I warmly support the Chancellor of the Exchequer's determination to link additional aid to underdeveloped countries with spare productive capacity in this country. I think it is about time that we started to do what other countries have been doing, because this is an important matter of using our idle productive resources. I would draw the Government's attention to one example of this—I refer to the rather alarming position of the steel works plant industry.
In 1946 the British steel industry had a capacity of only 12½ million tons. That is now being doubled, and under N.E.D.C. plans it will increase to some 30 million tons by 1966. Expansion presumably would have been much larger than that if the industry had not for some time been working well below strength; but it now means that for the next five or six years investment in new plant will be very much below the present level. This will have serious repercussions on the steel works plant industry, and on employment in such areas as Scotland and the North East—the very areas the Chancellor of the Exchequer and we are most anxious to help.
Since the war, manufacturers of steel work plants have increased their output some 14 times, in real terms, to a current value exceeding £26 million a year, of which at present 20 per cent. is exported. They have built up teams of highly skilled design engineers and made large investments in the most modern machine tools. They are now faced with the problem that for the next five or six years the demand for plant from our own steel industry will not exceed £7 million a year, compared with the current level of £19 million. There is spare capacity, as we all know, in the general engineering field, and thus there are no alternative home projects to fill the £12 million gap. It would be disastrous for the longer term future of British steel if the design teams had to be dispersed and the plant industry contracted. The only hope is to fill the gap with increased exports. Fortunately, other things being equal, this efficient industry can compete successfully in, and with, any country in the world; but they cannot sell abroad unless they can trade with countries where the demand exists, and unless the Government make it pos-
1036
sible for them to offer terms comparable to those which foreign Governments make available to their manufacturers.
Western European steel is overexpanded, and we cannot look for orders there, so the greater volume of exports will have to be obtained from the Iron Curtain countries or from developing countries. Steel plant orders of some £12 million have recently been obtained, in face of intense competition, from three different Iron Curtain countries. Of course, further orders will be conditioned by the availability of foreign exchange. Here, I fully support what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said about a vigorous effort to increase trade with the Iron Curtain countries. Russian and Roumanian oil would be a typical exchange. It also means resisting the doctrinaire efforts of the United States to impose unfair restrictions on our manufacturers.
In this connection, it was heartening to note the Foreign Secretary's uncompromising attitude to suggestions that we should not sell steel pipes to Russia. If the Americans had their way, we should refuse to buy cheap oil and agree to keep our people unemployed in the North-East. We should thus be two-way losers, because we get nothing in return from the United States, which has not hesistated in the past, and will not hesitate in the future, arbitrarily to deprive our manufacturers of United States orders which we have won on price and quality. We must tell the Americans quite bluntly that we do not intend, because of their political views, to be deprived of orders that we can win on merit.
In developing countries, orders for plant installations depend entirely on financial aid in some form or another. In recent years, our credit terms have been either too short or too costly. That is why there is scarcely a single major British post-war plant in South America. Fortunately, the E.C.G.D. facilities have now greatly improved, and the system of financial guarantees has been a great step forward. But they are still not comparable with the more flexible system operated by the United States, whereby credit facilities can be adjusted to the needs of the customer.
It is also a major handicap to British firms that the only aid attracting Government guarantee is loan capital.

1037
Obviously, the best help we can give to developing countries is investment, which must be given the same protection against political and transfer risks as loan capital. The Germans, Japanese and Americans, our principal overseas competitors in this, as in most major industries, operate such schemes; and if we really mean business in exports, and are determined to cure unemployment in the heavy industry areas, we must give our exporters the same facilities as their rivals, and thus give them the chance to compete on equal terms.
A typical example of this sort of thing is mentioned in the Guardian only this morning. We look like losing an order for an alloy steel plant which the Indian Government wish to instal at Dargapur. The British tender was attractive and was approached in general acceptibility only by the Japanese offer. But the decisive factor is the credit terms; and here the Japanese, who are fully supported by their Government, look like getting the business on credit terms alone. This will be particularly unfortunate, because we recently played a major part in installing a £120 million plant at Dargapur. It is not only a matter of business, but of prestige; and it will cost us dearly if the Japanese break through in this market. The British firms concerned have already had to sack some hundreds of skilled men. This is a typical case coming within the Government's policy, which the Chancellor has just reaffirmed, on idle productive resources, and I hope that they will look at this again before it is too late.
Another vitally important step in creating jobs, and indirectly helping exports, is the Chancellor's decision to allow firms in areas of high unemployment to write off for tax purposes, at any rate they choose, the cost of immobile plant and machinery. I welcome this. It is an innovation which is intended to give and must give—I will not say depressed areas, but areas of high unemployment, some advantage in investment so that firms can be attracted there. But I would point out that they are only taking a leaf—and just one leaf—out of the book of the system of corporate taxation which is used in Sweden and is expressly designed to encourage the whole of manufacturing industry to invest in new and up-to-date buildings and plant.
1038
Swedish tax rules promote the building up of tax-free investment reserves for economic stabilisation. They are specifically designed to stimulate the use of private capital in the fight against recession, unemployment and economic instability. The corporations make returns of net profits in the ordinary way and are then permitted to set aside up to 40 per cent. of their pretax net income as an investment reserve. They have to deposit a substantial part of this reserve with the Royal Bank of Sweden and must obtain approval from the Labour Boards, though that is almost never withheld when it is shown, as it usually can be, that the need for labour exists. All or part of these reserves can be used for new buildings, for the acquisition of plant and equipment, for the purchase of stock materials and, in special instances, for the promotion of export sales. This opportunity to accumulate such reserves has encouraged manufacturers to maintain a progressive attitude towards production and to provide for the future.
The taxation rules for the depreciation of machinery and equipment are also extremely flexible in Sweden. Within broad limits, corporations are allowed to write down the value of plant and equipment in the manner which best suits their business. The Government, as I say, have already, in effect, conceded this point with regard to areas of high unemployment in this country. I am sure it will be very important work of attracting employment to those areas, particularly of the most efficient firms. My own view is that it should stay as a special privilege for those areas for an appreciable time of some years. But I think its effects should be studied generally so that the system may well be enlarged for the benefit of manufacturing and productive industry as a whole later on. There is no doubt that in industries where we are completely competitive in design, price and everything else with the Swedes it is just this difference of tax structure and their ability to build up reserves and write off plant which gives them the edge in competing with us for overseas orders.
Finally, I would emphasise that it is utterly useless to talk of expanding exports unless we are going to make absolutely certain of sufficient and, indeed, abundant supplies of power. I think it amounts to a scandal the way

1039
the Government during recent years have literally played with fire to the extent that they have not insisted on sufficient investment to provide the plant that was known to be needed for the power for industry. For years the electricity generating plant programme has not been enough to meet the anticipated peak demand. We have positively invited black-outs and power shortages, and we have thus jeopardised the country's economic growth. This cannot be allowed to continue, especially as the demand for power is now expected to increase at the rate of 10 per cent. a year—and that allows for the N.E.D.C. 4 per cent. annual increase in production.
Last year we had a record installation of plant of something like 2,750 megawatts; but it was not nearly enough to meet the growth in demand. I know that we had a severe winter, but we must expect to have some bad weather at some time in the winter. On January 22 this year the potential demand was about 32,000 megawatts and the maximum load that could be carried was less than 30,000 megawatts. During this year the plant that will be installed will bring us to the maximum load that we ought to have been able to carry last year—namely, 32,000 megawatts. Meanwhile, the demand will have increased by a further 10 per cent., and we shall be that much behind all the time—at least a year behind—and we shall not catch up unless we have a crash programme or an increase in the next four years in the programme originally planned.
It seems basic common sense that the programme must be geared to anticipated demand. otherwise we are asking for trouble. But it will mean a very large investment in plant, and if the industry is to be asked to undertake this, they must he given a definite assurance that, since we are planning to-day for anticipated demand five years hence, once the programme as planned is going to be progressively installed the Government will not interfere with it. It is absolutely catastrophic to go up and down in a matter of that kind and there must not be arbitrary cuts. Secondly, subject to pricing and tendering arrangements which are fair to both sides, the orders should be placed with British firms. Anything else is surely unthink-
1040
able; and certainly we should not get any orders for large plants of this kind overseas. I hope that, especially since the industry in turbo-alternators is at present working at only 60 per cent. capacity, these matters will be quickly cleared up and the necessary assurances given.
If we are to cure unemployment and to achieve our growth targets, we must create first stable conditions in which our manufacturing industries can plan their investment programmes in confidence. We have not only to create the framework. We must create confidence that those stable conditions will continue, that the programme will go on, and that firms will not be let down as they have been time and time again. That is one of the basic reasons for the malaise of which we are aware, and of which the article to which I referred made such a point. If we can have this firm policy, and it is carried out wisely; if we can give the men on the factory floor the confidence that if they work and co-operate they will not be working themselves out of a job; and if, too, we make sure that if our people have done their job and are really competitive we do not lose export orders because of some special conditions which are given by foreign countries and which our people cannot enjoy, then I believe the recovery that we all want to see will begin to come. If we do these things, I am confident that we shall at last begin to get away from the bottom of the league and play the part that Britain can and should play.
6.18 p.m.
LORD ECCLES: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, on two most interesting maiden speeches. I am so glad that my old friend Lord Sandwich decided to make the short journey, of which he spoke, from another place. Your Lordships would have suffered a loss if he had not taken that decision. I have the impression that the attention and interest with which your Lordships received his fine speech this afternoon will soften his thoughts, and he will soon echo the words of the poet:
"…port after stormie seas
"…does greatly please."

1041
I do not have the same lack of faith in the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I am sure that the Chancellor means to stick by his declaration that expansion is now the Government's first aim.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am sorry to interrupt, but plainly I did not make myself clear. I have as much confidence in the Chancellor as one reasonably can have in a statesman of an opposite Party, but I have grave doubts as to whether he will be allowed to stick to these policies.
LORD ECCLES: That brings us back to the Treasury, to which I shall have to refer, since the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, made so much of that Department.
I believe that this Budget will be seen in time as the first practical step towards a workable policy for a 4 per cent. growth. The new theme is the right theme but, as Mr. Maudling stressed in his speech, this policy will fail unless the general public grasp the extent to which their co-operation is essential. As the Chancellor said, the Government can give a lead, but the public must do the rest. He claimed that the measures which he had already taken, before the Budget and in the Budget, added up to the strongest lead which the Government should give in present circumstances. That is a very large claim. I wonder whether we are quite satisfied that the Government are doing all they should to promote expansion, encourage exports and hold off inflation. I suppose that we should all give somewhat different estimates on each of those aspects of a growth policy, and perhaps the most important question is how much influence the Budget will haw on smoothing the way towards a reasonable incomes policy. This was what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, in his most interesting contribution, was asking us to consider.
Mr. Maudling did very well, in my view, to stop the argument about which comes first, expansion or an incomes policy. He told the House of Commons that the choice is between having neither expansion nor an incomes policy, and having them both together; and he said he had decided that the best way to get both was to put expansion first. That is a novel and bold decision which must
1042
carry some risk to the balance of payments. Like most great shifts in domestic policy, it starts from a revised judgment about human nature. The Chancellor must have had to ask himself: how will capital and labour behave if the economy is pushed into rapid growth? Will they be content with reasonable shares of the increased output, or will the old mixture of ignorance and self-interest land us once more in inflation? I am sure he was right to take the optimistic view and to give us a chance to behave well under conditions of rapid expansion.
I cannot help reminding your Lordships, after what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said about the Treasury, how completely this decision of the Chancellor reverses the pessimistic view held so tenaciously by the Treasury ever since the war. Up to now the authorities have believed that inflation was always just around the corner and, therefore, that it was their first duty to put an old-fashioned defence of the pound in front of economic growth. For some time I have been out of sympathy with this orthodox Treasury doctrine. It seemed to me that we should put investment and efficiency in the economy first, and then should not be afraid of experiments with the effects of expansion upon the costs of exports.
I thought that that risk had become worth taking for two reasons: first, because in the last year or two the quality of management in British industry has been improving very fast. An older generation has been disappearing, and the younger men who are coming forward are showing how a more professional approach to the job can quickly bring results in the level of management. From what I have seen of them in the last year, I believe that we can trust these younger men to act responsibly, even if demand is pushed up more rapidly than seems likely at present. The second reason is not very different. It is that there is now plenty of spare capacity in modern machines and plant. Formerly, if demand rose sharply, obsolescent expensive machines had to be pressed into service and, naturally, average costs of production rose. But now the spare capacity that we have, if the new machines were used to the full, could produce some all-round reductions in costs. Therefore, I believe that contrived expansion is less of a risk now than at any time since the

1043
war; and I hope that not only our own country but other countries also, will go for it.
I should not like your Lordships to think that, in chiding this great Department of State, the Treasury, for hanging on so long to the outworn pessimistic policies, I forget that for years they stood almost alone against the economic disasters that so many of the post-war political ideas seemed certain to bring in their train. After the war, despite the fact that we had become the largest debtor in the world, pretty well everybody thought that he had a right to enjoy a much higher standard of life than before: everyone came to think that his salary or wages ought to go up every year, whether his own or the nation's output justified it or not. With what mounting dismay the Treasury must have seen the American and Canadian loans squandered on current consumption; the nationalised industries becoming dependent upon public funds, not only for their capital requirements, but also for their huge deficits on current operations! And, above all, how they must have trembled when they saw, year after year, the total of incomes rising faster than output, and rising by figures too big to be offset in any budget, and too big to be handled by the normal monetary measures!
All those factors were unknown before the war, and under their combined influence the financial authorities found themselves losing control over the things which it was their first duty to keep intact. As a result of pressure born of universal suffrage and of the bargaining power of labour under conditions of full employment, the threat of inflation became a permanent threat, so that it required a permanent coherent policy to meet it. The authorities, one would suppose, must have been aware how completely different the new situation was from the intermittent speculative booms that we had known before the war. Yet successive Chancellors were advised to use the measures appropriate to a wholly capitalist economy, run on rules drawn up on the "old-boy net"—bank rate, credit squeezes, exhortation on the virtues of restraint, higher taxation, and so on. Having mistaken the nature of post-war society, they naturally took the wrong steps to keep it in good health. It is infinitely to Mr. Maudling's credit that he
1044
has now at last put an end to that long chapter of error and frustration.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, he can hardly deny that there have been a certain number of speculative booms in the post-war period, as well as in the pre-war period.
LORD ECCLES: With respect to the noble Lord, the real threat of inflation has not come from speculation, but from the hundreds of millions of pounds in one year by which incomes exceeded the value of production. It is the magnitude of the increase in incomes which is changing the whole situation.
I should like to turn for a moment or two to the advice which, in my judgment, the authorities ought to have been giving over the last few years. I feel sure that modern financial policy should differ radically from pre-war policy because of the social and political revolution which we have been through since the great slump of 1929. It required a generation or more for the granting of universal suffrage to work its way right into our political life, and it took World War II to show that full employment is there to be enjoyed, provided that demand is deliberately maintained at the right level.
In these changed circumstances the authorities ought to have seen that they had to deal with the general public and not just with a select company of bankers, economists and Ministers. The whole of the electorate are now actively and continuously in the battle for or against inflation. It simply is not possible any longer, by taking counsel in Great George Street and manipulating the levers of monetary policy, to bring about changes in the economy which the ordinary man rejects either because they have not been explained to him or because they conflict with what he conceives to be his own interests. Who to-day really believes that a rise in the bank rate, or a system of special deposits, or even a few hundred thousands of extra unemployed will by themselves stop the annual demands for increases in wages and salaries? Sound monetary policies help to restrain, but they can no longer control, the rise in incomes nor are financial measures a substitute for better general and technical education, or for more efficient management of our firms both large and small.

1045
We all know now that the keys to a high rate of growth without inflation are to a large degree non-monetary. This is the change since pre-war. They are, in fact, a reasonable attitude towards incomes, a greater supply of skilled manpower and a willingness to make large investments in the basic services which industry requires for its operations. In the old days it was right to defend the pound by making money scarce and dear. The only way to do it now is by refusing to allow a high and steady rate of investment to be sacrificed to the extravagant appetite for current consumption. If that can be done the pound will look after itself.
I could wish that the Treasury had given a more positive lead in maintaining investment at a high level. Their role here has become crucial. We do not live any longer in a wholly free enterprise economy in which investment takes place only when the employer can see ahead of him the market for his products. A large part of the initiative of investment has now gone elsewhere. Of course, if we lived in a Communist State then all investment would be centrally planned and consumption would come after, a very bad second. Nobody in Britain wants to go to that extreme, but we must recognise that we live in a mixed economy, in which more than half the total investment in the country is already done in the public sector. In no year since the war have the Government, the local authorities and the other public bodies been able to start anything approaching the number of capital projects which they knew were urgently needed. They were held back year after year. Why? Because of the fear of using up too many resources. I believe that that fear has for some years now been exaggerated. At any rate, it would have been very much less potent if the argument for linking growth with an incomes policy had been put across to the public much earlier. How good, then, it is to see that this argument is the centrepiece of Mr. Maudling's Budget!
In the light of these considerations about the past, what can we say about the Chancellor's more important proposals? The theme is certainly right, but, even with all that he had done before Budget Day, I cannot be sure that the measures in the Budget are going to be enough. It would he very
1046
sad if my right honourable friend came to share the fate of a motorist in a strange land who, with great courage and skill, found the right road and then forgot to put enough petrol in his tank. I fear that that may happen. It is very difficult to guess how near we shall get this year to a 4 per cent. growth rate and a 3 per cent. to 3½ per cent. incomes policy. The Chancellor's discrimination in favour of investment in the areas of high unemployment will do good, but it cannot do it quickly.
As I said earlier, there is to-day a large amount of spare capacity in industry, and that must be taken up before there is any great rush to build new factories anywhere in the country. I should have thought it more urgent and more effective to concentrate upon increasing the demand this year for the products of heavy industries. I think that was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I should think, too, that the best way to do that is by adding to the investment programmes of the public authorities, which means placing contracts as soon as the Government are willing to do it. I say that because confidence in the private sector will not be easy to stimulate owing to the ominous prospects of the General Election. If the Party opposite really think that managers and engineers welcome the possibility of a Government that is wedded to more nationalisation, more taxation and more controls, then I advise them to send some of their friends round and make a few inquiries. At any rate, it is true that with the Socialist clouds lying heavily on the horizon the private sector of the economy needs a stronger tonic than in a normal year. Therefore one asks: is the Chancellor's stimulant strong enough?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? Is he seriously suggesting that the present situation with regard to investment in the private sector is due to the prospect of a (general Election? Is that his serious economic argument?
LORD ECCLES: I am afraid it is. I wish it were not so, but I happen to know that quite a number of people put into the icebox their plans because they

1047
are afraid that they might get a Government which did not favour private enterprise. People are like that, you know.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is childish.
LORD ECCLES: People sometimes have memories that go back a few years. I was saying that I think the most powerful ingredient in his mixture is probably the £700 million deficit. In one way or another the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to finance that very large sum; and, greatly as National Savings will help, he can find part of that money in a way which will increase the amount of cash available and the lending powers of the banks. I find it very hard to judge how expansionary the Budget is without knowing how my right honourable friend intends to deal with the deficit.
On the other hand, the effect of the income tax reliefs on purchasing power can neither be early nor very formidable. They begin only in July, and we do not yet know how such marginal additions to the weekly cash will be spent. Nobody, I think, would claim that they are likely to result in many more orders for heavy industry; and as for the consumption industries, I should think it possible that their benefits would be largely offset by the increased rate demands and the increased National Insurance contributions.
But, what is more important, I cannot see that these income tax reliefs are going to do anything to help us get to a reasonable incomes policy. The pressure for wages and salaries beyond what the country can afford nearly always starts with a wish to reinstate some differential. The process begins with the lowest paid workers and it goes up through the others, very often in the style of a game of leapfrog, one section of wage or salary earners trying to get a jump ahead of another. As these low-paid workers (and there are many millions of them) do not pay income tax at all the Budget reliefs can do nothing to influence them to abate their claims; indeed, the Budget reliefs will slightly open the differentials between them and the next band above them. I hope that the income tax reliefs are good politics, but I do not think they can be described as good growth economics.
1048
I would much rather have seen this £180 million spent on improving the capital assets of the country in such fields as transport, power, education, housing and so on. It may be a fact (and I want to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House about this) that the Government have authorised such large additions to the investment programmes in the public sector that this action which they have taken, plus the financing of the £700 million deficit, will be enough to generate a growth rate of 4 per cent. this year and, therefore, a higher rate next year; because if we get the 4 per cent. this year then we shall be on the up, and next year will be higher. If they have done that, they really ought to give us the details. They announce their capital projects one by one and we can never get—at least I have never been able to get—a picture of what the total looks like. I wonder whether my noble friend would ask the Chancellor to consider producing a running total, say once a month, of all the capital programmes in the public sector, showing what new authorisations have been given during the past month, and possibly breaking it down into England, Scotland and Wales. Because I am fairly sure, from the business people I know, that a total of that kind, kept going month by month, would make a much more rapid impression on business confidence than the tax changes in the Budget.
In conclusion, I would remind your Lordships that when we are investing our own money we usually prefer the shares of a company which does not yield very much on the dividend but ploughs back plenty of profits, and gives us notice of an interesting expansion programme. Over a period the company which does the opposite, and pays out all it earns, is not a good investment. In this age of rapid technical change, when machines and assets become obsolescent so quickly, the same is exactly true of the economy. Either we plough back every year very large sums in development and improvements, or we shall not be a good prospect. Our own people will have no satisfaction and no sense of purpose until the Government give them a strong lead in aiming at growth through greater investment, even if it means some holding back of current consumption. I hope that the Budget, what was done before it and what is going to be done as a result of it, will

1049
add up to a lead of this kind. If it does, Mr. Maudling will have many opportunities to bring in many more Budgets in the future.
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, two maiden speeches in an afternoon is a treat, and a treat worth waiting for; and for me to hear my noble friend Lord Sandwich speaking in the same place as I am is a particular pleasure that I have not had before. He and I were at Cambridge together and have been close friends ever since. He and I often disagree, but that is the fun of the thing. I am sure all your Lordships have been greatly stimulated by what he has said to-day.
On one thing I think that he and all your Lordships who have spoken to-day are broadly in agreement, and that is that our economy in the last years has lagged behind in the race for world trade and we, the great industrial nation of the past, are fast losing out, although we are sheltered behind a high tariff wall. Perhaps I should not say "although"; perhaps it is in part because we are sheltered behind high tariff walls. I had hoped, and I think many of your Lordships had hoped, that going into the Common Market would provide the solution of our problems in the sense that we were going to face stiff competition, and would have to put our house in order and become efficient, and that everyone was ready to face this, particularly those in industry, because they knew they would subsequently have a large home market where they could take their chance. To me, therefore, the failure to get into the Common Market is a great tragedy. I think there is a real risk that that having happened, we may go back very much to thinking, "Oh, well, it did not matter too much. We will carry on in the same old way". I am quite sure that we cannot go back to "business as before". What we must do, above all else, is to ensure that the fundamental basic structure of this economy is efficient.
So far as I am concerned, the recent Budget and Government action generally in the economic field need to be measured on the basis not only of whether they are going to provide for growth or full employment but, at this time, equally of whether they will help from an efficiency point of view. On
1050
the question of whether the Budget is going to help sufficiently to get things going, some opinion we have heard has been that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done too much. I think the noble Earl who made his maiden speech felt that. Others have said it is not enough. These are matters of opinion. If I myself had to guess, very likely I should say the Chancellor had hit the bull's eye. But I do not think we need worry too much, because lie has said if it is not sufficient he will take further measures to ensure that more is forthcoming, and, equally, we know that if it is too much he can take measures the other way. So I do not think we need worry too much about that. The fact that matters is that he is prepared to move one way or the other. That, of course, is of first importance in regard to incomes policy, about which I need not speak, as so many of your Lordships have already spoken about it this afternoon.
But there is one thing that took place in the debate in another place which I heartily welcome—namely, both from the Government and from the Labour Party there was a clear denunciation of devaluation as a cure for our ills. It is not a cure; it is cheating. If we can keep exports going in the next few months, or year or two—I think that there is an encouraging sign in that the position of America is improving, and their demand is one of great importance for us—then I think we still have time on the basic side of our industry to get the efficient state which is of such importance. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, recalled how the Leader of the House last year was advocating efficiency above all. I am sure that that is right. I am not at all sure that the Government are not in fact doing what is needed in this respect.
I say that I am not at all sure because, quite frankly, we do not get the whole picture. This is much the point that the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, made when he said, "I do not quite know what is being done in the way of investment on the capital side." We know that a lot is going to be done at the present time in regard to education, particularly on the technical side. We know that training centres are being set up for new jobs. We know that a great deal is being done in the way of new investment in power and that, thanks to Lord Robens of Woldingham and the miners, the fuel industry is in a much

1051
better position than it was. We know that Dr. Beeching has a plan for the railways. We know that a lot is happening on the roads. Then there is the Rochdale Report on the ports. But these things are not, as it were, all put together. It is difficult even for us in this House, and for other people who study these things particularly, to know just what is happening and how far we are going in achieving efficiency in those spheres in which the Government can make us efficient.
If that is true of us, how much more true must it be of people generally? I ask the Government most sincerely to think a great deal more about trying to tell the country just what they are up to at the present time. I suspect that what they are doing is right, and I suspect that it is good, but we really do not know about it. I think it was Lord Grantchester who said that what we want are simple words. I am trying to echo the same thought in a slightly different way. I am all for the National Economic Development Council. Obviously, this is a fine body, and it is going to be of great benefit in pointing the way and, in degree, educating the Government and some of the top people, if I may put it that way, who are concerned with these things. But they are not the Government; they are not the leaders. What we need in this context is clear leadership and description of what is planned for efficiency in the country. That we have got to have if industry is to work and if we are to hold our own in the world markets.
I now turn to Scotland. I have the pleasure of saying "Thank you" twice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Government, to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to the Secretary of State for Scotland, or to anybody else concerned, for what has been given to us. Again and again we have asked the Government to reveal to us what might be the carrot—the "juicy carrot", I think was how my noble friend Lord Polwarth described it—for inducing industry to come to Scotland or to come to the development areas. Now, at long last, we know. It has been a long and uphill task to find out. But now we are told what it is, and I think it is a most satisfactory and fine vegetable. We have been told that there will be good grants for building and new plant, that there will be free depreciation; and so far as the Scottish Industrial
1052
Council is concerned, they can take up their task with a certainty and with renewed vigour.
My second thanks is concerned with the pulp mill at Fort William and the loans which the Government are to make. Forestry and tourism are the key to Highland prosperity, and now I believe that they can go forward with a great deal more confidence. Generally, I feel more hopeful that Scotland will make the change from heavy industry and coal to a more widely balanced economy in the coming years. We shall, of course, again ask for other things—for instance, I can think of a need for help on the air services, on which there is to be a debate at a later date. But generally I am encouraged.
On the general subject of Scotland's needs, I would come back to a point which I have talked about in the general context. I recall that in a previous debate the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, mentioned the development department which the Secretary of State was to set up for coordinating the development plans of the various Government Departments who are to operate in Scotland. This followed out the recommendation of the Toothill Report. But here again I do not know what is happening: I have not seen anything emerging. I do not know exactly, or in detail, what is being planned, or what is being done for Scotland. I know that we have had the Mackenzie Report on Power. There is also the Rochdale Report, which deals with Scottish ports as well as those of England. We know that a great deal is being done in regard to roads and education—the same sort of thing, but in perhaps greater measure, as is happening all through the country. When we have had this body set up by the Secretary of State, particularly to coordinate. it is not enough, I suggest, just for the Secretary of State to know about these things. It is essential that the people should be told the whys and wherefores of, and where they fit into, the plan. Then, I know, the Scots will not fail.
6.58 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, expansion and exports are really the two themes of this debate, and every noble Lord who has spoken has been insistent on the need for both these things. Various reasons have been given why we are

1053
lagging behind. Nobody has denied that we are lagging behind, and seriously so. The noble Lord, Lord Eccles, if I understood him correctly, mentioned that one of the reasons why we were lagging behind in our expansion was that there was insufficient investment at the present time, due to the uncertainty about the Election. In fact, when my noble friend Lord Shackleton specifically asked him that, he replied in the affirmative. So if we are all agreed that we must have expansion, and the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, and his friends feel that expansion is being held up through uncertainty over the Election, surely it is in the interests of the country, if not of his own Party, that the Election should not be delayed.
I do not think any of us on this side of the House would suggest that it is this uncertainty which is the only reason why we are lagging behind. We have, of course, been lagging for many years, even when the prospect of an Election was far from us, so we must look far wider than that. We must also look, in passing, to see how this Budget is helping us. The noble and learned Viscount last year, in a similar debate, suggested that the days of the Budget were numbered, in so far as its importance as a factor in our general economic planning was concerned. He was absolutely right in that. There are many more acts the Government can do to promote the economy of the country than merely once a year preparing a Budget. None the less, the Budget of itself is clearly of some significance.
I shall mention two points in the Budget in this particular context. Expansion, it is hoped, will be achieved by increasing demand through increasing purchasing power, and for that reason certain cuts in income tax have been made. Those cuts, in my view, are at the right end. They are just and they are wise. But I do not really see them increasing in any way the demand for the sort of goods which we need to produce if we are to have this genuine expansion. In the last few days I have asked a number of people in the income bracket of from £600 up to £1,500 a year —the people who have benefited most from this Budget—what the cuts will mean to them. Not one of them has said to me, "I am going to buy a new washing machine or a new motor car
1054
with the extra money." One at the top of the scale said, "Probably we shall have a slightly longer holiday in France as a result of it"—which is not going to expand our economy. Another said, "It will help me pay the school fees of my son ", which, again, is not going to help much. Another one, a little lower down the scale, said, "I shall probably smoke a few more cigarettes, and possibly drink another pint of beer on Sundays." The one at the lowest end of the scale said, "This will just about cover the extra rates I have to pay on my council house." I do not know whether that is a lair cross-section, but I do not think we can look to this very reasonable concession in the Budget as in any way stimulating the production of this country.
When it comes to encouraging exports, we had hoped for great things; we had hoped that there would be something in the nature of a turnover tax, an added value tax, or something of that kind, but all we get is the announcement that an extremely able and distinguished banker is going to look into this matter. Well, surely, that is not at this stage a good enough way to try to encourage exports, if there is any urgency at all in the matter. It would be all right if this were a slow, academic exercise, where one might be interested in getting an answer in 1967 or 1968; but when the country is crying out for more exports, why do the Treasury and the Government have to wait until pressure has built up from the organs of public opinion, from the Economist and the Financial Times, from business men and bankers, and then, as it were, reluctantly say, "We will bring somebody in from outside to suggest to us what to do"? Surely, that is the job of the Government themselves, with their own officials—those very able people, who have come in for a lot of criticism which I think rightly lies at the doors of the politicians themselves. Surely it is their job already to have looked into this, to have themselves brought up ideas and then to have said, "Yes, we like it and will do it" or "No, it is no good", rather than to plod slowly along and to start thinking about it at this late stage.
I suggest that there are some other reasons why we are suffering from this serious situation; and it is significant that not one noble Lord who has spoken from either side of the House has

1055
attempted—not even the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—to minimise the gravity of the situation. It is a frank admission of failure on the part of the Government, and, while we should respect them for their frankness, we cannot respect them for bringing us to this state of affairs. I suggest that there are other factors which we should look at, which have either not been mentioned at all or which have not been sufficiently mentioned during this debate.
We used to hear a few years ago that one of the reasons for the inefficiency of labour was full employment, and there were some of the tough business school who said, "What we need is a good dose of unemployment, and we shall then get more discipline among the workers and get better work done." I will not develop that argument or refute it. Similarly people may have said—I have not heard many say it, except in the context of the Common Market—that what management, exporters and industrialists in this country need is a buyer's market in place of a seller's market, in order to force them into more efficiency. They have been confronted with the competition in the export field of other industries, and, with some notable exceptions, in general they have failed. They have withdrawn from the export trade and, instead, concentrated on home production and home sales. But even now, even with what appears to be some form of concession, we, the affluent sheep—to use a phrase from the admirable speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie—the consumers, are always being confronted with a sheer unwillingness on the part of the manufacturer to meet our demands or to take any trouble to give us what we want.
Only the other day I was anxious to put in a new conveying system in the grain storage on my farm—admittedly not a very large contract, one involving a few thousand pounds. One firm I went to, which had supplied me in the past, sent down a very polite young man, who, I believe, was one of the firm's principals, to discuss it with me, but thereafter they refused to do anything whatsoever. They would not send down a draughtsman, an engineer or anyone to take the measurements. The
1056
measurements were left to me to take, and they refused to take any responsibility if the measurements were wrong.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Did they not want the contract?
LORD WALSTON: They clearly did not want the contract, and they did not get it. That is not the sort of attitude which is going to lead this country to greater and more efficient production. One has examples of this all over the country, as well as abroad. Again, taking my own small experience, I tried to buy fertilisers for my West Indian farm, and invited contracts from English, Dutch and German suppliers. The English supplier, a producer of compound fertilisers, refused to tender; they were not interested; they were satisfied with the home market and were unwilling to develop farther afield. Therefore the contract, small though it is, goes to Holland. Such examples can be extended throughout the whole range of experience, I would dare to suggest, of any noble Lord in this Chamber who is engaged in any form of business at all.
What we need is to change this climate of complacency and of satisfaction with the existing state of affairs, and to replace it with a "go-getting" idea of more business, more turnover, more profits. How can that be achieved? One thing that is needed is to recreate, or possibly to create, a feeling among all those engaged in industry, of justice with regard to rewards. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, mentioned the interesting figure that wages and salaries in the past ten years, since 1951, had gone up by 116 per cent. That was an important figure and a disturbing figure in view of the general rise in the gross national product.
What he did not mention—and I am sure it was not in any way done intentionally—was that the wages had in fact gone up by some 191 per cent., whereas salaries had gone up by 243 per cent. In other words, the people who are defined in the Government's statistics as salary earners as opposed to wage earners—which, by and large, I think one can say, are the managerial class—have in fact had a greater proportionate increase in their salaries than

1057
the workers have. I do not attach a great deal of significance to that figure, but when we are talking of wage freezes and restraint, I think we should realise that, although wages have gone up well in excess of productivity and of gross national product, on the whole the benefits received by the managerial side have gone up even more than that.
But we must do far more than simply alter the balance somewhat between the different classes of people engaged in productive industry. What we must also do—and this is very long, very slow, and very difficult—is somehow to alter the general balance of rewards as between people who do different things; who are the producers, the manipulators or the exchangers. I am not suggesting at all that we could get on in this world without the people who process, who exchange, who manipulate. They are all important. But when we talk of expansion, when we say that we must produce more in this country, we must, if we are honest, realise that it is the people who are engaged in industry in one form or another who are the ones we want to get at. There is no getting away from the fact to-day that, if you contrast the stockbroker, the manufacturer, the middleman, the farmer, the land speculator—I do not use that word in a derogatory sense—and the exporter, it is the stockbroker, the middleman and the land speculator who make the biggest profits, and the manufacturer, the farmer and the exporter whose profits are at a very much lower level.
I received to-day from the Ministry of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, some figures which have some slight interest in this connection. I hope your Lordships will bear with me, but it is one of my hobby-horses. These are official Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food figures, comparing prices of wheat, flour and bread between 1958 and 1962. During that four-year period, the average price of home-grown wheat increased by one-quarter of 1 per cent.; in other words, it was virtually static. The average price of all imported wheat went up by just over 5 per cent. The weighted averaged of those two wheats in the proportion in which they are used in the grist went up by some 4·7 per cent. Therefore, the wheat moving into the mill cost 4·7 per cent. more. But the flour coming out of the mill did
1058
not cost 4·7 per cent. more; it cost 7·4 per cent. more. In other words, either the costs or profits of the miller had increased by that much more, whereas the home producer of wheat, the farmer, received only one-quarter of 1 per cent. more.
That is not the end of the story. The baker, buying his flour at a price which was 7·4 per cent. higher than it was four years ago, did not simply pass that on to the consumer and charge 7·4 per cent. more for his bread; he charged 12 per cent. more for his bread. So here again you have the picture which we see all through: the farther you went from the primary producer, the greater has been the effect of this inflationary rise which we have been experiencing throughout these years. I cannot believe that so long as that continues we are going to encourage the right sort of people to go into occupations of the sort the country most needs: the productive occupations, the manufacturing occupations and the exporting occupations. Recently there has been, as some of your Lordships will doubtless have read in The Times, correspondence on this very subject. An admirable letter to-day suggests that what we need is to encourage the brightest and best of our school leavers and university leavers to go into creative occupations, instead of into the professions of stockbroking, accountancy, and so on. But how can we encourage such people to do that, when not only public esteem but material rewards are so worked that, by going into these productive occupations, these young men and their advisers, their parents and their teachers, know full well that they will not enjoy such a high standard of living in the future as they will if they go in for the manipulative and the exchange professions? This may be an idealistic point, something which is too far removed from the facts of to-day, to be thought about seriously. But I do not believe that we are going to get any long-term, permanent, radical improvement in our present situation until we face these facts, and until we attempt by a variety of means to alter this balance.
One way of doing it, which a Budget could have done, which the last Budget attempted ineffectually and half-heartedly to do, is by a capital gains tax. Another way is by some form of taxation, call it a wealth tax if you like, whereby revenue

1059
is raised not from those who earn and who produce—in other words, you can quite drastically lower the income tax on such people—but from those people who have accumulated wealth by some form of capital gains, which at the present time escapes the net of taxation.
I should like to move on to a second and final point which has been mentioned both by the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, and by the noble Earl, Lord Perth; that is, the need for a far more comprehensive form of planning of the whole of our national economy. We have recently had the example of the Beeching Report—an admirable document, a courageous document, and a document which faces the facts, many of them unpalatable. But the Beeching Report by itself is—I will not say valueless, but it is no more than a very valuable ingredient which is necessary for the whole proper planning of our economy, just as were the Rochdale Report and so many other reports we have had.
We cannot in this day and age believe or maintain that we can effectively plan our economy piecemeal by simply saying one day what we shall do with our railways, the next day what we shall do with our roads, the day after what we shall do with our docks, and so on. We must bring them all in, and it must be the job of the Government to make that plan. They should, of course, have been doing it these five years past. They have delayed doing it, whether through inertia, ignorance or doctrinaire attitudes towards it, I do not know. They are slowly coming round to it, and we give them credit for that. But now let them go faster and bring them all in together.
I will give your Lordships another small example of the sort of thing which results from this piecemeal planning, the lack of any co-ordinating plan. In the north of Lincolnshire, at a small place called Keelby, there is a fairly modern power station which was sited with due regard to coal supplies and to bringing in the coal from the Doncaster coalfields in the most efficient and effective way. It was sited on a railway line and it was sited on a waterway, so the coal could have been brought in either by water or by rail—and, of course, it could also have been brought in byroad. In fact, it is at the present time being brought in by
1060
road because, on a strict, individual accounting basis, it is cheaper coming by road. But even though the coal may cost 6d. a ton cheaper to transport by road, when you take into account not only the wear and tear on the roads but the inconvenience to the other users of the roads and the delays resulting from this very heavy traffic, and when you also take into account the losses entailed by the railways in not carrying this coal, and by the waterways in maintaining the canal but having no traffic on it, and all the other factors which come in, surely a very different answer is arrived at.
Similarly, if we are going to put up our new power stations, we must decide, as a part of our national policy, whether it is going to be more efficient to run them on solid fuel or on liquid fuel. On the whole question of transport, we must decide whether we want to have pipe-lines to carry our coal, as indeed they can, or whether we should have the coal transported by some other means—or, indeed, not transported at all—to these power stations. In countless ways of that kind we must have far more co-ordination of our national economic plan; and, of course, coupled with that, we must bring in these other things which have been debated during the past months in your Lordships' House. We must consider the areas of the North-East, and what really is the policy for them, the whole question of location of industry, redundancy, training centres, colleges of advanced technology—the whole gamut of the essentials of modern economic production must be brought into consideration by one co-ordinated and effective decision-making body, which in the final resort can be only the Cabinet.
I myself believe that, until these two things happen—until we have a coordinated planning mechanism, planning our industries on a national basis instead of on a piecemeal basis; and until we have, at the same time, a conscious effort to redistribute the rewards of industry so that the people we most wish to encourage (the producers, the manufacturers and the exporters) get the major rewards—we shall never achieve what is essential for the survival of the country. It will take many years to do, but I have sufficient confidence and optimism to believe that, once we set out on this

1061
path, and once we make it clear to all those concerned that this is our intention, all, or almost all, of the people who really matter in this, whether they be the workers, the management; the planners, the scientists, the technicians or whatever they may be, will co-operate, and we shall not have, as we so frequently do now, scientists going to America because there are greater opportunities and greater rewards, and we shall not have people taking off that extra afternoon in order to play golf because it is not really worth making the export effort. I believe that people will start to co-operate in a way which has not been done in the past few years, but in a way which must be done if we are to emerge from this appalling quagmire of inertia and depression which has permeated the speeches of all noble Lords to-day.
7.25 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we have had the pleasure of listening to two able and pleasant maiden speeches, one from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and one from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I listened to the noble Earl's speech with the greatest of pleasure, though, like the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I found remarkably little in it with which I agreed; but I hope we shall often hear those particular views pressed forward in this House, because they are so refreshing. The noble Earl who opened the debate cut sundry gibes at the former Chancellor of the Exchequer for having got his assessment of the economy wrong. If he did so, he was in very good company, because every central banker in the world was in exactly the same boat, as appeared when Mr. Per Jacobsson gave them all a little exhortation on the fact that they had been fighting the battle of inflation when they should have been worrying about deflation. So at least Mr. Selwyn Lloyd was in good company.
One salutary result which emerged from the Budget of 1962, which was a depressing Budget at a time when the world was heading towards depression, was that it brought about a considerable reorganisation in industry, largely by the dis-hoarding of partially-employed people, and the result has been that most industries to-day are in a considerably better state to compete, both at home and abroad, than they were a year or
1062
so ago. But this dampening effect has, of course, been extremely discouraging for all forms of investment in new plant, particularly at a time when existing plant was not being fully used. This has set the scene for the Budget of 1963. We have an opportunity to expand, and to expand from a sounder basis than before—and that I read as the theme of the Budget, which is: investment by industry by means of tax reliefs for new plant.
But, with the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, I share some doubts whether, at a time when there may not be sufficient hope of employing that plant, the inducement is sufficient. Because although a certain amount of investment goes on always, in order to improve efficiency, and so on, major investment for expansion largely comes about through somebody thinking that he is going to sell more at the end; and when existing capacity is not being used to the full, then the prospects of selling more than the existing capacity can produce and so occupying the new plant are not always very bright.
I do not see in the Budget any very strong, new inducement to promote private consumption, which would, of course, encourage investment. I do not propose to worry your Lordships with the exact figures, but when one considers, on the one side, the reliefs in personal taxation, and, on the other side, the higher National Insurance contributions, the higher rates, the higher fares and the higher expense of this dreadful winter which most people have suffered, there is, on balance, precious little spending power left to most people. Of course, the recipients of any balance will be those who receive from the National Insurance Fund from July onwards—the old, the unemployed and so on—and, on the whole, these are not the buyers of consumer durables, which is that part of business which tends to be in the doldrums. So for the future, inducement to industry to invest is dependent rather on the annual growth of incomes, without a great deal of overtime at the moment, and the natural increase of the earning population.
For expansion, then, we look to Government spending below the line and how it is going to be financed. If the people go on saving at the rate they have been, and the Government receive their share, the Budget overall deficit is by

1063
no means stimulated. On the other hand, if people spend more and the Government have to expand the floating debt, then a very different story could arise. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, that whether this Budget is sufficiently stimulating depends on circumstances at present unknown; in fact, it depends on the disposition of people to save during the coming months. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, who has a great belief in plans, that it is that particular type of factor which can set every plan awry. You cannot foretell whether people will save or spend six months ahead; and the difference can wreck your planning.
But the Budget is only a part of financial strategy and, on the whole, these days it tends to be an over-emphasised part. If Britain is to expand, we must get higher output from the same manpower, and we must get re-deployment. The Opposition hold up as an example to us the expansion in Europe over the last few years; but they tend to gloss over the fact that Germany has had an immense access of labour in the shape of foreign workers and refugees; that France has had its Algerian refugees and also an immense reservoir of underemployed people on the land. Italy, we know, still has a huge pool of unemployed in the South. We have only our natural increase of population and any redundancy in our shrinking industries; so it is very important that we should get a proper re-deployment.
I should like to quote a few remarks made by Mr. E. J. Hunter, president of the British Employers' Confederation, to the Directors' Council of the Tyneside Productivity Association at Newcastle upon Tyne the day before yesterday, quoted in The Times of to-day.
"Unless we tackle the fear of redundancy and unemployment with courage and resolution there is little likelihood that the enthusiasm of the nation for a growth programme can be sustained."
Those, I think, are wise words with which nobody can quarrel, and I leave them with my noble friend, the Lord President.
I welcome the provision for retraining in the Budget; I think it is one of the most important aspects of it. I look forward to the day when we shall see
1064
engine-drivers driving bulldozers, signalmen turned into carpenters, and such like. We have a very great deal to do in this country, and the industry most involved is the building and construction industry. We have to modernise our roads, docks, houses, gaols, schools, hospitals, barracks and all sorts of things; and it is essential that the Government make the plans for doing this. In the N.E.D.C. green document, The Growth of the United Kingdom Economy, this industry reckon that they can get a target of increase from 1961 to 1966 of 23 per cent., with certain provisos. My first reaction on reading it was that I was doubtful whether the target was big enough; and secondly, the provisos were so hedged and numerous that it struck me they were extremely unlikely to get that target unless something were done about it.
One of their most important provisos was that they had confidence that the demand would be there in the future, and that they invested sufficient money in increasing the supplies of materials et cetera now; because this industry is particularly susceptible to what is known as "Stop-Go". At that stage I would ask my noble Leader if he would look at the particular evidence of the building and construction industry in this N.E.D.C. document and say whether he is really satisfied that this industry under its present proposals can meet the demands which the necessity to modernise Britain is certainly going to put upon it. I do not ask him for an answer. I ask him to look at it.
Then I come to a vital point: that is, this trouble about "Stop-Go". In the past, "Go" was for everybody; "Stop" was always put on the Government programmes. We all remember that whenever there was any question of the economy running red-hot the demand was always for cutting down public expenditure. If, this time, the public sector is to spearhead our expansion, then some method must be found of dealing with a possible private sector boom which may result from the public sector boom and try to displace Government projects from the front priority, if the economy cannot stand both. In other words, the projects must be selected by need, and not by the fact that applied formerly: that some were sponsored by the Government in

1065
some way, and the desirable ones by the private sector.
The Government programme and Budget is going to be judged on its effect on the modernisation of Britain, and I think the Chancellor has made a good start. It is impossible to say whether he has been too bold or too timid till we know what the spending and saving habits of the British people are going to be over the next six months. But there is a great deal of imagination in this Budget.
7.38 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, although it would be tempting to pursue a number of the interesting points which have been contributed from both sides of the House, I can assure your Lordships that at this late hour I shall resist any such temptation. I propose to confine myself to welcoming two specific proposals in the recent Budget Statement—namely, the proposal to reduce the 2 per cent. stamp duty and to remove existing restrictions upon the issue of bearer securities.
Since I raised my own very small voice a year ago in support of these proposals it might appear ungracious on my part if I failed to express my appreciation and satisfaction to-day. I hasten to add, however, that I do not suffer from any delusion that the decision was influenced by any words of mine, when so many other representations have been made from infinitely more exalted and august quarters—notably, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has said, by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. Your Lordships will also recall the plea for the abolition of the stamp duty made very recently by the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, a plea which he ingeniously contrived to incorporate into his observations on the Stock Transfer Bill. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord upon the almost startling alacrity with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone halfway, at least, to meet him, and to express the hope that by this time next year he will have stood the noble Lord the other half.
Anyone who has any practical experience of these matters will be able to testify that these proposals will remove two obstacles which have hitherto severely restricted an important sector
1066
of our financial machinery in extending its overseas business. It is surely not only improvident but also the height of folly to tolerate the continued existence of unnecessary impediments which restrict our capacity to increase our invisible earnings, and which thus, to quote from a recent statement by the chairman of a leading merchant bank:
"might deny us the opportunities which undoubtedly exist to develop London into a major international market for long-term capital".
No less encouraging than the proposals themselves were the terms in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced them. It has been a long time, but at last a Chancellor has publicly recognised the important contribution which our highly developed financial machinery makes to our balance of payments and has shown himself sympathetic and ready to assist in developing its full potential.
I adhere to my resolution, and will avoid any temptation to stray farther and comment upon other aspects of this most constructive Budget, except to say how much more invigorating this theme of expansion without inflation is than the previous refrain: "Lead, guiding light, amidst the encircling gloom."
7.43 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I should take this opportunity, in the absence of my colleagues on this side of the House, to make the nice remarks that I wish to make about the Budget. I knew that it was a mistake for us not to put down a Motion of censure! But, in winding up, at least the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is here. On this occasion I am at a disadvantage, because in our recent exchanges I have usually spoken after him, and to-day he is to follow me.
It is inevitable that in a debate of this kind we should cover a wide field and that there should be differences, but there has been a surprising measure of agreement among some of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for instance, made a number of remarks, with practically every one of which I was an agreement. I think it is a measure of the degree of advance that has taken place in the last year, signified by the repentance of the I Government in regard to past policies,

1067
which has led to a degree of acceptance of a Budget which I cannot recall in my political life. That is not to say, however, that we do not have some criticisms of it.
In the course of this debate we have had two admirable maiden speeches. I am not sure whether I should say "admirable" of the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. He made a very characteristic one—but perhaps I should reserve my remarks until he returns. I was very much charmed by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and the appeal that was contained in it for a responsible attitude. This is a theme that has occurred during the debate and it is rather satisfying to find that those speaking from the Cross Benches, or without a particular political viewpoint, see it in these terms. It clearly is incumbent on the Government to try to secure a greater degree of national unity in regard to economic problems.
In an extremely able and witty speech, my noble friend Lord Longford clearly demonstrated the blunders of last year, blunders which I think have been very nearly admitted. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made a speech which was infinitely preferable, to my mind, to the speech made by the Government spokesman last year. There was an admission of misjudgment, and it might well be that this is in response to the principle enunciated by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, when he said, "Truth needs publicity". This great truth may have had some effect upon the Government. I think that it is a most encouraging development that the Government should admit when they are in error. I only hope that Governments of all colours will do this. I hope that when there is a Labour Government they will sustain this, but it may well be that they will not be guilty of quite the same type of blunders and therefore have less to apologise for.
Obviously, some of the attitudes to this Budget were predictable, and there have been certain remarks of a kind which clearly would come from certain quarters. It has been said that not enough new money has been injected. This is a point on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who was concerned whether enough lift had been given to consuming power. This is some-
1068
thing which is a little surprising. The income tax concessions will not begin to have their effect for another three months. I have not heard in advance whether there is any technical explanation for this. If there is, I am prepared to accept it. We have also to take into account that the Government have already given certain boosts to spending power; but these are certainly not enough if we are to solve the problem of unemployment, with which the noble Viscount is particularly concerned.
Referring to the N.E.D.C. target, we know that the 4 per cent. which the Government have accepted is not in itself enough to solve the problem of unemployment. Certainly it is not enough to solve the unemployment in the special areas, although we welcome the measures to be taken in these areas. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, made reference to the baleful hand of the Treasury. The Treasury have been coming in for some rather unfair criticism, but certainly caution has influenced the Chancellor to an extent. We ought now to be aiming at a much higher level in national production in the course of this year, and to obtain that there will need to be a further release of spending power.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was good enough to pass across to me this document, reported in The Times this morning, from which he quoted one passage which I agree is, if taken literally, a little unfair. The economy has not ground to a virtual standstill, in the sense that machines have ceased to work, but I am wondering whether, from the Government's point of view, this is perhaps a fortunate mistake in translation. If one regards the economy as something that is continually going forward, it is true that it has stopped recently; and if one wishes to use more vivid language, it is permissible to say that it has ground to a standstill. It is a fateful fact that, as a consequence of past Government policies, there has been virtually no advance in production, and a negligible advance in exports. Our production target—or rather, the N.E.D.C. target—is of course, now unattainable. We talk about the N.E.D.C's 4 per cent. target, but that, of course, is a target which they had set for an earlier year, and we are falling well behind this.
It is, I think, deplorable that this last year's misfortune took place. It was not

1069
for lack of warning voices. There were any number of voices, both in and out of Parliament, pointing to the mistake in the Government's attitude. The Government finally saw the error of their ways: they sacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and they also sacked the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, to whom I should have liked to make a number of remarks, because I found his reflections on his advisers in the Government, and their responsibility for the errors of the Government, quite distasteful. I do not think it lies in the mouth of an ex-Minister to blame the advice that the Government have had. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not here at the moment to hear these remarks; perhaps he will come back, and I will then repeat them. I am sure the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will agree that it is reasonable to expect that those who have taken part in a debate should be willing to come in at some stage to hear replies.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Here is the noble Lord, Lord Eccles.
LORD SHACKLETON: Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, is not merely a repentant sinner; he has blamed it, like Eve, on the serpent—the serpent in this case being the Treasury. I do not think it is suitable for him to do this. It is all right for the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, because we know that he has been continually critical of the Treasury all his political life. But the noble Lord, Lord Eccles seemed to live quite happily with them. In those circumstances, I feel that it is inappropriate to make that sort of criticism.
LORD HAWKE: I am neutral in this matter. I think the noble Lord is being a little hard on the noble Lord, Lord Eccles. I thought he made a good speech and one that was not unduly hard on the Treasury; and I think perhaps the Treasury would admit that.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord, Lord Eccles, always makes an excellent speech, and that is what is so distressing: that in his excellent speeches come such deplorable sentiments. At any rate, noble Lords on this side of the House had noted the effect of what he was saying, and we welcome it, as we do among all these reformed ex-Ministers. Ex-Ministers of Defence, we find,
1070
immediately start supporting conventional arms and are opposed to nuclear weapons, to some extent, or a number of them; and we find that ex-Ministers who have had responsibility for our economy (and the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, was at the Board of Trade) have also changed their views. After those perhaps unkind words, I may say that with a great deal of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, I agreed; but I felt that I must deal with this particular point.
The real difficulty that is haunting us, and has always haunted us, is the balance-of-payments problem. Our criticism of the Government's policy is that after the Budget in 1959, which had this happy coincidence of occurring in such popular fashion just before the Election, the Government were faced by a balance-of-payments problem, but did not contribute to improving the efficiency and expanding the economy. They tried to solve their balance-of-payments problem simply by contracting demand. I hope that one of the lessons we have learned is that these problems cannot be solved purely by contracting demand. We realise that it is an extremely difficult course to follow, but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I think, made a much bolder attempt, and I would say a much more intelligent attempt, than has ever been made before. Certainly in reading his speech I found it a much easier one to follow, and it showed that there are occasions when it is helpful to have at a Department a Minister who knows something about the subject. I think he has a quality which has perhaps enabled him on this occasion to stand up to the Treasury in a way the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, was perhaps unable to do—although I have always thought that Lord Eccles was pretty bright on the subject of economics. The fact is that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown a considerable advance.
A number of points have been raised in the debate and we have covered so much ground that I do not propose to touch on aspects of the Budget. I would, however, just make one point in regard to stamp duty. I cannot help feeling that stamp duty has not been the obstacle to investment that some people think (though I fully accept that it is a trouble, and it is a matter which certainly is in the mind of every director of any large company

1071
concerned with capital problems); and certainly I should be very surprised to know that it has been an obstacle to foreign investment in this country. Those men who have to take investment decisions will obviously take it into account. It is a factor which, as I say, is troublesome, and therefore rightly regarded as a psychological obstacle.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if I may briefly interrupt, would the noble Lord take it as evidence that this is an impediment to development of overseas business if I give him the example of a gentleman in Paris (this is an actual case) who wished to buy a certain number of leading industrial shares in this country, but finally executed the business in New York, because it was cheaper, due to the incidence of the 2 per cent. stamp duty?
LORD SHACKLETON: It may well be there are such cases, and I fully accept that example. I do not want to go on for too long, and I think the noble Lord will agree that I am not making too heavy weather of this point. But it is arguable that this type of portfolio investment is not necessarily entirely in the interests of the country, for other reasons. It may be, in certain circumstances, a strengthening of the outward flow of money. I do not want to make more of it beyond making the point that I do not believe it is of great importance. I think that psychologically it may have been a bad thing to abolish it. It has been interpreted, or misinterpreted it may be said, as a further advantage to those who make money from capital gains and from speculation. I would only say, in the situation in which noble Lords have argued, that nationally we have to try to arrive at a degree of agreement among all sections of the community. I do not think it was, to say the least of it, an entirely unmixed gain to remove it.
I should like to turn briefly to the subject of exports. My noble friend Lord Stonham dealt with this subject at length, and there is a complaint that little has been done in the way of giving incentives to export industry. This is a matter which people talk about rather easily, but are rather more reluctant to be precise about. It is also interesting to note the extent to which opinions waver. People who have in one year strongly advocated
1072
incentives for exports, have in another year said that they have changed their minds. But the fact remains that in certain ways our exporters are at a disadvantage. I am informed—I do not know how accurate this is; I have not checked it—that it is very much easier for an exporter of American aircraft to borrow money from the Export-Import Bank at a lower rate of interest than it is for an exporter of British aircraft. If this is so, then clearly the exporter can legitimately claim that he is at a disadvantage.
I should like to turn briefly to the subject of the development districts, which have been specially the responsibility of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We made criticisms in our recent debate on unemployment that the development districts and the Local Employment Act were not entirely suitable for the present situation. We said that the districts were too small, and that it was not therefore suitable for solving these regional problems. I rather gather that the noble Viscount has certain views himself on this subject. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was at pains to defend the Local Employment Act. This is not the time to discuss it in detail, but we should be interested to know from the noble Viscount in what respects he thinks changes ought to be made. On this subject, surely it will be easier—or perhaps it will not—to administer the aid that is being given to these areas on a regional basis rather than on these rather narrow district bases.
I must admit that I am extremely interested-and it is certainly the view of most noble Lords on this side of the House-to hear that the Government's proposals in regard to capital allowances, recurring grants and so on, are not just a minor sop to opinion; that they represent a real and flexible use of planning to deal with these problems. The fact that the Labour Party thought of it before—the noble Viscount will expect me to say this, because it has been said on other occasions—and that this has been advocated, does not detract from the rightness of the action in this matter. I warn the Government, however, that it is one of those instruments which will need very careful watching. Already one has heard complaints from other sides. One is even hearing complaints from

1073
other industries, and it will do us no good if, as a result of its not being watched and being too rigidly administered, other aspects of industry and other areas feel at an undue disadvantage.
Here I should declare an interest. It is a matter which I do not think will receive much support from my side of the House. The fact is that the distribution trade—and it may well be in the public interest at the moment to limit development and building in the distribution trade—is at a disadvantage, and it will not do us any good in the end to have an efficient end to the chain of production and distribution. I merely leave this point with the noble Viscount.
I should like to refer to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson—a very interesting and valuable contribution—in which he spoke with all that great knowledge which comes from years of public service as a trade union official, and, furthermore, as a former Member of another place. He made the remark—and one would emphasise it again—that the trade union movement would be likely to respond to proposals in regard to an incomes policy, provided that they are regarded as fair and just. It is a tragedy that the Government have so mishandled their incomes policy and the way in which they have put it forward. We have criticised the way in which it was put forward in the past. We have criticised the rather naïve way in which the Government thought that at a very early stage the Incomes Commission would be capable of judging, not merely what was a suitable wage rate, but what were suitable profit rates for industry. If they are to do this, they will need a vastly greater amount of information than is yet nationally available.
I think it is clear that an advance towards a national incomes policy is going on all the time. I remember, back in 1945 there were certain advocates of a national incomes policy. This came particularly from those industries like the mining industry and others who had been at a disadvantage. Sometimes, as the relative position of people changes, you find that their support for a national incomes policy becomes rather less. But it is a necessity, and the Government somehow have to undo the harm they have done
1074
in the past by mistaken economic policies, and a feeling that they were not being fair. I am sure we should agree that this must be the aim of national policy. Whether this Government are capable of doing it is another matter, but we have noted these signs of reformation and hope they will continue along this path.
I think the most important part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was his attitude to the balance-of-payments problems. I have reserved these remarks until the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, came back here, because I, with lesser voice and certainly less effectiveness, have been preaching the same sort of line as he has: that it is ridiculous that this country or, indeed, other countries, should be stopped in their tracks by the technical problems of international liquidity. What is so interesting about the Chancellor's speech is that he has had the courage to look at the reserves, the International Monetary Fund and the help of the bankers as something which is to be used in order, not to stop the economy and bate it out until they have reduced demand so much that imports have fallen off, but as something to enable the economy to go on advancing. This is a view which will not commend itself to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
I will take this opportunity of saying how delighted I was to hear such a typical speech from him. I remember when I spoke in another place just after him, I was so enraged that I had something to say about the venom dripping from his mouth. This never bothered him very much, and the noble Earl has continued to be a scourge to the other side quite frequently, and, usually very unexpectedly, a scourge to his own side. We always recognise, however much we may disagree with his views, whether they be Cromwellian or merely misguided, as we may think, that he holds them strongly. Whether I share the views of other noble Lords in that I wish him to remain in this House, or whether it would be better for him to continue this needling of the Government in another place—certainly I think he would find more scope there—we on this side will do our best to provide him with suitable targets, and

1075
I have no doubt that his own side will also do the same.
My Lords, that was a slight departure from the subject of international liquidity, but it is a fact that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has now done what has been pressed on him by a number of people, not least of all—and this is significant—by the T.U.C. Clearly, risks have been taken, and we shall watch with interest, but I am extremely hopeful. I only hope that his policy succeeds and that if he fails it will not be blamed on the Treasury, because this is thought to be his own work and not that of the Treasury.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting for one moment, may I hope that he will realise that the ancestors of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, supported alternately both Cromwell and Charles II?
LORD SHACKLETON: No doubt, like the noble Lord, they had their own consistency; and that we recognise.
The hour is getting late and I do not think I need say more about the subject of international liquidity, but I should like to turn to another point that the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, made: the suggestion that it was wiser to invest in the public sector to-day and to concentrate on this, because private investors would not be willing to invest because of the imminent threat of a Labour Government. At the present moment private investment is 20 per cent. below what it was a year ago.
I do not think that this has been caused by the threat of a Labour Government, because a year ago the present Government were a great deal more optimistic about their prospects than they are today, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that he thought it was likely that private investment would begin to pick up. It is a very serious economic fact that it has fallen as low, but this has been due to economic policies, to judgments which have not been related to political considerations. For those of us who are in business, and meet our business colleagues, I really think this is an unworthy argument, rather comparable to the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—and he will not be surprised that at some point
1076
in this debate we should draw his attention to his statement:
"Can you wonder that foreigners speculate against the pound? How can a General Election remove uncertainty when it is want of confidence in the declared policy of the Opposition which is causing the alarm?"
I am very tempted to use a phrase which I am sure my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, would have used, and did use in another place, and call it "piffle and poppycock"—and perhaps the noble Viscount remembers when my noble leader used that phrase in another House. I suppose the noble Viscount would argue that the fact that the exchanges are holding firm now is due to an assumption that the Government will, after all, win the Election. We realise that there is always a danger of a run against the pound. What is encouraging to-day is the extent to which Mr. Maudling and the Leader of the Labour Party are agreed on certain aspects of international finance, and I think the support which Mr. Wilson gave to the Maudling view in Washington will not have escaped notice in other parts of the world.
I would end only by saying that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is one of our leaders who has never shrunk from giving a lead. I do not think that the Chancellor's Budget, admirable as it is, is the kind to give the stimulus which some noble Lords have called for in producing a national effort, and the criticism that has come, as much from the Conservatives' own side as from the Opposition, has been on the absence of belief in the determination of this Government to tackle the fundamental obstacles to advance. Everybody knows how much the noble Viscount would like to see increased production and increased wealth, so as to do the various things in the field of education and science which he knows to be necessary.
But this is a matter of national attitude, and one of my criticisms of the Government—slightly relieved by the flexibility of the present Chancellor's policy—is their general rigidity in their attitude to national affairs, to our educational system, to our social structure and so on. We shall not get an advance until we have a Government who are able to show that they do believe, more profoundly than this Government have shown signs of believing, in a rather better

1077
society. Here I am with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others in lamenting the deplorable spectacle in regard to certain aspects of social life, in gambling and so on. I am not blaming this wholly on the "Opportunity State" of the Conservatives, but it is to some extent a by-product of it. I hope, therefore, the view that we can now relax in our attitude to financial decisions and that we need not be quite so hidebound in austerity in regard to financial decisions will not mean that we shall not face up to some of these things which have become rather a public scandal to-day.
The Opposition are not proposing to divide the House on this occasion. We consider there are many aspects of this Budget of which we approve. We think it is a tragedy that we have had to wait so long for it. We are glad that some signs of repentance have been shown by the Government, and we hope that they will show further repentance in other directions and will continue to listen to the advice that they receive, not only from people outside Parliament but from the Opposition.
8.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have sometimes thought that an anthropologically-minded Martian, viewing our annual Budget from a spaceship, would quite certainly conclude that he was in the presence of a tribal fertility festival connected with the Vernal Equinox—something perhaps halfway between miCarême and the festival of Adonis in the Ancient World. There is the same excitement mounting at the time of the first daffodils; the same sense of mystery and awe in the presence of the unknown; the same resort to the mysteries of pre-scientific methods of prophecy and divination; and when it is all over, and Hampstead Heath is, as it were, littered with paper bags and little notes saying that various speakers have had to catch a train and therefore cannot wait, the unfortunate Government spokesman, like an elderly Mrs. Mopp with spike and basket, is left to pick up the remains.
Certainly I was glad that my noble friend Lord Sandwich—whom I should like to join with others in congratulating upon his welcome appearance in this House after a proper period of reflection and upon a most enchanting maiden speech—drew attention to the fact that
1078
my right honourable friend the Chancellor had pretermitted one monstrous ceremony in this absurd liturgy to which I have been referring; namely, the idolatrous elevation of Mr. Gladstone's box—a form of fetish worship which every Chancellor who has observed it has lived to regret. Whether the box was actually burned, as I recommended in my speech on this occasion last year—one of the few passages which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, did not quote in extenso—I cannot possibly say. I imagine myself that some devout Brahmins in the Treasury have probably kept it for private adoration in some little shrine of their own.
I thought, however, that my noble friend Lord Sandwich was perhaps a little unjust in twitting my right honourable friend with a closer resemblance to Mr. Gladstone than he himself showed. I thought that the earlier and perhaps the most spectacular part of his speech was somewhere nearer Mr. Gladstone even than that of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, since he thought that the injection of £350 million into the economy, which would certainly not have been approved by Mr. Gladstone, was bound to lead to an economic disaster, a view which, naturally, I cannot be expected to take.
I did not give the noble Earl, Lord Longford, quite such high marks as did my noble friend Lord Dundee in his opening speech on the Government side. I thought he made a somewhat bewildered speech, hesitating on the brink of criticism but not quite certain what criticism to make. Was it, to begin with, a Budget which was going to benefit only the well-to-do? He had doubts about that, because manifestly this would not be correct. Was it, on the other hand, a Socialist Budget? He thought perhaps it was, but that made it difficult to criticise. Was it an Election bribe? Well, at one time he seemed to be saying that; but he hastily said he thought it was timid and cautious and not going nearly far enough.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, is he quite sure he is talking about my speech? He seems to have it all written down. He is making exactly the speech that more than one of his friends made in the House

1079
of Commons. The words "Election bribe" did not come in on this occasion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Nothing I have said in this sentence has been written down in any shape or form: I was only teasing the noble Earl. But I thought that there was more than an element of this criticism in his speech. Although in his cautious way he did not exactly identify himself with the words "Election bribe", he reported from the City, where he is such a prominent ex-banker, that no one there failed to believe there was a certain correlation between this and other Budgets and the periodicity of our General Elections. My own view is that these criticisms are all self-cancelling, a view which I suspected the noble Earl, Lord Longford, himself took, since in the end he appeared to jettison them all and indulge in a certain amount of humour at the expense of my right honourable friend Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.
He dwelt, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on the supposed failure of the Budget of 1962. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, went much too far in the same direction, when, as I thought, he seemed to lump the measures of 1961, which quite certainly succeeded in defeating the balance-of-payments trouble that we were in then, with the Budget of 1962. But it is, of course, true, as successive Chancellors of the Exchequer of different Parties have discovered, that long-range economic forecasting, like long-range weather forecasting, is not yet in a scientific stage. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, pointed this out when he said that, whatever may be true or untrue about the forecasts upon which the Budget of 1962 was based, it was an expert forecast shared by, I think, the chairmen of all the central banks in the world.
In that connection I would utter a mild protest, even at this late hour, against the persecution of that eminent and recondite body of men, the Treasury. They are, of course, not a separate power in the community. They are civil servants like any other civil servants, and Ministers must take responsibility for what they do. It is quite wrong to accuse the Treasury of being some kind of Fourth Estate of the Realm who are the legitimate targets for criticism as distinct from their so-called political masters. Still, it is as well
1080
to remember that forecasting in economic events is not at its scietnific stage; it is especially valuable to remember for those who preach the necessities of planning. It is also well to remember that Chancellors, even if they be responsible statesmen, and therefore having to answer for their decisions, have to base their plans and their Budgets upon long-range forecasts, not of their own making but prepared by experts either in the Civil Service or outside it.
Of course, some of the parameters cannot be identified at all; even ex post facto analyses contain the so-called "balancing item" to which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred, I thought inaccurately; because in this particular case it is a favourable item and not an unfavourable item. But it does mean there are sometimes some hundreds of millions of pounds, and in the last case £100 million, in our balance of payments of which the experts have lost trace altogether; and other variables are equally difficult to assess.
I think the short-range forecasting is by now accurate enough, but before the Finance Bill reaches the House of Lords, usually in July, my experience, which now goes back six years, has been that some of the long-range forecasts of the best experts in the world are beginning to look a little dubious. This gives and can give grounds for unseemly mirth on the part of the political opponents of the particular Chancellor of the day. There have always been tipsters who have backed one of the other horses in the race. I say this with particular reference to the exciting and agreeable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, from the Cross Benches: what the wise man really seeks to know is whether in any particular case the apparent prescience of the tipster was based on luck or on some more scientific way of assessing evidence.
Whatever may be the cause, it has of course been increasingly apparent in recent years that by one device or another Chancellors may need between Budgets to alter the whole tone of our economy. By last July, it is quite true, as I pointed out at the time, as noble Lords who were there will remember, the Budget was already beginning to show a more reflationary trend than had appeared in April. By November the purchase tax

1081
was cut and the new depreciation and investment allowances were announced. The fact is that the great climacteric of Budget-making, if only because of the importance of Government action in regulating the economy, has declined. The economy needs constant adjustment, and regulation cannot take place only once a year. One may regret this, as I gather the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, did, since he was convinced that when income tax was raised from 11d. to 1s. in the pound we were on what he described as the beginning of the slippery slope.
I believe that these considerations are worth stating, because I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was wrong in seeking to discern a difference of philosophy between this year's Budget and the last, or in suggesting that Mr. Lloyd then had the idea that in order to encourage exports it was necessary to sit wholly on home demand. I do not think that was the case. As I pointed out at the time (and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, did quote this), Mr. Lloyd's Budget was based upon the premise that in a period of conflicting portents it would be wise neither to inflate nor to deflate. It was based on the forecast that demand would rise more vigorously than turned out actually to be the case after July, and that our exports would form a part of a world trade far more active than it turned out to be. I think it is fair to say that there was also the uncertainty of the Common Market negotiations. Without going the whole way with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I would agree with him entirely when I say that I make no doubt that if these negotiations had turned out better there would have been a surge of confidence and investment in this country, and in other countries, which would have reflected itself in employment figures and in private investment.
Another and more favourable event which has taken place in the course of the last year, and which has made expansionary policies far more easily followed, is that to which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, referred; the gradual development and the emergence as an instrument of planning and great importance of the National Economic Development Council. Be that as it may, from July onwards it became clear
1082
that some measures of reflation were necessary, and accordingly my right honourable friend has been applying them ever since. It is, I think, fair to say that, so far as I know, Mr. Lloyd, whom I am no longer bound by the conventions of life to support, was quite justified in saying that many of these reflationary measures were left behind by him before he went in July, and that therefore the Chancellor was continuing or carrying out a policy, the earlier part of which Mr. Lloyd had prepared for him.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, might I ask the noble Viscount one question? In that case, why was Mr. Lloyd removed? After all, he stands high personally. He is reorganising the Conservative Party. But it was clear that he stood for a different lot of policies. Why was he removed?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it is not for me to speculate on why Ministers are removed; otherwise, I might be discussing why I was removed.
On the whole, the criticism of my right honourable friend is that he has been over-cautious, although there have been a number of critics (to whom I will refer later) who made the opposite complaint—in effect, of extravagance, whether in preparation for an Election or not. But on the whole, however, I think that the preponderance of complaint has been that Mr. Maudling did not go far enough. I find it something of a surprise that a Budget which provides for a deficit of nearly £700 million overall and nearly £200 million above the line should be described as timid or ridden by the Treasury, or lacking in imagination, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, described it. I would respectfully suggest, even to my noble friend Lord Eccles, with whose careful and most informative speech I found myself largely in agreement, that one should remember the reply which was' given by the friends of the first Lord Jellicoe to those who criticised his caution during the First World War; that they should not forget that he was the one man who could sink the entire British Navy and lose the whole war in the course of an afternoon.
What I think is even more strange is that the Budget should be criticised on these grounds by some of the very people

1083
who are the first to ask that we should at last leave behind the policy of "Stop and Go". The price of not using the brake is apt to be that one must be a little cautious in the use of the accelerator. My right honourable friend has, in fact, injected £350 million into the economy by his Budget, on top of his previous injections; and he has, in addition provided himself with the regulator, with freedom for himself to use it in a reflationary direction even during the Long Vacation. On the whole, therefore, my impression—and this was shared by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who said that there was a great degree of acceptance which he did not remember in his experience—is that this Budget has been fairly well received, and deserves to be well received.
It had three main purposes. The first was to inject a sufficient amount of demand into the economy to cause a general upswing without creating inflation. The second was to use the tax reliefs generated by the first in such a way as to make the incomes policy acceptable and possible; and the third was to help the development districts by the new cash terms for assistance under the Local Employment Act and by free depreciation which, although it has been canvassed widely on both sides of Parliament before, is, in fact, a revolutionary departure—particularly revolutionary for a Chancellor who is alleged still to be under the thumb of reactionary and immovable officials—a tax holiday for fixed plant and machinery established in the development districts.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me questions about the development districts. These, of course, are matters which quite legitimately arise, and must sooner or later be publicly discussed. But he is premature in asking me to state the Government's views about what should be done, if anything, and we must, I am afraid, postpone the answer to that question to a later occasion. I do not think he need be unduly complaining about the absence from the provisions of the tax holiday of the distribution industry. I do not think my right honourable friend in any way desired to relegate that industry to something of secondary importance; but I think many of us feel—it may indeed even be true—that if
1084
you get manufacturing industry into an area it will thereupon become profitable and reasonable for investment to take place in the distribution trades, to satisfy the demand which will be generated by manufacturing industry. At least, we certainly hope that this would be the case.
Several critics—the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, my noble friend Lord Sandwich and my noble friend Lord Boothby—have complained that there has been no more vigorous move towards tax reform this year. To them, I would say this. Tax reform of the kind which certainly the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich envisaged is one of the most expensive operations in the calendar, because an amalgamation of taxes, particularly of surtax and income tax, which is what my noble friend specifically mentioned, could really be done only by an overall reduction, the difficulty arising, of course, in the difference in rates between the so-called unearned element of income and the so-called earned element of income; and the overall reduction is bound to be applied, from the point of view of what noble Lords opposite call social justice, somewhat capriciously to those people who would happen to be worse off if the rationalisation scheme were carried out without reduction.
This year, of course, there has been an overall reduction in taxation. But to apply that sum of money in support of tax reform would, I think, have made it impossible, or at least more difficult, for the Chancellor's principal theme, which was to use the tax reductions as I have explained, in support of his main objectives—the realisation of the N.E.D.C. target of 4 per cent., and to couple these tax reductions with the emergence of an incomes policy. If I may say so, I was a little disappointed that no one praised my right honourable friend for honouring in one year his predecessor's pledge to abolish Schedule A, not only because it was a pledge but because, for various reasons, it will have the added advantage of benefiting the very classes which have had most to complain of about the working of the rating system. For the rest, the Chancellor has chosen to concentrate his tax reductions on the lower income ranges and on the income-tax payer in those ranges, to the exclusion of company income tax. I think it was primarily for this reason that he rejected a reduction of the standard rate.

1085
My noble friend Lord Sandwich pleaded, to me, at any rate, the most moving and persuasive plea, for the professional classes, of which I can honestly claim to be a member. Ordinarily I should have been very willing to listen to this complaint, but in fact it was this year that the surtax payer began to benefit from Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's previous reduction of surtax, and so this year there is a benefit to the professional classes. Other speakers referred to the fact that all the beneficiaries of the income tax reliefs will, of course, be above the minimum level for direct taxation. Well, of course, by definition that is so, but the fact is that the purchase tax which was reduced in November forms part of this whole spectrum of tax reliefs. That applies over the whole range as well. The effect of the tax reliefs granted over the relevant band of the spectrum of incomes is to grant a wage increase of 2 to 2½ per cent. without raising wage rates or prices. I believe that this is both shrewd politics and sound common sense. Quite obviously, the whole policy we are discussing will collapse without an incomes policy, and a measure of this kind will help to make an incomes policy more acceptable. The figure that I have given of 2 to 21½ per cent. over the wage-earner range goes, I think, a little way to meet Lord Sandwich's argument that no one seemed to be getting more than £30.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? Does he in that calculation take into account the increased National Insurance contributions?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think so. I should not like to answer that question with complete assurance. Nor does what I have said take into account—which should be taken into account if the whole picture is to be looked at—the increased social security payment which the increased contribution is designed to effectuate.
I can understand the disappointment of my noble friend and of Lord Boothby who complained that there was no tax on gambling. As I seldom bet and never smoke, I was looking forward to yet another voluntary tax which I should not choose to pay. All the same, one has to recognise the force of my right honourable friend's countervailing arguments. It is easy to exaggerate the amount of money spent on betting. The figures
1086
quoted are not, in a sense, real money like the money spent on drink or tobacco, but the same money rolling round again and again. In this way £1,000 million in the bank can very easily be reduced to something like £10 million injected into it. However, I am quite sure that the Chancellor would like to get his hands on some of this money if he could. Of course, I suppose he does get some money from the bookmakers paying income tax rates and other taxes, which he could never do when they were on the streets spreading corruption to escape detection; so, presumably, there is a new source of income from that money already.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment? The Inland Revenue were not in any way concerned how, and from where, bookmakers got their money, and how illegal they were. All they were concerned with was their income, because the street bookmakers used to pay income tax.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I thought that the noble Lord was a little less naïve than that. Most of the transactions being in cash, it was relatively easy to avoid paying the full rate of duty which would otherwise have been incurred.
I was a little surprised, but extremely glad, that no noble Lord came forward to complain of the failure of my right honourable friend to abolish fuel oil tax. I know that it is in theory a bad tax, but it has operated effectively to encourage the coal industry at a time when things have not been going too well for it. I myself went down a pit during the course of my wanderings in the North-East, and I must give my own testimony to the admirable morale of an industry which is having to contract quite savagely, of the hard work below ground, the willingness to accept productivity at the expense of jobs, the determination to "make a go" of it in face of the inevitable pit closures. For those reasons I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had solid grounds for not adding another discouragement, at least this year, to men who deserve so well. In fact, he chose an alternative which cost the Revenue more or less the same sum—the halving of the stamp duty. I feel that on the whole this was a popular choice, and those who criticise

1087
the retention of the fuel oil tax must remember that within the Chancellor's basic Budget judgment they would probably have had to keep the stamp duty at its old level for another year.
I do not think I need spend too much time on the critics who have thought that the Budget is not financially sound because it erred on the side of excessive extravagance. On the whole, apart from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who I think sympathised with that point of view, this criticism has been very limited in scope. This was partly due to the fact that the critics must have been greatly disarmed by the words which my right honourable friend used in the Budget speech itself. I do not myself know that I have ever heard a Chancellor put the issue in a more forthright way. I think these words justify the claim of my noble friend Lord Eccles that, in many ways, Mr. Maudling was breaking new ground as a Chancellor by his present Budget. My right honourable friend said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 675 (No. 91), col. 471]:
"Sterling is subject to many influences. As an international currency it is to some extent open to the shifting currents of world trade and payments, and to political developments. But we must always distinguish between the intrinsic strength of sterling, which is what is most important, and temporary movements of confidence. So long as our economy is sound and our position competitive, the intrinsic strength of sterling must be great. We may face short-term fluctuations of one kind or another, but we have substantial resources available to meet them."
I should like to echo what has been said by more noble Lords than one, and certainly by Lord Boothby, about the need for increased international liquidity, and although I do not wish to take the praise from Mr. Wilson for what he said in the United States, which I thought was both timely and useful, I should like to register the fact that this has been the view of the Government as well for a considerable period of time.
To return to the complaint that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been too bold, I come back to the importance of an incomes policy. I think that, but for that, and but for its success, this criticism might well have had more force in it. Indeed my whole theme, both last year and this, has been that a policy of
1088
reflation by itself is not enough and therefore one condition of the success of the Government's policy is the acceptance of this truth not only by the Government but by both sides of industry. I was very glad to hear the explicit assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that this was also the view of the Trades Union Congress, and I certainly hope that we shall be able, through N.E.D.C. and other means, to bring this to fruition.
My Lords, the connection between the Budget and the incomes policy is therefore exceedingly close. The Budget is designed to do the Government's part in establishing the conditions for a successful incomes policy, and this it does, first, by giving a considerable stimulus to demand and so promoting the expansion of production. The object is to secure a growth of output broadly in line with the objective set by the National Economic Development Council. The Chancellor made it clear in his speech that if expansion at this rate could be sustained the sights for the rate of increase of incomes could be raised to a 3 to 3½ per cent. level.
Secondly, as I think my noble friend Lord Eccles said, the Budget has helped to create a suitable environment for an incomes policy, by giving the relief from income tax on the broadest possible basis. Everybody who pays income tax benefits from the Budget, and the benefit is proportionately greatest for the taxpayers in the lowest range of incomes. In this way, as my noble friend pointed out, the Budget has broken out of the vicious circle that expansion depends on incomes policy and incomes policy depends on expansion. I feel myself that my right honourable friend has given a lead to the other elements in the economy, whose co-operation is necessary if the programme as a whole is to be successful.
My Lords, at the conclusion of my remarks I feel that I should return to my perpetual theme, that the Budget by itself will not enable the country to emerge from its economic difficulties. As I think several noble Lords have pointed out (and may I, in passing, congratulate the other maiden speaker, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, on a very successful début) the Budget is only one side of a grand design of modernisation which is beginning to take shape before our eyes. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, talked about a Government

1089
which really believes in planning, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, also spoke of an absence of planning. My Lords, I have never liked to use the word "planning", because until recently to do so has been to involve oneself in a sterile and often meaningless controversy about semantics. But it is idle to pretend that, in any rational sense of the word, planning does not exist, or that, except in the sense that we on this side of the House do not believe in the rigidity of physical controls, there is any real sense in which we can be said to be hostile to planning.
Just let me refer to the number of plans and the amount of planning which is known to exist. A Hospital Plan exists and has now been published. Whether or not they have been published, plans for schools exist all over the country. Plans exist for roads, and the Road Plan will be co-ordinated with the Railways Plan, which has been published and which will be pursued along its constitutional course. In the autumn, or when he reports, Lord Robbins will give us an opportunity to provide a plan for further education. As one noble Lord reminded us, my noble friend Lord Rochdale has given us a plan for ports. The Committee presided over by Sir Burke Trend is considering a plan for the Government organisation of science. A plan is in course of preparation for the North-East region, and plans will inevitably be required for Scotland, London, the South-East and other parts of the country.
There is certainly a plan, let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for electricity generation, although there again it is a little difficult to forecast ahead what the exact requirement will be in this country, as in this connection the time lag between the commencement of a power station and its commissioning is of the order of five years. Lord Plowden has produced a plan which has revolutionised Government forecasting in financial matters. There will be plans for housing announced from time to time. There are plans for redundancy and industrial training announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour. Arid, of course, last, but by no means least, there is the National Economic Development Council itself, which, as I said before, is a formidable new instrument of planning
1090
on the French model, without which I think industrial planning would really become an impossibility.
Of course there are also vital problems which no amount of planning and no fiscal incentives will by themselves solve. It was to this that I was referring when I ventured to tell the House last year that there is no more dangerous delusion than to imagine that the unemployment in this country will be completely obliterated by monetary and fiscal measures alone. Nothing will prevent the closing down of some obsolescent steel plants. Nothing except sheer political perversity will prevent the closing down of many branch lines and many services and stations on our railways. Nothing will halt the gradual movement from coal to oil in many fields. Nothing will arrest the development of industrialisation in Asian and African countries, sometimes in fields in which we have held in the past a virtual monopoly; and, indeed, we should not wish to see those countries not progress into industrialisation. Automation is on the way in almost all of the industries of the country. All these things are going to spell redundancy and they are going to spell movement from one job to another. As I think the noble Earl, Lord Longford, himself said, these things are not in themselves undesirable or unhealthy signs, although failure to cope with the problems to which they give rise would certainly be a serious failure on our part.
Several noble Lords have talked about exports. I think it is too late this evening for me to embark on this most important subject. I would, however, say that I entirely agree with the thinking of those noble Lords who have said that one wants to expand trade with the Iron Curtain countries. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in that respect. I think that peace is more likely if there is an interchange of trade than if there is no interchange of trade, although we sometimes find that the Russians, who are very shrewd negotiators, spread stories about the likely amount of business which can be done and the terms on which it can be done, which when one comes to negotiate with them prove to have no reality at all.
I have taken the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and others about

1091
credit. Again I think I could not discuss that in detail this evening. The fact is that there must be a commercial judgment about viability of credit and of terms of credit in any given case. There is no virtue, in the long run, from the point of view of our balance of payments, and only a temporary advantage from the point of view of employment, in giving unrequited exports. Therefore one has to relate the terms of credit one offers to the creditworthiness of the customer and to the extent to which he is already a customer on a long term.
On the question of public service investment, I largely agreed with my noble friend Lord Eccles, but with this gloss which I should like to put upon what he said. I think my right honourable friend has fully seized himself of this point. Public service investment has been rising very fast, and this year, as a result of his measures partly designed to deal with the unemployment problem and partly to deal with the inherent necessities of the case, it will be increased by something of the order of 10 per cent. I could give more detailed figures.
My noble friend Lord Hawke asked me about the construction industries. We are increasing the capacity of those industries as fast as we can. But I agree with him that there is a serious danger, especially in some areas in the country, that the limiting factor upon our public investment will not be capital but will be a shortage of skilled manpower. We shall then be faced, unless we improve our training facilities, with the intolerable paradox of a shortage of skilled labour and unemployment coexisting at the same time.
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the courteous way in which this Budget has been received, and I apologise for the length of this answer. I also apologise to any noble Lords who may have stayed to listen and whom I have not answered in detail. I think it has been a most valuable debate for us all, and I have myself greatly enjoyed it.
9.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the main arguments from this side of the House have been very well pre-
1092
sented by my noble friends Lord Shackleton, Lord Stonham and Lord Walston, and by Lord Williamson, to whom I am particularly grateful because he came into this debate at my suggestion. We have had other very interesting speeches from, to mention only some of those who are here now, Lord Perth, Lord Grantchester, Lord Reading and Lord Hawke—and I was going to add Lord Eccles, but I am not sure in what sense he is here now. He introduced a pleasant touch of ruthlessness into the debate, and he bids fair to become the James Bond of the Upper House. Then we listened, as usual, in a fascinated way, to Lord Boothby. We have also heard the two maiden speeches which have been rightly so highly praised; and perhaps I could make a point which may not have occurred to noble Lords. Too often in recent years people who have come to the House of Lords have found it rather different from what they expected. They find all sorts of people here now—scientists, provincial professors, and professional men of one sort or another—and I think to see a real Lord in the old sense would be quite a fillip to them. In future when they come to this House I think they will find in Lord Sandwich the kind of gentleman they expected to see when they obtained tickets. And if they hear that his new colleague is a retired brewer, I think they will feel that this also is in the same way of thought.
I am very grateful to all those who have taken part. I am most grateful to the Ministers, who have taken immense trouble. I do not know which Minister I am most grateful to, but the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to my speech as "objective", which to me was the same kind of bewildering compliment (to use a phrase derived from the noble Earl) as when he found himself called by me "nimble-witted". I feel that this was a very just return, and I am grateful to him for his speech. The noble Viscount had a task which was clearly going to exercise his debating gifts. He had the past, the present and the future to deal with: an indefensible past—and, to do him justice, he did not spend very long on defending it—but an eminently defensible present in the sense of a Budget which has met with a great deal of goodwill; and, if I may say so, he handled that, as one would expect, with maximum ability.

1093
As regards the future, there, as he so rightly pointed out, we are all in the dark, but I was a little disquieted by one or two phrases which dropped from him. He implied that there really had been no change of emphasis at all in the Government this year, as compared with last. There I rather blame myself. I think I forced him, from a debating point of view, to take some such line as that, and I therefore do not want to take it too tragically. I feel myself that Mr. Maudling and his colleagues have, in this Budget, struck a new note, and I certainly do not want to muffle it before this debate ends. We go away from this House all satisfied, I think, that there is a great possibility in this new approach to planning, Whether it is to be carried out in the way we hope, and who will carry it out, remains to be seen; but I am very grateful to all who have taken part, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  LOSS EXPERIENCE ON EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
  LOSS EXPERIENCE ON EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES
  CLOSING OF WESTERFIELD/SOUTH YARMOUTH LINE
  CLOSING OF WESTERFIELD/SOUTH YARMOUTH LINE
  AID TO LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
  AID TO LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
  COST AND AMOUNT OF PRISONERS' FOOD
  COST AND AMOUNT OF PRISONERS' FOOD